Knowledge! What is it?

[Abrosz]

That last statement also raises a question in my mind (and that of others). You state that the celestial body called Pluto remains the same regardless of what we call it. That recalls the old saw: “If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it still make a sound?” In other words, does there not have to be a PERCEIVER of the so-called fact in order to speak of knowledge? How do we KNOW that particular tree really made a sound if no one hears the sound? How do we know that Pluto still exists if no one perceives its existence? And even if someone does PERCEIVE the sound of the tree or the existence of Pluto, how do we know whether the perception itself is accurate? Perception implies some degree of subjectivity, not objectivity.

The falling tree makes the air molecules vibrate, thereby making a noise. That is objectively true.

 

[meltzerboy2]

As a principle or law it is true, but how do we KNOW it happens every time and to this specific tree which falls without anyone seeing or hearing it fall?

But if we accept the law of vibration, can we not also accept the principle of repeated behavior based on reinforcement? That is, if your dog has always eaten a certain food when it is hungry, then you KNOW it will eat the food every time it is hungry. You state in your OP that the dog may have a heart attack or be shot; but then maybe something happens to the tree as well or the ground on which it falls which prevents the tree from making a sound. How do we KNOW for sure if we do not perceive it. And again, our perceptions can be and frequently are faulty as well as conditioned by our culture, prior experiences, motivations, and so on.

 

[Abrosz]

As a principle or law it is true, but how do we KNOW it happens every time and to this specific tree which falls without anyone seeing or hearing it fall?

But if we accept the law of vibration, can we not also accept the principle of repeated behavior based on reinforcement? That is, if your dog has always eaten a certain food when it is hungry, then you KNOW it will eat the food every time it is hungry. You state in your OP that the dog may have a heart attack or be shot; but then maybe something happens to the tree as well or the ground on which it falls which prevents the tree from making a sound. How do we KNOW for sure if we do not perceive it. And again, our perceptions can be and frequently are faulty as well as conditioned by our culture, prior experiences, motivations, and so on.

Well, let’s try to create a thought experiment, where the air molecules do NOT vibrate. In a vacuum? Or the tree falling unto a huge bed of goose feathers? All these and maybe other will substantiate that if there is no one (or a sound recording equipment) present we cannot KNOW with certainty that there was some vibration of the air…

Let me remember a wonderful bon-mot by Click and Clack (the Tappet brothers) from Car Talk (I hope you know what I am talking about… It went thus:

If there is male in the forest saying something and there is no woman present - is he STILL wrong?

 

[Abrosz]

So you are trying to disprove something you don’t understand…that really makes no sense…you yourself said you “have no idea?”

God’s knowledge is all-knowing, human knowledge isn’t. He knows all but that doesn’t mean He controls all. All true knowledge we have, God has as well. This doesn’t mean He forces it into our heads. This is only seemingly a “conflicting problem” when we overthink it and doubt Him…

Come on. God’s very existence is in doubt, and so are his alleged attributes. And when the attributes are irrational, then the doubt is justified.

You can use these big words, like all-knowing, but as soon as I scratch the surface, they turn out to be meaningless. The funny thing is that the “all-powerful” (omnipotent) has already been discarded by the apologists, but some of them still talk about the “all knowing” (omniscient).

Maybe you are not familiar with the “open theism”, which (sensibly) admits that knowing the future is nonsensical, that God can only know what we do, not what we do not do (and maybe we shall never do).

 

[MPat]

Future exists as a “potential” not as an “actuality”.

Strange, previously you claimed:

Sure I did. There is physical existence and conceptual existence.

Now we see there is also “potential existence”, “actual existence”.

And, of course, you still did not answer the question.

So, once again: which way of existence is necessary for knowledge, in your opinion? And, of course, why?

Does future exist in that way? Does the past?

How about some other objects (Fictional characters? Works of fiction? Laws of nature? Theorems? Natural numbers? Complex numbers? Sets?)?

You confuse physical existence with conceptual existence.

How?

At that point I was only asking questions.

If you think there is something wrong with those questions, point out what exactly is wrong.

If you can’t show what is wrong with those questions, answer them.

And if you see you have no good answer, admit it, instead of performing such “evasive action”.

I have no quarrel with that. Our knowledge of the external reality is always tentative, subject to revision when new evidence pops up.

Then your objection to knowing the future falls apart. For it was:

There are numerous and incorrect arguments along these lines: “I am about to give a plate of food to my hungry dog, and I know that the dog will eat it.” And followed by: “my foreknowledge does not force the dog to eat”. In other words: “(fore)knowledge does not impinge on our freedom of action.”

Of course this is nonsense. We do not “KNOW” if the dog will eat that food, it is just a reasonable assumption. The dog might suffer a heart attack, or might be shot before it can reach the food. For something that does not exist, all one can do is use their imagination and concoct a highly probable outcome, which is NOT knowledge. Of course foreknowledge is possible, but only for deterministic processes.

Well, then the knowledge was only tentative (after all, as you claim, there is no other kind), and would have been corrected.

You need for argue for it. Mere opinion does not count.

And what evidence can they present?

How comes it is always someone else that has to make arguments, while you can always just assert things?

After all, it is not as if you are universally known to be trustworthy on those matters.

 

[Magnanimity]

But you are right in stating that overconfidence in the validity of what we claim to be knowledge (or belief) can be a problem.

Good. In these discussions, I normally have two aims. First, I want to pin folks into a corner so that they must admit to themselves that non-perceptual knowledge obtains in their own minds. You seem to be ok with granting that this is so. Second, I constantly want to impress the role of testimony as the epistemic grounding of most of what you would grant as your most significant knowledge (whether historical, current event, scientific, religious, etc).

 

[o_mlly]

If there is a qualitative difference, then one of the uses is unjustified. Pick one start to use a different, more precise word.

Merely stating it does not make it acceptable. I am talking about “knowledge” as we all understand it, be it “justified true belief”, or “information about something”. I have no idea what this “divine” knowledge might be, and how to substantiate it.

That’s the point. God is divine. You admit that you do not know what “divine knowledge” is so you cannot fruitfully draw similarities between human and divine knowledge to any meaningful conclusions.

Rather than incorrectly anthropomorphize God’s knowledge, you may try substituting LaPlace’s demon in your argument. The demon’s knowledge is akin to omniscience. You now have similar categories to compare. But entropy and quantum mechanics demonstrates that the LaPlace’s demon is a fantasy, the universe is not determined. Therefore, God’s knowledge cannot be like human knowledge and your argument crumbles on a false premise.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But you are right in stating that overconfidence in the validity of what we claim to be knowledge (or belief) can be a problem.

Second, I constantly want to impress the role of testimony as the epistemic grounding of most of what you would grant as your most significant knowledge (whether historical, current event, scientific, religious, etc).

I’d say that testimony is by far the greatest contribution to our knowledge. Now whether this testimony is from wiki, a guy down the pub, the bible etc certainly will impact on how much validity we give it. Or, quite often more importantly, how much someone else will give to it if we pass it on as a basis for our beliefs.

You’re always open to claims that you’re appealing to authority - but which I think is one of the weakest fallacies. We can’t be experts in everything so we obviously need to rely on them ourselves.

 

[Magnanimity]

Testimony is not a primary epistemological method , it is an epistemological shortcut .

Care to clarify? As I noted above, contemporary epistemologists note that perception, introspection, reason and testimony are all sources and grounds for our knowledge. (Robert Audi even throws “memory” into the mix, though this one is less clear for me as a “source” of knowledge. But, it’s certainly a ground. It is the vehicle for our retaining knowledge over time.)

In 1992, CAJ Coady opened up the analytic field to the reality of the importance and scope of testimony both as a source and a grounding for most of one’s knowledge to which one would assign high value - scientific beliefs, religious beliefs, historical beliefs, beliefs about current events, etc.

The only way to establish the validity of a testimonial claim, is to go back to the first claimant (who did not rely on other testimonials) and see how that person came up with that claim.

This is not just impractical. It is impossible. How does one “go back” to ancient Rome, Greece, Israel, etc? It is true, of course, that there is no natural limit to a testimonial chain, but it is also true that there is no “going back.”

It is, and that is the beauty of it. The 100%, absolutely certain kind of knowledge only occurs in the axiomatic sciences (and even there they are contingent upon the chosen axioms!), every other explanation is provisional or tentative.

That statement of mine occurred within a paragraph asking you how you could ever make the leap between belief and knowledge with regard to the sciences. Your response only intensifies my question. I gather then that none of us have scientific knowledge based on research. We only have (more or less justified) scientific beliefs. I am perfectly ok with that position.

Yes, we have a vivid imagination and a fantasy life. We can come up with all sorts of imaginary beings, and talk about them as if they actually “existed”. But that is not epistemology, it is telling a fairy tale.

I have no idea what this means. We can speak meaningfully about various gods (whether or not they exist). We can speak meaningfully about geometrical objects (even though there are no perfect circles in reality–only in our minds). We can speak meaningfully about a horse with a horn on its head. And no one is ever telling “fairy tales” in these processes.

 

[Magnanimity]

I’d say that testimony is by far the greatest contribution to our knowledge.

Yes, absolutely! This obtains throughout the course of our entire lives, but is vividly brought out by childhood. The mother tells the young child just beginning to speak that the couch is red. This testimonial source is giving content to the mind of the child–not just to know something factual about the particular couch but also (maybe most importantly) beginning the child on the journey toward universals. That is, the child begins to note that “redness” can apply in numerous places all at once–an object having the property/attribute of being red. Testimony is so crucial to us as an epistemic source and ground for beliefs and knowledge. It is pervasive and basic.

You’re always open to claims that you’re appealing to authority - but which I think is one of the weakest fallacies. We can’t be experts in everything so we obviously need to rely on them ourselves.

Totally agree. I’ve gotten to where I don’t even accuse someone of an informal logical fallacy anymore. It’s annoying beyond comparison when someone does this to me (often in lieu of making an argument). And also, the point about authorities is trust. We have many and variant reasons for trusting someone. We often appeal to their being properly situated to know the material (e.g., an historian writing a history book). However, the more primitive model of trusting an authority is based in community and love–the parent-child-sibling model. This type of trust is also basic and possibly more significant in the long run, since humans are communal beings at their core (and not mere encyclopedias trying to accumulate more and more data).

This is more than just a clockmaker making a clock, as a clock as a whole has its operations imposed on it extrinsically, it’s an artifact, a bunch of parts (those bits of parts may have their own intrinsic natures, but not the clock as a whole). Not so certain created substances, such as living beings.

Right. The watchmaker analogy was always a poor one. I like the music analogy. God being the musician and creation the music. Music only ever is music as its constantly being caused to be music by the musician. Music has no stand-alone quality, though a watch does. Properly speaking of course even the watch is currently caused to exist by God. I’m just expressing the best analogy I’ve heard for what you’re describing.

 

[Magnanimity]

We have two entities, the claim and its object. (The reality (A) and God’s knowledge of it. (B) )

1. (A) causes (B) - or our actions are primary and they cause God’s knowledge (this is open theism - which is rather sensible).
2. (B) causes (A) - God’s knowledge is primary and we simply play it out as good puppets do. Which is a denial of our “free will”.

In the OP, you noted the divine attribute of “simplicity.” This attribute is the first one that Aquinas defends. It is the vehicle often used to resolve dilemmas before they begin. There could be no distinction within God between A or B as God is the current cause of all that exists. And, for Aquinas, being and goodness are convertible.

Regarding your option (1) - if philosophical atheism has had any benefit for theism during the last 100 years, it has been in demonstrating the improbability of the existence of God as “a being” in the universe (one among many–just the most maximally-great one). The classical view (Aquinas) is that God is existence itself. I believe this is the only defensible position for theism.

Regarding option (2) - I need to get your response to Aquinas who follows Aristotle in the belief that “every art and every inquiry, and simultaneously every act and pursuit is aimed at some good. The good therefore has rightly been defined as that at which all things aim” (Nicomachean Ethics, opening lines).

Beginning with the Aristotelian insight, Aquinas states the following regarding God’s “government.”

In government there are two things to be considered; the design of government, which is providence itself; and the execution of the design. As to the design of government, God governs all things immediately; whereas in its execution, He governs some things by means of others.

The reason of this is that as God is the very essence of goodness, so everything must be attributed to God in its highest degree of goodness. Now the highest degree of goodness in any practical order, design or knowledge (and such is the design of government) consists in knowing the individuals acted upon; as the best physician is not the one who can only give his attention to general principles, but who can consider the least details; and so on in other things. Therefore we must say that God has the design of the government of all things, even of the very least.

But since things which are governed should be brought to perfection by government, this government will be so much the better in the degree the things governed are brought to perfection. Now it is a greater perfection for a thing to be good in itself and also the cause of goodness in others, than only to be good in itself. Therefore God so governs things that He makes some of them to be causes of others in government; as a master, who not only imparts knowledge to his pupils, but gives also the faculty of teaching others.
ST, 1.1.103.6

So, freedom for the human race will consist in its ever bringing about the good to which it is already oriented.

 

[Abrosz]

Care to clarify?

Certainly. The validity of a testimony hinges on the question whether the one giving it is correct or not, and honest or not. When you perform the experiment yourself, the doubt about the testimony-giver is removed. Of course there are innumerable cases when the direct verification is either impractical or impossible, so we must rely on someone’s testimony. But that is not an objective method, it is a shortcut to it.

This is not just impractical. It is impossible. How does one “go back” to ancient Rome, Greece, Israel, etc? It is true, of course, that there is no natural limit to a testimonial chain, but it is also true that there is no “going back.”

Whatever happened in the past either left a physical trail (footprint) or did not. A volcanic eruption happened in the past, but it left a physical “footprint”. On the other hand whether Caesar said: “Alea iacta est” is totally irrelevant. And most of the events in the past belong to this category.

I have no idea what this means. We can speak meaningfully about various gods (whether or not they exist). We can speak meaningfully about geometrical objects (even though there are no perfect circles in reality–only in our minds). We can speak meaningfully about a horse with a horn on its head. And no one is ever telling “fairy tales” in these processes.

It is important to differentiate between real and imaginary beings. And there is a huge difference between some imaginary “gods and unicorns” and abstract concepts, like a perfect circle.

In the OP, you noted the divine attribute of “simplicity.”

Simplicity would mean that God is “actus purus” pure act without any potential. In my eyes that is nonsense, and it is contradicted by the assertion that God actually “acts”. But if someone accept it, then the dilemma follows.

 

[Abrosz]

Regarding your option (1) - if philosophical atheism has had any benefit for theism during the last 100 years, it has been in demonstrating the improbability of the existence of God as “a being” in the universe (one among many–just the most maximally-great one). The classical view (Aquinas) is that God is existence itself. I believe this is the only defensible position for theism.

Anselm’s concept of “maximally great” being is nonsense. There are many reasons for it, and they could be discussed in a separate thread.

Regarding option (2) - I need to get your response to Aquinas who follows Aristotle in the belief that “every art and every inquiry, and simultaneously every act and pursuit is aimed at some good. The good therefore has rightly been defined as that at which all things aim” (Nicomachean Ethics, opening lines).

Also unacceptable. What is the “good” of the eruption of Vesuvius, which covered Pompeii? Or a worm burrowing into the eyes of children. Of course Aristotele’s use of “good” is totally “off the wall”, a meaningless concept.

But this could be discussed separately.

And I am afraid that your response does not address the primacy of “event” vs. “knowledge of the event”.

If we would decide to have a conversation about God, I see only one valid approach. We could postulate the “creator” of the physical universe as a starting point. But nothing else! All the alleged attributes of this creator need to be the rational and logical corollary of this hypothesis. And, of course the hypothesis needs to be substantiated. I am not playing to be “hard to get”. The starting point must be something that we both accept axiomatically - and that would be the existence of the physical universe.

I would be amenable to have such a discussion, but in its own thread.

 

[Gorgias]

If you wish to argue, at least argue against what was actually said, not some twisted version of it.

No wish to argue… although discussion would be cool!

I don’t think I ‘twisted’ what you said, but rather, just took it at face value. In your first statement, you talked about things that “exist” or “existed”, while in your second statement, you only talked about things that “do not exist.” Those are two distinct kinds of statements, no? Anyway, if you meant “exist or existed” for both of your statements, then you’ve answered my question.

Gorgias:

To God, all of the universe, in its entire existence, from start to finish, exists and is known.

You need for argue for it. Mere opinion does not count.

This follows not from “mere opinion”, but from the generally held definition of what God is.

What does “knowledge” mean in this context?

It’s different than what “knowledge” means for humans, and perhaps that’s what’s causing the disconnect here. We “know” because we experience and ratiocinate and learn. God does none of these, so to speak. Rather, He has immediate (i.e., not mediated by any thing) knowledge of all He has created.

Events are primary, the knowledge about them are secondary.

OK. We’re going to get crossed up in terminology, I think, since “primary causation” and “secondary causation” are part of this discussion, and they have nothing to do with these definitions you’ve provided.

It is impossible to “know” something that does not exist or did not exist. The future does not exist as an actuality, only as a potential.

For a human? Absolutely. For God, this is not true. What we call “the future” is known to Him, since He is not bound by the temporal limitations that bind us. What appears “only a potential” to us is already known by Him.

Existence is not contingent upon the observer. A rock either exists, or does not.

Fine. I could as easily have said, simply, “we, as humans have no knowledge of future events.”

And what evidence can they present?

Google “B-theory of time”.

But in every other language the three “tenses” are used as obvious.

Please read up on tenseless languages.

Come on. God’s very existence is in doubt, and so are his alleged attributes.

By whom? With what credibility?

 

[Abrosz]

Those are two distinct kinds of statements, no?

Nope. In other words one can only know if there is or was information about the subject.

This follows not from “mere opinion”, but from the generally held definition of what God is.

That is still an opinion.

Rather, He has immediate (i.e., not mediated by any thing) knowledge of all He has created.

Another opinion. And you used the past tense, while I talk about the future.

Google “B-theory of time”.

Yet another opinion.

Please read up on tenseless languages

They only use a different method to express the existence of time.

By whom? With what credibility?

By every atheist and non-Christian.

But I can suggest a method for a discussion. (By the way, in a discussion one presents arguments and there is nothing “negative” about calling them “arguments”.) Hopefully we both accept the existence of the physical universe. If not, we can just stop right here. That needs to be the starting point. If you believe that the physical universe is insufficient by itself, that there is a need to postulate some “spiritual” reality, you need present a coherent definition for it; must to argue for it, and present some evidence for your claim. If you wish to postulate God with some attributes (over and beyond being a deistic creator), you need to present some arguments for those characteristics. It is unacceptable to declare: “If you do not accept these attributes, you do not talk about the Christian God.” You cannot simply define God into existence.

That is what I am proposing. If you are interested, open a new thread about it. I will be around.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

This follows not from “mere opinion”, but from the generally held definition of what God is.

That is still an opinion.

When you offer your own definitions, I’ll be sure to remind you that they’re just your opinion.

Another opinion.

Again: doctrine. Definition.

Yet another opinion.

Apparently, everyone else’s notions but yours are “mere opinion.” Got it.

Gorgias:

Please read up on tenseless languages

They only use a different method to express the existence of time.

Immaterial. Your claim was “in every other language (but Hopi), the three ‘tenses’ are used as obvious.” That claim is false, as I’ve now demonstrated to you.

Gorgias:

By whom? With what credibility?

By every atheist and non-Christian.

That’s just their opinion.

If you believe that the physical universe is insufficient by itself

What does this even mean? Yes, the physical universe exists. We can agree on that. But… “sufficiency”? You’re gonna have to explain what you mean by that and why it’s reasonable / relevant / putatively true.

must to argue for it, and present some evidence for your claim.

What kind of ‘evidence’ would you accept for “spiritual reality”? Physical evidence…? That’s a request made in bad faith.

If you wish to postulate God with some attributes (over and beyond being a deistic creator), you need to present some arguments for those characteristics.

Read up on Aquinas, especially in the Summa Theologiae. He does a great job of presenting the arguments.

It is unacceptable to declare: “If you do not accept these attributes, you do not talk about the Christian God.”

The definition is well-founded. If you choose to talk about something else, then you – very literally! – are talking about something else!

You cannot simply define God into existence.

We do not. God exists, and we attempt to understand Him.

That is what I am proposing. If you are interested, open a new thread about it. I will be around.

Go for it.

 

[MPat]

That is still an opinion.

Another opinion.

Yet another opinion.

By every atheist and non-Christian.

Anselm’s concept of “maximally great” being is nonsense.

Also unacceptable. What is the “good” of the eruption of Vesuvius, which covered Pompeii?

So, once again we see the same approach. You act as if your opinion has to be assumed to be true, unless you graciously choose to change your mind, but opinion of anyone else can be dismissed without an argument, just because it is an opinion.

Such implicit demand for a position privileged for no apparent reason is not a path to a fruitful discussion.

Speaking of which, can you explain, what are you trying to achieve in this discussion?

It does not look like you are trying to learn anything new. That would require acknowledging a possibility of some relevant imperfection (not having some competence, some piece of information, having bad judgement).

And if you are trying to enlighten the benighted masses, that, um, does not seem to be happening…

So, what goal are you pursuing here?

If you wish to postulate God with some attributes (over and beyond being a deistic creator), you need to present some arguments for those characteristics. It is unacceptable to declare: “If you do not accept these attributes, you do not talk about the Christian God.” You cannot simply define God into existence.

If you wish to make demands others have to meet, and have them taken seriously, you have to justify them.

Especially when your demand is that other people would justify something to you.

For well, it does not look like we have to. You asserted that you have a proof of something. In such case you have to show that it actually works, that it can take care of all possible alternatives. Even if you do not like those alternatives.

Mere unsupported exclamations “Nonsense!”, “It is unacceptable!”, “Opinion!” would only work if we would know you to be especially competent and honest.

But you are just a random Internet user. You do not have such a great reputation. Hardly anyone does.

Thus all those “Nonsense!”, “It is unacceptable!”, “Opinion!” only look silly, and make your position look silly.

Oh, well. That might be somewhat boring by now, but that is a good enough result for me…

 

[Abrosz]

Immaterial. Your claim was “in every other language (but Hopi), the three ‘tenses’ are used as obvious.” That claim is false, as I’ve now demonstrated to you.

Oh, brother! You have this need to “win”, that even the most irrelevant discrepancy will “serve” this purpose. The point was that everyone is aware of the past-present-future state of affairs, even if they express it differently. But since you need to win, yes, I was not aware of the examples you gave.

That’s just their opinion.

Yes, I accept that. Anything and everything pertaining the “spiritual” or “supernatural” is just an opinion. (See how to make a concession?). The problem is, how well is that opinion founded? Have you or anyone else ever experienced the “supernatural”? (How? Which senses did you use?) The opinion of the atheists is founded on the lack of evidence for the opinion of the believers. But, of course an honest atheist admits it, and leaves the door open to contemplate the evidence provided by the theist, if and when it is forthcoming.

What does this even mean? Yes, the physical universe exists. We can agree on that. But… “sufficiency”? You’re gonna have to explain what you mean by that and why it’s reasonable / relevant / putatively true.

Simple. There is nothing in the physical universe that would require a “supernatural” explanation - whatever it might be.

What kind of ‘evidence’ would you accept for “spiritual reality”? Physical evidence …? That’s a request made in bad faith.

You are so fast to call something “bad faith”. If you wish to present “spiritual evidence”, be my guest. But we (humans) are only able to perceive physical information. What would be a non-physical evidence? And how would we receive that information?

Read up on Aquinas, especially in the Summa Theologiae . He does a great job of presenting the arguments.

I am only interested in YOUR arguments. And remember, the only starting point which is acceptable is that the physical universe exists.

The definition is well-founded.

The definition is just an opinion. You need to show that the referent of the definition actually “exists”. Also some of the alleged attributes are simply undefined or nonsensical.

We do not. God exists, and we attempt to understand Him.

Aha! Do you have evidence for it, or is it your belief only? I think that even the most adamant apologist will admit that one needs to have “faith” to believe in God’s existence. Some even argue that having positive knowledge about God would “rob” us of our free will to doubt.

 

[Gorgias]

Oh, brother! You have this need to “win”

Nah. I’m a stickler for accuracy, though. You made a claim that was inaccurate. You seem unhappy that it’s been proven as such to you. Yet, you make a good point: yes, let’s move on.

(See how to make a concession?)

Yep. When it’s warranted.

Have you or anyone else ever experienced the “supernatural”? (How? Which senses did you use?)

Strawman. “Senses” perceive physical phenomena. Spirits aren’t physical.

an honest atheist admits it, and leaves the door open to contemplate the evidence provided by the theist, if and when it is forthcoming.

What kind of evidence do they demand, though? Physical? Not a request made in good faith…

Simple. There is nothing in the physical universe that would require a “supernatural” explanation - whatever it might be.

There’s nothing in the physical universe that requires the Milky Way to exist. And yet, that doesn’t disprove its existence. I’m not seeing the reasonableness of this “requirement” you assert.

You are so fast to call something “bad faith”.

If you’re demanding something that’s impossible to provide, then it’s certainly a bad faith request!

What would be a non-physical evidence? And how would we receive that information?

Perfect set of questions!

I think there are plenty of ways to ‘receive’ information about the supernatural. You’re not going to like them, though. First and foremost would be the direct revelation of God to humanity. Included in that would be the teachings of Jesus who, as the divine Son of God, taught us and backed up those teachings with signs and wonders (and raised from the dead, to boot)!

Here’s the thing: if you agree that there’s no empirical evidence possible for spiritual realities, then why ask for it?

Abrosz:

I am only interested in YOUR arguments.

We stand on the shoulders of giants, no? “I am only interested in ‘your’ arguments” is an odd rejoinder, but one often encountered in conversations with non-believers. Why is that a reasonable standard, given that they themselves are repeating the arguments of non-believers from years gone by?

Abrosz:

Aha! Do you have evidence for it, or is it your belief only?

Look up Newman and his discussion of the “illative sense”. I would argue along his lines that this is in the realm of things that admit of assertions and the question isn’t whether it’s been “proven” (like a2+b2=c2 can be proven) or “demonstrated through the use of evidence” (like a science experiment can be utilized to do), but rather, it’s something that must be assented to, on a subjective level. For some, no amount of argumentation, evidence, or demonstration is sufficient to lead to assent. And, that says more about that person than it does the case being made.

 

[Gorgias]

I think that even the most adamant apologist will admit that one needs to have “faith” to believe in God’s existence.

We could get into an interesting discussion about what “faith” is here, but I’m not sure that’s relevant. After all, this thread is about “knowledge”, right?

Some even argue that having positive knowledge about God would “rob” us of our free will to doubt.

Not “positive knowledge”. I’d say that being present to the “Beatific Vision” removes all doubt, though.