Replies

"Just to be clear on this, you are saying that because we do not have the ability to scientifically test for the existence of a deity you can assert with certainty that there is no way to know if a God exists."

I said I know of no way to know either way.

"Of course if you exclude the supernatural from the outset then it's not likely that evidence would be adduced that would disclose the supernatural."

The existence of the supernatural is an untestable supposition.

"But again, it is one thing to say that we cannot perform an experiment to test if a God exists. It is quite another to make the absolute statement, from a finite point of view, that there is no other way to know if God exists. I maintain that it is impossible for you to know that with certainty because you can't and haven't looked everywhere."

I said there is no way now to know. Perhaps in the future there will be a way.

"How do you know that such non-corporeal things as math, logic, propositions, mental states, etc do not provide some knowledge of God?"

They haven't. Have you any evidence that they HAVE?

"How do you know that personal revelation necessarily cannot be trusted? "

Because there is no way to know if it was a revelation from God or a hallucination. It MAY be true; it's just not possible to know if it IS true.

"As far a science being impotent, I think that that depends on what you include in your defintion of science. For example, are the historical sciences legitimate?"

Yes, they deal with physical, testable evidence.

"You are not going to like this. So I'm just going to go ahead and say I'm sorry in advance, but I believe the evidence is embedded in your very replies, and in your very nature, but that you do not want to see it, and resist its disclosure."

You're right; I think it's mystical nonsense.

"But my main point is that since you are finite you therefore cannot logically maintain a position of absolute certainty with respect to whether there is not enough information in the world to know if a God exists."

Yes I can. My finite nature strengthens, not weakens, my case.

Again, if you have any evidence that a deity exists, it would be helpful if you stopped playing games and actually put it on the table.

"Just to be clear on this, you are saying that because we do not have the ability to scientifically test for the existence of a deity you can assert with certainty that there is no way to know if a God exists."

I said I know of no way to know either way.

"But my main point is that since you are finite you therefore cannot logically maintain a position of absolute certainty with respect to whether there is not enough information in the world to know if a God exists."

Yes I can. My finite nature strengthens, not weakens, my case.

Sigh. What am I misreading here? If you simply said, "I know of no way to know either way" we would have no disagreement about this epistemological problem. Instead you go to say again that "...there is no way to know". Those are two entirely different propositions. The latter requires omniscience, which is self-refuting.

Again, if you have any evidence that a deity exists, it would be helpful if you stopped playing games and actually put it on the table.

I'm not playing games. As I alluded to previously I think the evidence is already in this discussion, and it has nothing to do with mysticism, although it is metaphysical. But if we can't even get past the point of what your state of knowledge is about the evidence then we are going to have difficulty proceeding.

Cordially,