The Existence of a God or Gods is [Currently] Unknowable to Man

1. “Are you defining knowledge as “justified true belief”? If by justified you mean to say that the belief is based on logical reason, then yes. 2. “Is all knowledge strictly empirical?” Yes, even Descartes’ ‘I think therefore I am’ requires on validation/knowledge from prior observations. That in itself is a discussion for another debate. 3. An observation is the formation of knowledge based on an interpretation of events unfolding in the physical world. If one wanted to be formal, one could argue an observation to be the process by which we learn to understand cause and effect in our world. Reflective knowledge always depends on initial observations. If you could think of an argument for God’s existence that went against this then it would invalidate the main point of my argument. 4. Whichever one suits you. A) I accept my opponent’s declaration of ‘She’ and will follow his decision. 5. Truth: that which is knowable through human reasoning; the understanding of causality, but the humility of knowing that we could be proven wrong in saying that the Sun will rise tomorrow; knowing that the only absolute is that there are no absolutes My opponent has chosen to cast reasonable doubt on my claim that ‘all knowledge is derived from observations’. Unsurprisingly, our debate has turned to a discussion of epistemology. I look forward to seeing the contrast that emerges between our two differing perspectives. My opponent is declaring that empiricism cannot satisfyingly explain all knowledge that is knowable to man and argues that it is possible for us to achieve knowledge via derivation from a coherent set of justified beliefs. I will admit that I am not familiar with the works of Quine or Lehrer, but it my opponent’s responsibility to ensure that his position is well established. He has declared that beliefs (justified by reason = knowledge) can be derived from consciousness, experience and rational-cognitive faculties. He goes on to say that in order for these to be true, for an individual to know them, they must be coherent with one another. I will not disagree that our beliefs must be coherent with one another. But coherency depends on the validity of prior knowledge. We cannot reason that elephants are blue if we’ve never see a blue elephant. We cannot reason that blue elephants like the rain because we don’t even know if a blue elephant exists. We cannot know anything unless an observation has been made. A ‘Leap of Faith’ cannot be considered knowledge. Nor can a belief such a teleology, which claims that the universe has a grand design. These are beliefs, not forms of knowledge. They are constructs that attempt to explain the big questions about this universe—none of which are answerable. No observation can be known about these big questions, and therefore no knowledge can be derived. I have claimed that no knowledge can be known outside of observation. Everything that you know is based upon the initial observation that A is A. If you do not accept this as your starting claim than no knowledge is available to you. You cannot even claim that an elephant is gray because you haven’t accepted that an elephant is an elephant. Let’s apply this to the knowledge of God’s existence. What claim can I make about God? That She exists? Is that in enough in itself? No, because I have never observed logical evidence for God’s existence. I have not observed anything that would suggest that such an entity exists and nor have I observed anything that would suggest that the entity does not exist. That’s part of the reason that logic and rational thinking leads many to atheism (myself not included), because the burden of proof falls upon those trying to say that something exists. In short: It is true that one can believe that God exists, but it is impossible to know that God exists.