How thick is Matt Slick?

[SteveII]

@Esquilax

How about you...can you "know" something without a logical framework?

That depends very much on what you mean by knowledge. In most cases "knowledge" is just a label of confidence one places on beliefs, hopefully based on observations and logical deductions, but the point is that logic requires observations to be fed into it, which is sort of the problem here. You're attempting to short circuit the need for observation by simply saying that god knows everything, which is unfalsifiable, but it also really, really begs the question: why is god's conclusion correct? Because god made it, and god's conclusions are correct all the time due to an attribute I'd asserted he has. Why do you think that? Because god says so, and his conclusions are always correct.

If I define "to know" something as an awareness of a fact with no possibility of being wrong, it seems to me that if omniscience was a real attribute of a real God, and omniscience was knowledge of only and all true propositions, then it could very well short circuit the need for observations in arriving at a logical conclusion. 

In this case, logical is modifying "conclusion" and serves to describe the conclusion as in accordance with logic and not the process by which you arrived there. In fact, in that sense, you could arrive at a conclusion that is logical either by a process of reasoning, intuition, or by accident.