How thick is Matt Slick?

[SteveII]

We have to know something to even use a logical framework, eh?   This probably won't be very fruitful, I'm an empiricist.  I'm certainly not going to require you to argue in your name, with any framework, before I accept that you know it.

Okay, since you probably would agree that empiricism would not apply to a hypothetical God, could God "know" anything without a logical framework?

[The Grand Nudger]

Why would I agree with that?  Empiricism is a pretty broad position, and it doesn't leave much wiggle room for outliers. As far as the hypothetical..sure...why not?  I do.

[Esquilax]

@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.

[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.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not sure why you'd bother fielding arguments if you thought that fielding equivocative (but delicious!) definitions was sufficient or informative.

Tell me, would you be comfortable with my insisting upon defining knowledge in precisely that way..no matter what situation I apply it to?

Stop trying grammar now that you failed at logic...because you're going to fuck that up as well. Logic -is- the process. If it;s in accordance with logic...then you've done logic. If you haven't done logic, then it's not in accordance with logic..even though you may have gotten the same answer. Happens all the damned time, what's the problem?

[Nihilist Virus]

Double post

[Nihilist Virus]

Once again, Google "Continuum hypothesis" and tell me if the set in question exists. It's a proposition which has been shown to be undecidable. In other words, it's a true/false issue which cannot be shown to be either.

The proposition, by the way, is this:

There is no set X such that |Z|<|X|<|R|.

Suppose the set in question exists. Then God knows what the set is. Enumerating the set reveals its cardinality and constitutes the proof that the set exists.

Suppose the set in question does not exist. But God, by his omniscience, is aware of every set that exists and can arrange them by their cardinality. This constitutes an exhaustive proof that the set in question does not exist.

But it's already been proven that there is no proof regardless of if the proposition is true or false.

So if God is omniscient then he necessarily violates logic with some of his knowledge. In other words, his knowledge, in this instance, cannot be "logical" because the knowledge itself violates logic.

You are inescapably wrong.

[SteveII]

I'm not sure why you'd bother fielding arguments if you thought that fielding equivocative (but delicious!) definitions was sufficient or informative.

Tell me, would you be comfortable with my insisting upon defining knowledge in precisely that way..no matter what situation I apply it to?

Stop trying grammar now that you failed at logic...because you're going to fuck that up as well.  Logic -is- the process.  If it;s in accordance with logic...then you've done logic.  If you haven't done logic, then it's not in accordance with logic..even though you may have gotten the same answer.  Happens all the damned time, what's the problem?

Thanks for answering. I have explored the topic to my satisfaction.