Faith: the evidence of things not seen

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In all fairness, WK, I think you are looking a little too selectively at the analogy. As far as I can tell the word map has only ever used by you. Interestingly, when you think about it a map is in itself an analogy of reality.

I'm merely pointing out the flaw in the thinking that because antiskeptic thinks he uses is personal assessment and judgement all the time to say get around a city or drive from Dublin to Limerick that means his personal assessment works pretty well and can be trusted when he assesses that his feelings towards God are also accurate.

In reality if you dropped antiskeptic (or anyone else for that matter) into say a foreign country a million years ago before any form of human civilization he would actually have a very hard time using his personal assessment to get from A to B accurately. Even as something as simply as knowing that the sun rises in the East is based on work others have done, empirical work at that.

So the whole analogy is flawed to begin with because he is already not comparing like with like.

The whole point about the objections to theistic belief and assumptions is that there is absolutely no test to apply to it. It is purely and completely at the whim of the judgement of the theist themselves.

So to say that personal assessment and judgement works well in other areas so why not assume it works well when assessing God is a fallacy because personal assessment doesn't work well in other areas.

Our personal assessment only works well when we have material and empirical data to compare it against, even if that is as simple as reading a map, looking at a street sign or even knowing the sun rises in the East.

And that is precisely what we do not have with supernatural claims including the claims of religion.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was thinking more of the countless observations and calculations based on same that must have been performed to stop me falling over, turning right when I should have turned left, accelerating when I should be braking, continuing when I should have been avoiding.

All of which are based on material, empirical, assessment and testing.

I imagine you did not simply figure out in your mind how to ride a bike and then just jump on and go.

This is precisely what you do not have when trying to determine if God exists or not.

There is no empirical feedback, the only feedback is your own assessment of what you think has just happened.

A very good example is that you prayed and then work up the next morning feeling different. Ok, so were you different or did you just feel different. How did you test that?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is God able to reveal himself to a person in such a way that they know he isn't a delusion?

Not if the revelation is in a manner that can also be produced by delusion, which in the case of human religion is always the case. In which case you cannot tell the difference.

If God actually wanted us to know that he existed it would make little sense for him to do it in a manner where we can't determine if he does or not.

So I'm sure he can reveal himself to us but for some reason he never does. Which is a bit odd if he actually does exist.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I mean, what is "knowledge" but the arrangment of neural networks in your brain into a particular pattern? Whether God arranges my neural network "directly" so that I know God exists or whether he writes "God exists" in by-natural-means-impossibly-large letters in the sky so that I know he exists isn't particularily relevant.

Well yes it is because God arranging your neural network directly so that you "know" God exists produces an end result that can also be produced if God doesn't exist at all but is merely a delusion in your mind produced by wayward evolutionary instincts to view agency in nature.

Where as the planets all suddenly arranging themselves into the English sentence "God is real and exists" is not something that can be easily explained by other means (of course you if you accept the existence of supernatural deities you have to allow for the possibility that one supernatural being may be pretending to be another, but that is a different issue)

Getting back to the subject at hand, the blind faith bit comes from the some what foolish belief that because you "know" God exists in your own mind that this some how means something significant in the real world

antiskeptic wrote: »

Beware of suggesting that the God who created this Universe wouldn't be able to accomplish the relatively paltry task of making himself known to someone, in your answer.

Whether he can do it or not is irrelevant. The question is has he and how can you determine he has.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

All of which are based on material, empirical, assessment and testing.

Which is besides the point - which was my non-agreement with your suggestion that we are as prone to error as you're making out. What matters isn't that a team of scientists can establish that I indeed turned right rather than left and so avoided an accident. What matters is that I accurately perceived that which was nececessary to tend me to turn in that direction.

And that these countless decisions - made over a quarter of a million of biking miles - indicate my subjective ability to percieve is a darn sight more capable than your "empiricists philosophical defence" is prepared to cope with.

There is no empirical feedback, the only feedback is your own assessment of what you think has just happened.

Which has proven remarkably and consistantly accurate in the case of my motorcycle riding (and most other areas of my life)

A very good example is that you prayed and then work up the next morning feeling different. Ok, so were you different or did you just feel different. How did you test that?

The feeling, I'm sure you'll agree, doesn't need testing. If you feel peaceful then you are peaceful. That that feeling came to be recognised as the result of my now being born again isn't something you test for as such. What occurred was that I began to read this thing called The Bible and what it described as the process whereby I arrived at this peaceful feeling was the process I'd gone through (along global lines).

My basis for believing what it said arose out of God making himself known as being the author (as it were) of this writing. So you might say that the test was God's say so. Which, you'd agree, is about as good an imprimateur as one could hope to achieve.

Is God able to reveal himself to a person in such a way that they know he isn't a delusion?

Not if the revelation is in a manner that can also be produced by delusion, which in the case of human religion is always the case. In which case you cannot tell the difference.

Again, the question doesn't involve my telling the difference. The question revolves around what God is capable of doing (assuming for the sake of argument he exists).

Now, a true knowledge that God exists (provided by God to the receipient of that knowledge) must be expected to be different to a delusion that God exists (given that God isn't the one who has generated that 'knowledge'). Meaning a person who knows God exists can be in receipt of true knowledge.

And so we reach a position where you are faced with someone who says that they know God exists: but you can't tell whether I'm delusional or not. And me? Well all I know is what I know. If God put that knowledge there then it's God who exists. If it's delusion then there's no way to tell in any absolute sense. Just as there's no way to tell, in any absolute sense, if there actually is a computer screen sat in front of me. Or you.

Which brings me again to the point of this discussion with you. To suggest that agnosticism is the only position you can occupy on the matter of my knowledge.

If God actually wanted us to know that he existed it would make little sense for him to do it in a manner where we can't determine if he does or not.

His purpose is to remain veiled from those who are lost. And to be revealed to those who are found. He isn't dealing with a global, homogenous "us". Given that part of that purpose involves providing choice to us in the matter of spending eternity with him or not, you might appreciate his not making himself manifest to all. Like, how on earth could choice be sustained if you knew for certain that God, heaven and hell existed?

You shouldn't have a problem with his being able to manage a situation whereby some (the currently lost) are kept blind (and in a position of being able to choose) whilst others (the found) are enabled to see (having made their choice).

You'd agree it'd be a doddle to achieve such a thing in practice. You've only to enable a God-detection sense previously disabled. A flick of a switch would do it.

Well yes it is because God arranging your neural network directly so that you "know" God exists produces an end result that can also be produced if God doesn't exist at all but is merely a delusion in your mind produced by wayward evolutionary instincts to view agency in nature.

We're all aware that a brain in a jar can be provided with the same sense of reality we assume really exists all around us. Such musings (am I deluded about the reality of reality? Am I deluded about the reality of God?) appear to me to be pointless musings.

Where as the planets all suddenly arranging themselves into the English sentence "God is real and exists" is not something that can be easily explained by other means (of course you if you accept the existence of supernatural deities you have to allow for the possibility that one supernatural being may be pretending to be another, but that is a different issue)

Insert whatever empirically satisfying method you like whereby God would demonstrate his existance to you then. The point was that it will result in an arrangement of your neural network so there's no difference whether this is done via the short route (directly) or the long route (empirically).

Getting back to the subject at hand, the blind faith bit comes from the some what foolish belief that because you "know" God exists in your own mind that this some how means something significant in the real world

Where else do we know anything?

Whether he can do it or not is irrelevant. The question is has he and how can you determine he has.

It's interesting that you put man on the throne here. Man the ultimate decider in these things. Yet (still assuming that God exists for a moment) the reason you know anything is sustained in you by his sustaining you and the reality about which you know.

The question is always whether he can. God would be the one sitting on the throne. He is the ultimate decider in these things.

And I know it

nozzferrahhtoo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You obviously don't understand science if you think it can be used to determine if X is morally good or morally bad.

Can you point to where I said science shows it to be morally good or morally bad, or are you engaged in replying to something I never actually said? In fact the part of my text that you quoted and then did not actually reply to, never once mentioned the word morals at all. On this whole page so far every instance of the word was in this one post from you.

However this is also a complete change of subject. I was making a point about faith and using two imaginary conversations to highlight what I mean in how the use of faith can end a conversation. I think you were so keen to play your own record here that you managed to reply to nothing I actually said and have gone off talking about homosexuality and science instead.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Both Christianity and Islam do provide evidence for their claims.

Just not to me or anyone I know it seems. However if you are aware of some you think I have missed, I would be agog to hear it. Quite simply agog. So far in 20 years of reading, asking and searching I have not been presented with any other than what falls under the category of what started this thread off in the first place: Evidence that is only evidence if you pre-suppose the conclusion beforehand. 95ish% of everything I have been shown for this god entity on which Christianity and Islam are based falls under this category.

Fanny Cradock

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Can you point to where I said science shows it to be morally good or morally bad, or are you engaged in replying to something I never actually said? In fact the part of my text that you quoted and then did not actually reply to, never once mentioned the word morals at all. On this whole page so far every instance of the word was in this one post from you.

Then I misunderstood you. Apologies.

However, my misunderstanding was understandable, I believe, given your imprecise use of the word bad. In conversation A you used the word bad when you really should have used the something like detrimental (as in detrimental to X). You again used bad in Conversation B but this time in a moral context (as in homosexuality is morally bad - something, btw, I don't think many (any?) Christians here would actually argue). Therefore, your two imaginary conversations (or parodies) are still dealing with two different realms, and thus you are comparing apples with oranges.

In shot, you admit that your two conversations are not talking about the same thing. Yes? One is a scientific conversation, the other is an ethical one. Therefore we shouldn't waste time drawing false parallels between your imaginary conversations. It would be rather pointless to do so.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Just not to me or anyone I know it seems. However if you are aware of some you think I have missed, I would be agog to hear it. Quite simply agog. So far in 20 years of reading, asking and searching I have not been presented with any other than what falls under the category of what started this thread off in the first place: Evidence that is only evidence if you pre-suppose the conclusion beforehand. 95ish% of everything I have been shown for this god entity on which Christianity and Islam are based falls under this category.

Ah! So we are dealing with the weight of numbers or personal experience? You better do a quick recount. (P.S. it's actually the God of the Abrahamic religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam).

With regards to the evidence, perhaps you need to go back to the basics and steer clear of specific religious arguments or claims for now. If you haven't already encountered it you might find The Mind of God by Paul Davies to be an interesting read.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which is besides the point - which was my non-agreement with your suggestion that we are as prone to error as you're making out. What matters isn't that a team of scientists can establish that I indeed turned right rather than left and so avoided an accident. What matters is that I accurately perceived that which was nececessary to tend me to turn in that direction.

Which is based on accurately testing the world around you in a systematic fashion to determine that you are actually turning in the correct direction.

Try turning left blindfolded. Removing the empirical feedback from your actions robs you of the ability to accurately assess what you think is happening.

This little experiment can be used to highlight the point pretty well. Place a person in an open space with a target. Blind fold them and tell them to turn around a few times and then ask them to point towards the target. The vast majority will fail to find the target, often pointing off in completely the wrong direction.

Why? Because our ability to assess how far we have turned in any particular direction is pretty bad. We use visual tests to accurately turn. Remove these and we end up lost and confused as to where we are.

Now I'm not suggesting that this is the same exact issue with God (the problem above is that our inner ear that measures turning and acceleration is not accurate enough), but it highlights that even when we think we are doing things purely on our own assessment we aren't.

Even in the most basic activities we require testing and verification to align what we think it happing to what is actually happening.

And again this is exactly what you do not have when attempting to assess that God exists. There is no empirical feedback telling you that what you think is happening is actually happening.

It is like being blindfolded in the open space wandering around and simply assuming that you are good at internal mapping and assuming that every time you point you are pointing towards the target when in fact you have no idea if you actually are or not.

antiskeptic wrote: »

So you might say that the test was God's say so.

No you wouldn't because that isn't a test. You have no way of determining the difference between "God's say so" and a delusional state brought on by how our mind works and you really wanting something to be true.

Which is the whole point, if you cannot tell the difference between a delusional state and a non-delusional state and possess no test external to your own opinion to determine this, you have nothing. You have no idea if any of what you think may be happening is actually happening.

Using the analog above it is like blind folding yourself and spinning around in the room and then pointing in one direction because you "just know" that that is the direction to point.

If you never take off the blind fold and test the direction you are heading in you will never know if it is the correct direction or not. Of course you can continue to believe you are pointing in the right direction, but that becomes a some what meaningless belief without any method to confirm you are.

It becomes blind faith in your own ability to accurately assess that you are correct, just like with God.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Again, the question doesn't involve my telling the difference. The question revolves around what God is capable of doing (assuming for the sake of argument he exists).

It does involve you telling the difference because if you can't tell the difference then God hasn't revealed himself to you.

It is like asking can God reveal himself to you without you knowing he has. That becomes an illogical oxymoron, if you don't know he has then he hasn't revealed himself.

For God to reveal himself to you you must possess the ability to determine accurately that God has just revealed himself to you. Otherwise you cannot know that God has just done that, and thus he hasn't revealed himself to you.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If God put that knowledge there then it's God who exists. If it's delusion then there's no way to tell in any absolute sense.

Absolute sense is an irrelevant straw man. We never know anything absolutely but that does not mean that all assumptions become equally valid.

There is strong empirical evidence that humans imagine agents in nature that act of benevolent forces in their lives particularly when they are feeling depressed or view the world as out of their control (which describes your situation).

There is no empirical evidence that such beings actually exist.

It comes down to building up possible explanations of the phenomena that you think God exists and looking at which we can test and verify and which we can't.

There is no logical reason to assume that simply because you think God exists he actually does, particularly since we know that humans may think something is real when it is not and do so all the time.

To ignore this is to act in blind faith.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You've only to enable a God-detection sense previously disabled. A flick of a switch would do it.

Which, again, is a some what illogical way for God to reveal himself to us as it is dintisguisable from a naturally occurring delusion.

It's like saying God will reveal himself by making it rain on Friday, then when it rains on Friday declaring that God has revealed himself, as if that is the only thing that could explain the rain.

A revelation is only meaningful if it has little or no other explanation than the one presented. In the case of theistic claims there are not only other explanations but explanations that can be properly studied and examined.

antiskeptic wrote: »

We're all aware that a brain in a jar can be provided with the same sense of reality we assume really exists all around us. Such musings (am I deluded about the reality of reality? Am I deluded about the reality of God?) appear to me to be pointless musings.

That is because you are pulling the age old theist card trick of we can't know anything absolutely so everything becomes equally valid.

Which is obviously nonsense. We cannot determine absolutely truth but we can build models of varying degrees of accuracy.

The idea that if I drop a rock off a building it will fall down is more accurate a model than the one that if I drop a rock off a building it will fall up, despite me lacking the ability to determine absolutely if either of these models are true or that either of them will hold a minute or an hour from now.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Insert whatever empirically satisfying method you like whereby God would demonstrate his existance to you then. The point was that it will result in an arrangement of your neural network so there's no difference whether this is done via the short route (directly) or the long route (empirically).

Of course there is because the "arrangement of your neural network" where you believe God exists can equally be explained purely in naturalistic terms by a process we already are quite far along in understanding.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's interesting that you put man on the throne here. Man the ultimate decider in these things. Yet (still assuming that God exists for a moment) the reason you know anything is sustained in you by his sustaining you and the reality about which you know.

It is interesting you put it like that because what you are doing in fact is putting yourself on the throne. You are putting absolute faith in your own judgement and assessment.

Yes you rationalist this by saying that God has altered you so you know the truth now, but that is simply circular reasoning, a way of side stepping the problem that you cannot verify what you belief externally to your own assessment.

Theists like to go on about the arrogance of science because it will not make the jump to the stage of accepting supernatural explanations, but it is real the arrogance of theists to believe that they themselves possess this ability to determine things when they really ought to know better.

As soon as you figure out a way of demonstrating what you believe to a proper standard I'm happy to take man down off "the throne"

Until then I'm offered the choice of thinking that what you believe you experienced is a result of an evolutionary tendency to view agents in nature in times of depression or stress, a theory that is back by scientific research, or the choice of thinking that you have actually some how been touched by one of the thousands of these agents that humans have asserted exists over the years, a theory that you cannot present any verifiable evidenence for beyond claiming that you simply know it is true.

If I were to simply accept what you said that would be as much blind faith as the blind faith you have in yourself.

antiskeptic

Dealing with this point out of turn as I can build the basis for my rebuttal from here:

That is because you are pulling the age old theist card trick of we can't know anything absolutely so everything becomes equally valid.

Which is obviously nonsense. We cannot determine absolutely truth but we can build models of varying degrees of accuracy.

When pointing out that "This is God" writ large in the sky might be the result of another supernatural entity (or alien perhaps - given that you'd probably plump for a more naturalistic explanation ) you pulled the very same trick. Not even God can demonstrate he is God - in your thinking. Which shows us the limitations (or maybe arrogance) of the methodology of knowledge in which you place all your faith.

Leaving that philosophical dead end aside for the moment .. and assuming you accept that God could demonstrate himself to you empirically by turning up and doing supernatural cartwheels to amaze you and your friends.

You realise of course that even if all of the reality you model your models in were removed - yourself included - God would still be there (assuming for the sake of argument that God exists). How do you figure to place more trust in one way that God uses to provide you with knowledge of him (the empirical way) over and above another way (a more direct way) also provided by him?

I mean, God would be the one who has enabled your ability to trust he exists via the empirical method. For example: he is the one who would have installed the sense of trust that arises because 10,000 people make the same observation as you. But why should that preclude him simply installing trust directly? Isn't it the case (by both means: whether empirical/direct) that you would need to trust in his ability to enable the trust you have to be correctly assigned. You could not be trusting in your own ability at any point.

Whilst the faith would necessarily be blind (in the ultimate, albeit useless, sense demanded by your philosophy), it is blind whether you've arrived empirically or directly.

I think it's worth remembering too that God isn't "just another thing" in reality. God is (we are supposing) the Creator of reality and can shape reality (which includes the means whereby we trust) anyway he likes. You're effectively saying he can't. There's a verse that springs to mind about this.

Romans 1:25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Assuming God still exists for the sake of discussion: you'd be trying to use something the Creator created to establish whether there is or isn't a Creator. Aside from the problem outlined, you're also presuming the Creator intended to make possible that he be demonstrated empirically. And assuming that because the Creator isn't found so, there must be no Creator.

Wicknight wrote: »

Which is based on accurately testing the world around you in a systematic fashion to determine that you are actually turning in the correct direction.

Which is again besides the point. The (quite narrow, original) point was that my perceptions are immensely more reliable that you're permitting. You're citing the possibility of delusion (misperception) as if it's extremely likely when in fact it is extremely unlikely.

And again this is exactly what you do not have when attempting to assess that God exists. There is no empirical feedback telling you that what you think is happening is actually happening.

Not to dismiss all you have written but my point up top should circumvent your reliance on empiricism.

No you wouldn't because that isn't a test. You have no way of determining the difference between "God's say so" and a delusional state brought on by how our mind works and you really wanting something to be true.

The points made up top address this. I'd add the general comment that we test down and aroundstream in reality. Not upstream. We assume the reality real on blind faith and examine the nature of it based on that assumption.

We both consider delusion to be a bubble-space within that which we call reality. The deluded person is considered blind to the true reality that surrounds them. I consider your God-blind state to be a bubble-space within a reality which includes God. The question isn't so much how do I know the God-containing reality is real (we both agree we can't be absolute in our knowing the reality we assume is there is actually there) the question is, how do I show a deluded man he's deluded (or at least stalemate his deluded position)

Which is the whole point, if you cannot tell the difference between a delusional state and a non-delusional state and possess no test external to your own opinion to determine this, you have nothing. You have no idea if any of what you think may be happening is actually happening.

Quite!

It does involve you telling the difference because if you can't tell the difference then God hasn't revealed himself to you.

Which is the atheists version of the same card-trick you accused me of pulling.

To sum up the points made so far. We need to agree that:

- if God then we are subject to him and any trust we place in anything (his existance included) derives from him and his methods ultimately. We cannot isolate something he created to be the decider on whether he does or doesn't exist. Not without pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps. And one means provided by him cannot be deemed better than another. Less direct perhaps - in the case of empiricism. But not better.

- whilst it is philosphically impossible for God to prove it is he by any means (and not an alien) such brain-in-jar scenarios are ultimately meaningless.

- my intention here isn't to prove God. It's to demonstrate that there is no reponse to the assertion "I know God exists" other than agnosticism.

There is strong empirical evidence that humans imagine agents in nature that act of benevolent forces in their lives particularly when they are feeling depressed or view the world as out of their control (which describes your situation).

Curiously, the Bible points to the source of these idols. And indicates that the mechanism of salvation involves a certain "impoverishment of spirit". When a 'theory' is capable of accomodating the empirical observations then it is a good theory.

---

I'll leave it at that for the moment Wicknight. Your position rests on the supposed supremacy of empiricism in determining knowledge and there is sufficient challenge to the viewpoint to be getting along with.

Cheers.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

you're also presuming the Creator intended to make possible that he be demonstrated empirically. And assuming that because the Creator isn't found so, there must be no Creator.

I could say that there's a pink unicorn hiding behind my couch but it doesn't want to be demonstrated to be there so whenever someone goes to look it teleports itself to Guam. Couldn't the logic that X exists but has made it so that it cannot demonstrated to exist be used to justify believing absolutely anything?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

When pointing out that "This is God" writ large in the sky might be the result of another supernatural entity (or alien perhaps - given that you'd probably plump for a more naturalistic explanation ) you pulled the very same trick. Not even God can demonstrate he is God - in your thinking. Which shows us the limitations (or maybe arrogance) of the methodology of knowledge in which you place all your faith.

It certainly does, but the idea that because that is unsatisfying to us we should just ignore it is quite silly.

There is no requirement on the part of the universe to provide to you a way to determine that your god actually exists. Just because you would like to know that God exists and loves you doesn't mean you should be able to.

That isn't the atheists issue, it is the theists issue, to justify why they claim to know things they really can't.

There is certainly an argument to be made from a theist that they are happier if this were true than if it wasn't, but that isn't a reason to assert something is likely to be true.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You realise of course that even if all of the reality you model your models in were removed - yourself included - God would still be there (assuming for the sake of argument that God exists). How do you figure to place more trust in one way that God uses to provide you with knowledge of him (the empirical way) over and above another way (a more direct way) also provided by him?

Because, as I've said, one way (you "just knowing") is indisguisable from a naturally occurring delusion.

So you have to ask what I'm I being expected to trust here? It isn't God because it hasn't even been established yet that God is actually doing anything at all.

What I'm actually being expected to trust is you, trust that you actually can determine the difference between God communicating with you and simply imagining he is.

Which you haven't demonstrated you can, so why exactly would I trust your own judgement?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Isn't it the case (by both means: whether empirical/direct) that you would need to trust in his ability to enable the trust you have to be correctly assigned. You could not be trusting in your own ability at any point.

God's ability is has never been the issue. If we assume God exists and is what you guys think he is then he is omnipotent. He can do anything logically possible.

So saying would I trust God to be able to do something is irrelevant. By definition he could do anything.

The issue is can I tell that God has actually done something or not, can I verify to some satisfactory degree that what I think has happened has happened.

This is the part you are ignoring. It is all very well to say that God may have arranged your neurons so you think he exists. But such supposition is pointless without any way of determining, even to the slightest degree, if he has or not.

Saying assume God exists, now can he rearrange my neurons is pointless to the question of whether I believe he exists and has rearranged my neurons.

You could say assume Zeus' exists and has rearranged my neurons, or Loki. Neither assumptions increase my knowledge of the universe.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think it's worth remembering too that God isn't "just another thing" in reality. God is (we are supposing) the Creator of reality and can shape reality (which includes the means whereby we trust) anyway he likes. You're effectively saying he can't.

No I'm not, because whether God has or has not arranged my neuron's in such a way is actually irrelevant to the issue at hand.

The issue at hand is not can God do these things (he can if he exists), the issue at hand is can we determine he exists by him doing these things, ie can he reveal himself to us through these actions.

And the answer is no, we can't determine he exists through these actions because we cannot determine if God exists and did them or if God doesn't exist and they just occurred naturally since they look the same.

Religious faith is a naturally occurring phenomena, whether you believe that Christianity or Islam or Hinduism or Scientology is an exception to that rule or not.

God cannot "reveal" himself to us through a process that is indistingiousable from a naturally occurring phenomena. That is independent to whether or not God can actually carry out the action itself or not.

For example God cannot reveal himself to us by making himself into a tree in the Phoenix park, since that would not reveal anything to us as we would not notice any difference between God as a tree and just a tree.

That doesn't mean God can't make himself into a tree in the Phoenix park. Of course he can. But it won't reveal anything to us about his existence because he will look just like every other naturally occurring tree.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Assuming God still exists for the sake of discussion: you'd be trying to use something the Creator created to establish whether there is or isn't a Creator. Aside from the problem outlined, you're also presuming the Creator intended to make possible that he be demonstrated empirically. And assuming that because the Creator isn't found so, there must be no Creator.

No that is not what I'm assuming. I've no idea if there is or is not a creator. There may very well be. But that again has never been the issue. I'm an atheist not because I believer there is no creator deity but because I reject your assertion that you know there is.

The issue is have you (or any other theist) determined that there is a creator and that you communicate with him?

And the answer is no you haven't, or at least not to any standard I would consider to be a requirement for accepting such an assertion as an accurate representation of reality.

So given that why do you believe you have? Blind faith. Blind faith in your own abilities and in your own judgements.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which is again besides the point. The (quite narrow, original) point was that my perceptions are immensely more reliable that you're permitting. You're citing the possibility of delusion (misperception) as if it's extremely likely when in fact it is extremely unlikely.

It is not extremely unlikely it is extremely likely.

We know humans, all humans, are hugely prone to these forms of delusions. It is part of how our brains work and you do it all the time.

All humans do it, atheists do it all the time.

Religion survives this under the exception excuse. Yes all humans are prone to delusions of imagining agents in nature that don't actually exist but that doesn't mean my particular religious belief X is not actually true. I'm the exception.

Not particularly convincing.

antiskeptic wrote: »

And one means provided by him cannot be deemed better than another.

Of course it can, as I've explained.

God cannot reveal himself to man kind by making himself into a tree in the phoenix park. God cannot reveal himself to mankind by making it rain. God cannot reveal himself to you by curing a headache just after you have taken an Aspirin. God cannot reveal himself to you by arranging your neurons in a way that is indistigusable from a known naturally accruing delusion.

God can do all these things sure, but it won't reveal him to us as we will have no idea God has actually done anything.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Curiously, the Bible points to the source of these idols.

Hardly curious, religions have always attempted to explain away flaws in their logic. The classic is the idea that all these other religions are shadows of the one true religion (which strangely always seems to be the religion of the person making this assertion), thus explaining why so many people believe in false religions yet that shouldn't mean anything to the particular religion you believe in.

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I could say that there's a pink unicorn hiding behind my couch but it doesn't want to be demonstrated to be there so whenever someone goes to look it teleports itself to Guam. Couldn't the logic that X exists but has made it so that it cannot demonstrated to exist be used to justify believing absolutely anything?

Nail on the head. There are certainly flaws with empirical evidence, but the point is theists don't have anything better.

Saying lets just assume he exists so now it stands to reason he could do X,Y and Z is fine but you can't then go from that to saying the logic is sound lets believe in him. Because as you say you can assume anything exists if you are jus t.

You can assume anything exists but if you cannot determine one assumption from the other you have not increased your knowledge.

Theists attempt to get around this by only considering their particular deity.

The classic example is the ressurection. The charge that the resurrection is implausible is often met by "Not if we assume God exists"

Which is true.

But why just assume God exists. Lets assume Zeus exists, which bring the resurrection back to being implausible (why would Zeus resurrect a Hebrew preacher). Or Loki, or Xenu.

What is the logic for asserting that one of these deities exists over any other one, and then using that as a axiom for further exploration?

There is no point in throwing out assumptions that one deity may exist over another deity if we do not have any way to determine if this is the case, just like there is no point in throwing out assumptions about how said deity is revealing himself to us if we do not have any way to determine he is over a naturally occurring event.

nozzferrahhtoo

I am not about to get into off topic linguistic tangents with you. I said X, you misunderstood X, I clarified X. We can continue with that without equivocating over where you feel I should use the word "bad". However suffice to say I said NOTHING in a moral context, regardless of you saying a 2nd time now that I did. I never used this word. I never intended this meaning. And I have told you that already.

All my conversations were intended to highlight is the point that as soon as faith is used IN an argument, it is a conversation stopper. I was contrasting that to you pointing out that a conversation ABOUT faith is continuing. The word "bad" is intentionally vague and nothing to do with morals for this reason. The actual content and subject of the conversation are irrelevant to the point I was trying to illustrate.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

So we are dealing with the weight of numbers or personal experience? You better do a quick recount.

Nothing of the sort. I am just telling you a simple statement of fact. I have been asking for evidence for 20 years and have not been shown any. 95% of what I have been shown however falls under the category of evidence that is only evidence if you presuppose what it is evidence for is true. God and religion aside, I am sure you agree that such things are not evidence. If you need to assume your conclusion in order for evidence to be valid, then the evidence is not evidence.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

With regards to the evidence, perhaps you need to go back to the basics and steer clear of specific religious arguments or claims for now.

Then inform me of what the basic evidence I have missed is, as I have not yet heard of it. I can not examine evidence that has not been presented to me. I have read the book you mention and maybe you can inform me what I missed in it.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

It certainly does, but the idea that because that is unsatisfying to us we should just ignore it is quite silly...

Sorry for the delay in response Wicknight. Will try to get to this this evening.

St. antiskeptic

Fanny Cradock

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not about to get into off topic linguistic tangents with you. I said X, you misunderstood X, I clarified X. We can continue with that without equivocating over where you feel I should use the word "bad". However suffice to say I said NOTHING in a moral context, regardless of you saying a 2nd time now that I did. I never used this word. I never intended this meaning. And I have told you that already.

Nothing in a moral context? Perhaps you need to read your own imaginary conversation again Semantics aside, clearly people are willing to debate and argue contentious topics within the context of the Christian faith.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

All my conversations were intended to highlight is the point that as soon as faith is used IN an argument, it is a conversation stopper. I was contrasting that to you pointing out that a conversation ABOUT faith is continuing.

Yes, very good. But it seems to me that Harris operates under the blanket assumption that all of us are from the same immutable fingers-in-the-ears-la-la-la-I'm-not-listening stock. (Hence your conversation number 2 parody.) Again, with regards to matters of religious faith, people are willing to enter into in-depth discussions (or even outright arguments) about differing perspectives. Sometimes they even change their opinions accordingly. That, by way of example, was exactly what the Protestant Reformation was all about. It's precisely because of communication within the context of Christian faith about the Christian faith that such a raging argument and movement began. Even though some people might claim to have the inside track in matters relating to the Almighty the debate inevitably goes on. Aside from this Harris rather hones in on religious faith to make his point - as opposed to, say, personal faith in products, individuals or systems. So not only does he pigeon-hole people with religious faith and ignore history, he is also selective in his criticism by ignoring the wider meaning of the word faith.

I actually do agree with you that some people will say because "God says so" and end the discussion. However, I obviously object to the idea that faith in an argument (faith in what?) automatically shuts down any discussion.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nothing of the sort. I am just telling you a simple statement of fact. I have been asking for evidence for 20 years and have not been shown any. 95% of what I have been shown however falls under the category of evidence that is only evidence if you presuppose what it is evidence for is true. God and religion aside, I am sure you agree that such things are not evidence. If you need to assume your conclusion in order for evidence to be valid, then the evidence is not evidence.

We obviously have very different understanding of what the word evidence means. But despite my scepticism of how you reached your percentages, at least you still have 5% to work off.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then inform me of what the basic evidence I have missed is, as I have not yet heard of it. I can not examine evidence that has not been presented to me. I have read the book you mention and maybe you can inform me what I missed in it.

For that I would need to know what you know as well as how you approached the information. Perhaps you have exhausted the intellectual output of Christianity (I doubt it) and in an objective fashion found it wanting. Perhaps you have also tried the usual experimental route of attempting to engage this God at a personal level (Church, praying etc.) and you found yourself utterly unfulfilled. Or perhaps you operate under a bias when approaching the God question and have never really opened yourself to the possibility. I simply don't know. I was merely trying to be helpful and even-handed when I suggested that you contemplate the potential existence of the Divine from a perspective that is not specific to any one religion.

nozzferrahhtoo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Nothing in a moral context? Perhaps you need to read your own imaginary conversation again

I could read it 100 times. The word „moral“ is not about to appear in it, nor is that meaning. Maybe this is the meaning you have DECIDED to attribute to the word “bad”, but if that is so then the error is yours, not mine. However maybe instead of telling ME to read it over and over, maybe YOU can read it again and tell me to which part you refer?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, very good. But it seems to me that Harris operates under the blanket assumption that all of us are from the same immutable fingers-in-the-ears-la-la-la-I'm-not-listening stock.

If you have an issue with Harris take it up with him. However I am not about to defend this position as it is not mine and I do not beleive it is his either. It certainly does not represent what I have been saying on this thread at all.

Maybe you can do me the justice of re-reading post number #55 and the paragraph starting “Do not get me wrong however” as it shows that this is not the position I hold at all.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

We obviously have very different understanding of what the word evidence means. But despite my scepticism of how you reached your percentages, at least you still have 5% to work off.

Not really. The 95% is just a rough estimate of my own personal experience and is not important. Suffice to say I have never been shown anything that qualifies as evidence as it mostly falls under the category of things that are only evidence if you first assume the conclusion.

The other 5ish%, since you mention it, is merely made up of arguments from personal experience or anecdote. People who say "I have experienced god" and so on.

Suffice to say however, personal anecdote is not evidence and neither is something where you first have to assume the conclusion in order to submit the evidence. Which leaves me, as I said, having looked for evidence for 20 odd years now and not having been shown a scrap of it.

PDN

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Suffice to say however, personal anecdote is not evidence and neither is something where you first have to assume the conclusion in order to submit the evidence. Which leaves me, as I said, having looked for evidence for 20 odd years now and not having been shown a scrap of it.

Personal testimony is evidence, and is treated as such in a court of law. For example, a rapist may be convicted solely on the testimony of those who ID him, without any DNA or forensic evidence. Of course the more such witnesses offer such testimony, and the character of those who testify, is also taken into account by the court. However, it would be inaccurate to say that a court who convicts a man solely on witness testimony is doing so 'in blind faith'.

As for assuming the conclusion - I think we need to be careful not to confuse this with a test where you must assume certain conditions (in other words a test). For example, if the claim is made that trusting the Lord with all your heart will result in many of your prayers being answered. The only way you can test that is to trust in the Lord with all your heart - that is experimentation, and then you find out whether there is a significant increase in answered prayer or not.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote:

When pointing out that "This is God" writ large in the sky might be the result of another supernatural entity (or alien perhaps - given that you'd probably plump for a more naturalistic explanation ) you pulled the very same trick. Not even God can demonstrate he is God - in your thinking. Which shows us the limitations (or maybe arrogance) of the methodology of knowledge in which you place all your faith.

Wicknight wrote: »

It certainly does, but the idea that because that is unsatisfying to us we should just ignore it is quite silly. There is no requirement on the part of the universe to provide to you a way to determine that your god actually exists. Just because you would like to know that God exists and loves you doesn't mean you should be able to.

The point I was trying to make was that you seem to be figuring that God (if he exists) can enable that you know certain things - but just not that he exists. That is a limitation/arrogance that is not so much unsatisfying as it is irrational.

That isn't the atheists issue, it is the theists issue, to justify why they claim to know things they really can't.

My position isn't that you be satisfied that I know what I know. It's that I be. If I can be satisfied then you're left in the agnostic position. And so the question becomes: can God enable a person to know he exists? If he can - then you're an agnostic when faced with a claimant like me.

Because, as I've said, one way (you "just knowing") is indisguisable from a naturally occurring delusion.

So you have to ask what I'm I being expected to trust here? It isn't God because it hasn't even been established yet that God is actually doing anything at all.

What I'm actually being expected to trust is you, trust that you actually can determine the difference between God communicating with you and simply imagining he is.

Which you haven't demonstrated you can, so why exactly would I trust your own judgement?

Let me again point you away from the notion that you must be convinced that I know God exists. All that you need be convinced of is that God is able to demonstrate his existance to someone - in order that you be rendered agnostic on the matter of claimants like me. The focus isn't on my abilities - it's on his abilities

I was asking you how it was that you figured that one means whereby God enabled you to know things (empirical investigation) should be given more time of day than any other way whereby God enables you to know things. Ultimately it would be God who provides all these ways. That the one way provides a means to falsify that which is not knowledge doesn't mean that every way requires that same provision. I mean, if God decides to let you know directly that he exists then there is no need for him to provide a way by which you can falsify that knowledge given that him letting you know can't be false knowledge.

I mean, how do you know that you thought what you thought a second ago. There is no empirical way of knowing - yet you do.

God's ability is has never been the issue. If we assume God exists and is what you guys think he is then he is omnipotent. He can do anything logically possible.

So saying would I trust God to be able to do something is irrelevant. By definition he could do anything.

The issue is can I tell that God has actually done something or not, can I verify to some satisfactory degree that what I think has happened has happened.

This is the part you are ignoring. It is all very well to say that God may have arranged your neurons so you think he exists. But such supposition is pointless without any way of determining, even to the slightest degree, if he has or not.

Saying assume God exists, now can he rearrange my neurons is pointless to the question of whether I believe he exists and has rearranged my neurons.

You could say assume Zeus' exists and has rearranged my neurons, or Loki. Neither assumptions increase my knowledge of the universe.

But if assuming God exists for the sake of argument then you'd acknowledge your having to trust a verification method provided to you by him to determine that he exists! This roundabout reliance on his provision (to provide you with sure knowledge of him) can, I am suggesting, be furnished directly without all this empiricial in-betweenism.

There is nothing in God-provided empirically verified knowledge of God that can be trusted more than any other God-provided knowledge of God, in other words. You seem to value the one over the other for some reason.

I agree that we can't pull ourselves up by our bootstraps so as to know what we know is absolutely the case. We could all be brains in jars.

I'll skip past those parts of your post that appear to elevate empiricism over other forms of what would be God-provided knowing (assuming God exists for the sake of argument)

God cannot "reveal" himself to us through a process that is indistinguishable from a naturally occurring phenomena. That is independent to whether or not God can actually carry out the action itself or not.

I don't think you can use the assumption that religious experience is a naturalistic delusion to suggest that religious experience is indistinguishable from naturalistic delusion. If you can find some other category of very commonly occurring delusion that is known to be naturalistic/as extensive in nature as religious experience then by all means support the point.

No that is not what I'm assuming. I've no idea if there is or is not a creator. There may very well be. But that again has never been the issue. I'm an atheist not because I believer there is no creator deity but because I reject your assertion that you know there is.

You need to be assuming for the sake of argument in order that your own position can be examined from the perspective that he does. This given that you don't know if God exists or not. If he does, then what your position is attempting to do, ;

"..use something the Creator created to establish (or verify) whether there is or isn't a Creator".

Clearly, any failure to arrive at the conclusion a Creator exists via such apparatus means the apparatus is being mis-applied (in the case a Creator exists). Aren't you presuming both the non-existance of God and/or the suitability of the measuring apparatus for detecting God at this point?

The issue is have you (or any other theist) determined that there is a creator and that you communicate with him?

And the answer is no you haven't, or at least not to any standard I would consider to be a requirement for accepting such an assertion as an accurate representation of reality.

The issue isn't my determining anything - one doesn't need to determine something to know something (as the example of our knowing what we think demonstrates. Nor is it your accepting my assertion that God exists.
The issue is your agnosticism in the face of my claiming what I claim.

(delusion) It is not extremely unlikely it is extremely likely.

Then why am I alive after 26 odd years of motorcycle riding (much of it through town traffic)?

Religion survives this under the exception excuse. Yes all humans are prone to delusions of imagining agents in nature that don't actually exist but that doesn't mean my particular religious belief X is not actually true. I'm the exception.

Not particularly convincing.

The aim isn't to convince you that Christianity is true.

And one means provided by him cannot be deemed better than another.

Of course it can, as I've explained.

God cannot reveal himself to man kind by making himself into a tree in the phoenix park. God cannot reveal himself to mankind by making it rain. God cannot reveal himself to you by curing a headache just after you have taken an Aspirin. God cannot reveal himself to you by arranging your neurons in a way that is indistigusable from a known naturally accruing delusion.

God can do all these things sure, but it won't reveal him to us as we will have no idea God has actually done anything.

In which case, none of these are ways which could be said to be ways in which God provides knowledge of himself. I was dealing with ways in which God provides knowledge of himself, not ways which wouldn't provide knowledge of himself - amongst which, your examples.

nozzferrahhtoo

PDN wrote: »

Personal testimony is evidence, and is treated as such in a court of law.

No it is not, not really. If you went into a court with nothing but personal testimony… no body, no weapon, no motive, you would be laughed out. Personal testimony is merely a brick in the wall you have to build. The personal testimony is not in itself evidence, but it must be borne out with the facts and evidence put with it.

In essence, personal testimony is merely an indication of what you need to look for, and no more.

In terms of god therefore, the reason I give it the time of day and ASK for the evidence is because of the personal testimony. There is enough of it for me to believe that the subject of the existence of god warrants further investigation. So I ask for and seek the evidence to back it up.

As I said, to date, I have not been shown a shred of a scrap of evidence to back it up.

Remember the world is full of personal testimony. Most of it on a base stronger than belief in god. Am I to grant credence to it all? Some people testify they are napoleon reincarnated. Some people testify to having met a still living Elvis. Some people testify to having been abducted by, or having witnessed abduction by, alien life forms in space vessels.

However Aliens, gods, Elvis and reincarnation all have one thing in common. They are all entirely devoid of any evidence to back up the testimonies. Therefore I grant them an identical amount of credence each, which is to say: None.

However, I would be interested to know if you can give me an example of a court case where someone was convicted of rape on nothing, literally nothing, but the testimony of the victim? I would be interested to read the case files. Not that, I hasten to point out, how we operate in a court of law has anything to do with how we establish truths about the universe.

PDN wrote: »

For example, if the claim is made that trusting the Lord with all your heart will result in many of your prayers being answered. The only way you can test that is to trust in the Lord with all your heart - that is experimentation, and then you find out whether there is a significant increase in answered prayer or not.

Exactly. Good example. The problem here is there is no control. You are just assuming that the result is due to the cause you postulated. You have no way to suggest that the same series of events would not have occurred anyway. Not to mention your entire test is based on the assumption there is a god, an assumption which you have as yet provided not a shred of a scrap of evidence for.

You have not even given examples of the events and lead ups either. Take for example someone who prayers for a successful job interview and it happens. Maybe this person was putting off the interview over and over. The prayer was not the cause of them getting the job therefore… it was the fact they got up off their rear and tried at all in the end.

Therefore quite often I think prayer is not some tool to achieve an end, but merely a motivator to get people to try in the first place and as we all know, if you do not try you can not succeed. Not that it is helpful in all cases. We are all aware, are we not, of the study on prayer done? Those not prayed for did as well as those prayed for who did not know they were being prayed for. Those who were prayed for AND knew it actually fared worse, possibly due to the stress of fulfilling expectations. Prayer therefore appears to be entirely useless in and of itself and sometimes damaging in the correct scenarios. However not a scrap of a shred of evidence prayer itself has achieved, or influenced, anything but the minds of those engaged in it.

Fanny Cradock

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I could read it 100 times. The word „moral“ is not about to appear in it, nor is that meaning. Maybe this is the meaning you have DECIDED to attribute to the word “bad”, but if that is so then the error is yours, not mine. However maybe instead of telling ME to read it over and over, maybe YOU can read it again and tell me to which part you refer?

Oh dear! I said that your second scenario was couched in a moral context. That the word moral isn't used doesn't alter the framework you hang your point on.

In conversation 2 you imagined the religious person uttering from the following line: "homosexuality is bad because it is against the will of god and his created order". Anything that is against the will of God is called sin. Therefore your very first line sets up a scenario as understood by person 1 to be a moral transgression against the moral law and the law giver.

Btw, unlike the person in your conversation, I don't believe that being gay is a sin in and of itself. Nor do I demand that non-Christians adhere to my morality and my understanding of this thing called sin.

OK, I'm out of this particular debate.



P.S. As for the effectiveness of prayer, perhaps you might be interested in turning back to page 3 and 4 for some alternative views.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

The point I was trying to make was that you seem to be figuring that God (if he exists) can enable that you know certain things - but just not that he exists. That is a limitation/arrogance that is not so much unsatisfying as it is irrational.

It is nothing to do with what information God is trying to show you, it is to do with how you goes about doing it.

God cannot demonstrate to you his existence, or that Fraiser is the best sitcom of all time, through a process that is indistinguishable from a naturally occurring phenomena.

Think of it this way. A Parrot is well know to repeat vocal sounds humans make with no awareness of what he is saying.

Say your parrot watched an episode of some disaster movie and for weeks ways saying "Fire, fire, get out of the building"

Now, weeks after he was doing this you actually have a fire in your house. God decides he will intervene in this tragedy to save the people in the house and he decides to do this by appearing as the parrot and saying "Fire, fire, get out of the building"

Do you think that would work? Probably not, because God has appeared as something that is happening anyway, and as such you don't actually know it is God who made the parrot say that this specific time.

You roll over, say Damn parrot, and die of smoke inhalation in your sleep. You get to heaven and God says What the foobar, didn't I send you a warning, didn't I reveal myself to you through a parrot, and you say you may have done all that supernatural magic but it served no purpose because when you did appear before me I could not tell it was you

The point is that it doesn't matter what God is trying to communicate with you. If he does it in a way where you cannot tell the difference between him doing something and a natural phenomena it is pointless. He cannot reveal himself to you that way because you won't know it is him.

The same holds with what you claim to have experienced. We know what you have experienced does occur naturally. So you cannot say that what has happened to you is actually God doing anything, even if it actually is.

antiskeptic wrote: »

My position isn't that you be satisfied that I know what I know. It's that I be.

And the only thing I'm trying to do is make you aware of the higher logical standards you should be applying to your own conclusions.

antiskeptic wrote: »

But if assuming God exists for the sake of argument then you'd acknowledge your having to trust a verification method provided to you by him to determine that he exists! This roundabout reliance on his provision (to provide you with sure knowledge of him) can, I am suggesting, be furnished directly without all this empiricial in-betweenism.

But that implies that knowing there was an empiricial in-between is unnecessary. It isn't

For example, if I knew the parrot was dead a day before God decided to talk through him then that would put the parrot appearing and saying get out in an entirely different context.

I've gone from a naturally occurring phenomena to one that I've no explanation for at all and which brakes most biological models. That doesn't demonstrate for certain that God is doing something (there is a fundamental limit to how far we can actually explore supernatural explanations)

But it certain shifts the experience into a whole new ball game. It has gone from something that can be easily explained to something that cannot be explained at all and thus you certain would not just roll over in the bed.

The in between bit as you call it is actually really important because we should be thinking not only what we believe, but also why do we believe it.

In my experience a lot of theists seem to not really realise this. It is all about what they believe, with little consideration as to why they believe what they believe, or considering the possibilities that they believe what they believe based on false reasoning or delusion.

antiskeptic wrote: »

In which case, none of these are ways which could be said to be ways in which God provides knowledge of himself. I was dealing with ways in which God provides knowledge of himself, not ways which wouldn't provide knowledge of himself - amongst which, your examples.

Well that is the thing, I find it very difficult to see how an all knowing God wouldn't see all the issues I see with presenting himself in such a manner.

You can almost guarantee that God will not reveal himself in the way you think he has revealed himself to you because 5 minutes thinking about it throws up so many flaws that it would be pointless.

In the same way that if God actually wanted to save you from the burning building he wouldn't present himself in the form of a talking parrot repeating a phrase he has been saying for the last 4 weeks.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

It is nothing to do with what information God is trying to show you, it is to do with how you goes about doing it.

...

The point is that it doesn't matter what God is trying to communicate with you. If he does it in a way where you cannot tell the difference between him doing something and a natural phenomena it is pointless. He cannot reveal himself to you that way because you won't know it is him.

But I've already pointed out the difficulty in this empirical-uber-alles position of yours. In this particular re-iteration we'll suppose God raised your dead parrot to life and shouted a "fire" warning to you through it - and you believed in God as a result of this sufficiently non-natural phenomenon.


Why would you have believed?

Well, it seems you'd have been designed by God to be able to believe in his existance via a device of belief/disbelief installed in you by him, to whit:~ your response to the conclusions arrived at by the mechanism of empiricism. To put it another way: the supposedly neutral moorings (empiricism) from which you launch your evaluation and subsequent belief/disbelief in God turn out to be founded/designed/enabled/installed in you by God himself (in the case of your believing).

You'd be trusting in God (at root) to have provided you with the knowledge of God.

And the only thing I'm trying to do is make you aware of the higher logical standards you should be applying to your own conclusions.

Hopefully the above conundrum will demonstrate the logical irrelevance of God having to meander the long way around to you.

The in between bit as you call it is actually really important because we should be thinking not only what we believe, but also why do we believe it.

In my experience a lot of theists seem to not really realise this. It is all about what they believe, with little consideration as to why they believe what they believe, or considering the possibilities that they believe what they believe based on false reasoning or delusion.

As it appears to me, the 'why' of I know God exists has the same flavour as my knowing the reality around me actually exists (as opposed to my being a brain in a jar). You don't 'why' yourself to that point - it's a starting position from which you shove off on a subsequent journey of discovery. Fittingly, the Bible describes becoming as I am: re-birth. For it is precisely that: life restarted from a different vantage point. One that happens to include God.

Suppose me born sighted in a land of blind men. You're a man patently blind (from my perspective) asking me why I think I can see. Or why I don't consider the possibility of my being deluded when I say I have this ability to perceive things you cannot. Supposing yourself in the same position as me for a moment, you'd recognise the questioners blindness being the motivation for his line of questioning. Wouldn't you?

This atheist line of enquiry (how do you know you aren't deluded/reasoning wrongly) assumes the higher ground of supposing they aren't the blind ones.

Well that is the thing, I find it very difficult to see how an all knowing God wouldn't see all the issues I see with presenting himself in such a manner.

You can almost guarantee that God will not reveal himself in the way you think he has revealed himself to you because 5 minutes thinking about it throws up so many flaws that it would be pointless.

To summarize. The discussion hinges on two points:

1) The assumption that you accept, in principle, that God (if he exists) can reveal his existance to somone (the how being the matter under discussion). And that He can do so in such a way that they are as sure of his existance as they are of anything else.

2) The superiority of one method employed by God over another. And how that notion (superiority when it comes to Gods varying methods of self-revelation) isn't an oxymoron. You are suggesting a God-installed empirical method would be better than another method. The question being asked is "why do you think that?"

Positing methods which wouldn't demonstrate Gods existance isn't dealing with the issue of 2) above

You're adherence to empiricism is abundantly clear. As an aside, could you tell me how it is you know what you're thinking?

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

You'd be trusting in God (at root) to have provided you with the knowledge of God.

That's a circular argument, ie the logic you have used to explain why you know god exists only works if you assume god exists.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Suppose me born sighted in a land of blind men. You're a man patently blind (from my perspective) asking me why I think I can see. Or why I don't consider the possibility of my being deluded when I say I have this ability to perceive things you cannot. Supposing yourself in the same position as me for a moment, you'd recognise the questioners blindness being the motivation for his line of questioning. Wouldn't you?

I can think of a dozen ways right now to demonstrate to a blind man that I have a sense that he doesn't, ie I can provide strong independently verifiable evidence to support my claim. Can you do the same?

An extremely simple example of an experiment to prove to a blind man that I can see is that I'll be able to tell him with 100% accuracy every time how many fingers he's holding up without touching them. With religious claims of this type it seems that the believer offers little more than an unverifiable claim and an appeal to faith. If I told a blind man that I could see but refused to provide a shred of evidence to support my claim, even the simple experiment I just mentioned, I would completely understand if he didn't believe me

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's a circular argument, ie the logic you have used to explain why you know god exists only works if you assume god exists.

Note the "you" being referred to here. Wicknight (the 'you' in question) is the one preferring empirical means as a way for God to demonstrate his existance. But seeing as God comforming so would be immediately revealed as the one behind the system (empiricism: a way to knowledge) employed in the evaluation..

Which is of course, circular: Wicknight'd be trusting God's own system to provide him with his knowledge of God. Circularity is the case with empiricism in general: I have to assume reality exists in order to be able to determine I know something about reality. At these fundamental levels, no one is really concerned about circularity: we assume the reality as we percieve it is real and get on with it.

I can think of a dozen ways right now to demonstrate to a blind man that I have a sense that he doesn't, ie I can provide strong independently verifiable evidence to support my claim. Can you do the same?

All analogies suffer when stretched. There being no particular reason to assume a supernatural-sense should interact with the natural senses in the same way the 5 naturally-directed senses interact with each other.

The point made had to do with querying why the 'sighted' man should have any reason to doubt his sight - simply because a patently blind man can't perceive what he perceives. The sighted man would more readily see the doubters motivation arising from that one's lack - than delusion in himself. Delusion would be the last place the sighted would be expected to investigate.

That's all the analogy is meant to convey.

If I told a blind man that I could see but refused to provide a shred of evidence to support my claim, even the simple experiment I just mentioned, I would completely understand if he didn't believe me

The point of the discussion isn't that you believe. The point is that you be agnostic in the face of my claim.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Note the "you" being referred to here. Wicknight (the 'you' in question) is the one preferring empirical means as a way for God to demonstrate his existance. But seeing as God comforming so would be immediately revealed as the one behind the system (empiricism: a way to knowledge) employed in the evaluation..

Which is of course, circular: Wicknight'd be trusting God's own system to provide him with his knowledge of God. Circularity is the case with empiricism in general: I have to assume reality exists in order to be able to determine I know something about reality. At these fundamental levels, no one is really concerned about circularity: we assume the reality as we percieve it is real and get on with it.

I have to assume reality exists but I don't have to assume that it was created by your god. the point of empiricism is to reduce the number of assumptions that must be made as much as humanly possible. We can never eliminate them all but that's not an excuse for assuming things that we are not in a position to assume, such as the existence of the god of bible. And once you do begin with that assumption, any argument you put forward after that is irrelevant because you're assuming the conclusion

antiskeptic wrote: »

All analogies suffer when stretched - there being no reason to assume a God-sense interacts with the natural in the same way the 5 naturally-directed senses interact with each other. The point made had to do with the sighted man having any reason to doubt his sight - simply because a man patently blind can't perceive what he perceives. The sighted man would more readily see the doubters motivation arising from that one's lack than delusion in himself. Delusion would be the last place the sighted would be expected to investigate.

That's all the analogy is meant to convey.

But what if a man claims to be able to see but goes around bumping into things just as much as the blind man?

There are millions upon millions of people who all make similar claims to yourself but in most cases the claims are mutually exclusive, ie you cannot both be right. I can't say which of you is wrong but because these claims are mutually exclusive I can say with absolute certainty that the majority of people on the planet who are as sure as you of their respective claims are wrong. This alone tells me that personal experience is not a reliable way of determining things like this. So what makes you so special you can be so sure of your own perception to say you're right where millions upon millions of people are wrong, without offering a shred of supporting evidence?

An appropriate analogy would be that both you and another person claim to be able to see but not only do you (arguably) bump into things just as much as the blind man but the surroundings you each describe are totally different. At most one of you is actually seeing so how are you to know which of you is actually seeing and which only thinks he can and how is the blind man to know if either of you are actually seeing or if you both just think you can?

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I have to assume reality exists but I don't have to assume that it was created by your god.

God isn't present in your reality so you'd be wise not to assume he - or anything else that isn't present in your reality- is real. You'd grant however than if God is present in one's reality then the natural thing to do is assume he is real.

the point of empiricism is to reduce the number of assumptions that must be made as much as humanly possible. We can never eliminate them all but that's not an excuse for assuming things that we are not in a position to assume, such as the existence of the god of bible. And once you do begin with that assumption, any argument you put forward after that is irrelevant because you're assuming the conclusion

The application of empiricism is limited to that part of reality that lends itself to the constructs of empiricism. What you seem to be doing is stretching empiricism to comment on that which is clearly couldn't comment (in the case there was something other than the empirical to comment about).

But what if a man claims to be able to see but goes around bumping into things just as much as the blind man?

We see as through a glass darkly .

No one said the sight was 20/20 in all departments.

There are millions upon millions of people who all make similar claims to yourself but in most cases the claims are mutually exclusive, ie you cannot both be right. I can't say which of you is wrong but because these claims are mutually exclusive I can say with absolute certainty that the majority of people on the planet who are as sure as you of their respective claims are wrong. This alone tells me that personal experience is not a reliable way of determining things like this.

Non sequitur in the making. Firstly, I'm not engaged in determining anything anymore that your assumption of the realness of the reality in which you operate is something you determine. Secondly, the presence of many different paths to the supposed summit (many of which are mutually exclusive) says nothing at all about the (in)correctness of any one of them. The Bible suggests Satan behind them all but one which can be a true thing (certainly they share a central characteristic)

So what makes you so special you can be so sure of your own perception to say you're right where millions upon millions of people are wrong, without offering a shred of supporting evidence?

I'm not on my own. I happen to be one of very many who say the same basic thing that I'm saying (irrespective of the many doctrinal differences that seem to separate us). This possible 'delusion' that Wicknight talks of strikes me as a limp attempt to evade dealing with spirituality than any real attempt to address the issue.

And of course, it could be that Allah exists and is reconfiguring my neurological pathways so that I experience God in the way he's described in the Bible. That I know God exists doesn't mean he actually does - I could be a brain in a jar. So could you be w.r.t. to all you know.

Knowledge isn't absolute. It depends on that which is perceived to be real .. being real in fact. So when I say I know God exists, I am adding that rider in unspoken fashion. Unspoken because we could all add the same rider to all we all know.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

God isn't present in your reality so you'd be wise not to assume he - or anything else that isn't present in your reality- is real. You'd grant however than if God is present in one's reality then the natural thing to do is assume he is real.

No, again that's a circular argument. Your entire argument only works if you assume the thing you are trying to determine. The point is that you have to determine whether god is actually present in your reality or if you're one of the millions upon millions of people who only thinks their god is present in their reality even though their god doesn't exist.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The application of empiricism is limited to that part of reality that lends itself to the constructs of empiricism. What you seem to be doing is stretching empiricism to comment on that which is clearly couldn't comment (in the case there was something other than the empirical to comment about).

People love to talk down empiricism until they get sick and want that same empricism to cure them. without empricism all you have is people making outlandish claims and declaring them to be true. That's why there are over 33,000 denominations of christianity but only one theory of gravity.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Non sequitur in the making. Firstly, I'm not engaged in determining anything anymore that your assumption of the realness of the reality in which you operate is something you determine. Secondly, the presence of many different paths to the supposed summit (many of which are mutually exclusive) says nothing at all about the (in)correctness of any one of them. The Bible suggests Satan behind them all but one which can be a true thing (certainly they share a central characteristic)

So how can you be so sure that your one is not one of the many that satan is behind? (or another religion's version of satan)

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not on my own. I happen to be one of very many who say the same basic thing that I'm saying (irrespective of the many doctrinal differences that seem to separate us). This possible 'delusion' that Wicknight talks of strikes me as a limp attempt to evade dealing with spirituality than any real attempt to address the issue.

That's an argument ad populum. There are many people who agree with you but not only do they only agree with you to a certain extent but there are an awful lot more who fundamentally disagree with you. This is not a non-sequitur, it's one of the things that most strongly shows that people aren't nearly as good at this type of thing as they think they are.

antiskeptic wrote: »

And of course, it could be that Allah exists and is reconfiguring my neurological pathways so that I experience God in the way he's described in the Bible. That I know God exists doesn't mean he actually does - I could be a brain in a jar. So could you be w.r.t. to all you know.

Knowledge isn't absolute. It depends on that which is perceived to be real .. being real in fact. So when I say I know God exists, I am adding that rider in unspoken fashion. Unspoken because we could all add the same rider to all we all know.

What you have just described is the whole point of empiricism. Human perception alone has shown itself time and time again to be unreliable, if it was reliable we wouldn't need science. You are using a method to determine god's existence that has proven itself to be unreliable while shunning a method that has proven itself to be reliable. It's been said many times before but it's highly ironic that you're typing on a computer to send me a message across the internet describing the failings of empiricism. There are certain things that we have to assume simply because we have absolutely no way of determining them such as that reality exists but the god of the bible is not one of those things.

Earlier on in the thread you were talking about driving your bike as evidence of the reliablility of your senses but as we've questioned you've retreated further and further until you're back to "brain in a jar" type arguments where we cannot determine anything with any level of certainty and it's futile to try. You determined that you could drive a bike by testing it over a quarter of a million miles but what you're describing here is akin to someone who's never seen a motorbike in their life simply assuming that they have an inherent ability to drive one as well as someone with who's driven a quarter of a million miles and arguing that this assumption is enough and that anyone who refuses to accept their claim to be able to ride one until they actually hop up on one and prove it is deluded.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Suppose me born sighted in a land of blind men. You're a man patently blind (from my perspective) asking me why I think I can see. Or why I don't consider the possibility of my being deluded when I say I have this ability to perceive things you cannot. Supposing yourself in the same position as me for a moment, you'd recognise the questioners blindness being the motivation for his line of questioning. Wouldn't you?

Ok, lets take this analogy and try and explain my position cause I really don't think you are getting it (despite Sam explaining it better than me)

We both live in a world of blind people, a land of blind men so to speak.

Despite being blind we know that due to the way the blind optical nerve works sometimes it produces the experience of seeing shapes and colors. This is explained using normal biology, no need for any supernatural explanation.

Every once and a while though a person claims to be able to see something. Despite this happening quite a bit no one, least those making the claims, have been able to figure out a way to tell if they are actually seeing something, or if it is just the produce of the mis-firing optical nerve.

Now a new blind man comes along, and claim like all the others that they can see.

The first thing anyone looking at their claim is motivated by is skepticism. Ok, here we have another person claiming to see something. Despite the long history of people not being able to back up these claims lets give the person the benefit of the doubt and examine the claim

The first question would be to the blind man How do you know you are actually seeing as opposed to just thinking you are due to a mis-firing optical nerve.

Your answers so far as to why you believe God are basically along the lines of the blind man saying

If we assume I actually was seeing then what would be happening is that light energy hitting my optical nerve would be triggering messages to my brain. My optical nerve is sending messages to my brain. Therefore it is reasonable to suppose I'm seeing.

This, needless to say would not be convincing to anyone else. The next response from anyone observing this would be that the same phenomena can be produced without light actually hitting the nerve, so how have you determined that this is what is actually happening.

The man then says back, How have you determined you aren't a brain in a jar.

This deflection again suggests to those observing (pardon the pun) the proceedings that the man hasn't actually determined he is able to see and is not trying to deflect from this with the age old deflection tactic of "How do we know anything", which of course doesn't actually answer the question.

The man then says he is not trying to convince the rest of us, he knows he is seeing the real world around him and it doesn't matter to us if we believe him or not.

Everyone else just struggs. Fair enough, if the man doesn't care about the standards that the rest of them care about nothing they can do about it.

But it would be highly inaccurate to say that these people don't believe him because they are motivated by jealousy that he can see and they can't. They don't believe him because he has not presented any evidence to suggest that he is actually seeing as opposed to merely a naturally occurring delusion.

For the man to say that if he was seeing this is how it would happen is rather pointless, as it is pointless for you to say that if God exists he could reveal himself to you this way.

As Sam points out that only holds if you first assume your position is correct. You could equally remove God and replace it with an infinite number of possible supernatural explanations.

antiskeptic wrote: »

This atheist line of enquiry (how do you know you aren't deluded/reasoning wrongly) assumes the higher ground of supposing they aren't the blind ones.

No the atheist line of inquiry assumes we are all blind unless you have a very good reason to say we aren't. Which you don't.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're adherence to empiricism is abundantly clear. As an aside, could you tell me how it is you know what you're thinking?

I don't. I also don't know I'm not a brain in a jar.

Your entire argument seems to be along the lines of suggesting because you think you aren't a brain in a jar therefore you aren't a brain in a jar.

Which is a bit odd since if you were a brain in a jar in a perfect simulation of a world, you couldn't tell.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote:

Suppose me born sighted in a land of blind men. You're a man patently blind (from my perspective) asking me why I think I can see. Or why I don't consider the possibility of my being deluded when I say I have this ability to perceive things you cannot. Supposing yourself in the same position as me for a moment, you'd recognise the questioners blindness being the motivation for his line of questioning. Wouldn't you?

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok, lets take this analogy and try and explain my position cause I really don't think you are getting it (despite Sam explaining it better than me)

Fair enough. Bear in mind that you've not started out your response with an answer to the question which asked you to look at things from my perspective. I'll be looking for what you say to deal with the supposition above. Okay?

We both live in a world of blind people, a land of blind men so to speak.

Despite being blind we know that due to the way the blind optical nerve works sometimes it produces the experience of seeing shapes and colors. This is explained using normal biology, no need for any supernatural explanation.

Fair enough - although no discussion on the flavour of the God-perception has been forthcoming (nor is it considered necessary for the purposes of this discussion). The suggestion is that the 'sense' in question is as different (moreso in fact) in flavour to the other 5 senses as the other 5 senses are to each other. And so a sighted man in the kingdom of the blind: in which case the aural system's abilty to produce sounds requiring no supernatural explanation has no bearing on the issue of perceptions by this other sense, sight.

Every once and a while though a person claims to be able to see something. Despite this happening quite a bit no one, least those making the claims, have been able to figure out a way to tell if they are actually seeing something, or if it is just the produce of the mis-firing optical nerve.

Now a new blind man comes along, and claim like all the others that they can see.

The first thing anyone looking at their claim is motivated by is skepticism. Ok, here we have another person claiming to see something. Despite the long history of people not being able to back up these claims lets give the person the benefit of the doubt and examine the claim

The first question would be to the blind man How do you know you are actually seeing as opposed to just thinking you are due to a mis-firing optical nerve.

No problem - I'm perfectly understanding of your view.

But the question above wasn't so much about your view, it was about my response to your view (given the supposition above being true). Assuming the supposition true then you'd see the fruitlessness (from my perspective) of your asking me "how do I know I'm not deluded and the like". You'd be setting up experiements showing me how the aural system can be tricked and suggesting that this is what in fact is going on. You'd see how this would pass over the head of the sighted man.

Where it is we must end up (I am suggesting) is skepticism on your part and the unfazed sighted man scenario up top, on my part. You have your rational for the skepticism you occupy. I have a quite different one for the position you occupy: you are skeptical because of, and only because of, blindness.

There are no routes open to you that cannot easily be fended off by me. You occupy a kingdom of blind men so your assembling hoards of other blind men so as to pronounce the skepticism somehow 'objectivised' by weight of empiricist consensus falls by the wayside. What possible dent could the consensus of 100,000 blind men make in the perception of one sighted one?

The man then says back, How have you determined you aren't a brain in a jar

This deflection again suggests to those observing (pardon the pun) the proceedings that the man hasn't actually determined he is able to see and is not trying to deflect from this with the age old deflection tactic of "How do we know anything", which of course doesn't actually answer the question.

Calling it the age old deflection tactic doesn't deflect from the problem we both face - it only highlights it's resolution: stalemate/skeptical agnosticism. What I'm suggesting you do up top is visualise the assembly of blind men arriving at the one in their midst indeed capable of sight and pronouncing as you do:

"This deflection again suggests to those observing (pardon the pun) the proceedings that the man hasn't actually determined he is able to see and is not trying to deflect from this with the age old deflection tactic of "How do we know anything", which of course doesn't actually answer the question."

..and suppose yourself in his shoes. Should he wonder whether he can see simply because they can't and are skeptical?

The man then says he is not trying to convince the rest of us, he knows he is seeing the real world around him and it doesn't matter to us if we believe him or not.

Everyone else just shrugs. Fair enough, if the man doesn't care about the standards that the rest of them care about nothing they can do about it.

I've repeated a number of times that the point of the discussion isn't that you believe (or disbelieve less) so that shrug of the shoulders might best have taken place nearer the start of the discussion.

If you get to agreeing that stalemate/agnosticism is the truest of positions for you to occupy in the face of my claim then we can wrap up here.

For the man to say that if he was seeing this is how it would happen is rather pointless, as it is pointless for you to say that if God exists he could reveal himself to you this way.

As Sam points out that only holds if you first assume your position is correct. You could equally remove God and replace it with an infinite number of possible supernatural explanations.

Sam knowing there is a computer screen on front of him suffers from the same circular limitation. If he can point out what higher ground he occupies that enables him to escape the circularity of his own position then I'd be interested in hearing it. This is the kind of thing I mean by stalemate. And there is no set of bootstraps I can think of that can elevate Sams position so much as an iota higher than mine.

As pointed out to him, we all have to assume the reality as we perceive it is actually there. Mine just happens to include God and no amount of evidently-to-me blind men could (or should) cause me to question that. Let's face it, if it got to the stage where I was permitting something I assumed to exist (a bunch of (blind!) men) to help me establish whether or not something else I assumed existed, existed (God), then I'd be heading into some very rocky - not to say, irrational, waters indeed.



----

BTW: I'd be interested in your (and Sams) response to the conundrum you face regarding God evidencing himself to you via:

1) a roundabout system of knowing designed and installed (it would transpire) by God, i.e.: empirically verifiable revelation.

2) knowing of his existance by direct personal revelation, i.e. the God sense. Designed and installed (it would transpire) by that same God.

..and why it is you suppose you should value the one system over the other.

Assuming, of course, you suppose God (if he existed) could make himself known to you at all.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Sam knowing there is a computer screen on front of him suffers from the same circular limitation. If he can point out what higher ground he occupies that enables him to escape the circularity of his own position then I'd be interested in hearing it.

I can independently verify that there is computer screen in front of me. My senses could be fooled into thinking that there is a computer screen in front of me so I can ask a line of people to come in and independently verify that they can also see a computer screen. All of those people could be suffering from the same flawed perception as I am so I can then take a scientific tool that is not subject to the same flaws as our perception and have it also verify that there is a computer screen there. One example would be to take a photograph or a video of the screen and verify that it's also visible there and so is not just a trick of the mind.

I could be imagining all of this because I could be a brain in a jar but I can be as sure as a human being can possibly be that there is actually a computer screen in front of me by taking my own perception out of the equation as much as possible and using independent methods to verify what I think I'm seeing. When we get into the fluffy philosophical level it's technically impossible to verify anything because we could be brains in jars but this philosophical idea should not prevent us from trying to verify things and neither should it validate anyone's completely baseless assertions. It doesn't mean that if someone thinks they're perceiving something they're as likely to be right as someone who has a mountain of independent evidence to support their assertion. Imagine you were a witness at a trial and you were asked how you knew the defendant committed the crime. Try saying "how do you know you're not a brain in a jar?" and see how far that gets you.

The human mind is known to be extremely flawed. It can produce false perceptions and does so regularly. The simple fact that there are millions of people who are equally sure as you of completely contradictory ideas prove this. You can say "we all have to assume the reality as we perceive it is actually there. Mine just happens to include God and no amount of evidently blind men could (or should) cause me to question that" all you want but I can find any number of guys who will say exactly the same thing except their reality includes a totally different kind of god. What do you say to people who are as sure as you of something totally contradictory? Would you also argue that nothing you say should cause them to question their perception of reality even though it totally contradicts yours?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'd be interested in your (and Sams) response to the conundrum you face regarding God evidencing himself to you via:

1) a roundabout system of knowing designed and installed (it would transpire) by God, i.e.: empirically verifiable revelation.

2) knowing of his existance by direct personal revelation, i.e. the God sense. Designed and installed by God.

Assuming you suppose God could make himself known to you.

I think that if god was actually making himself known to people he would do it in a way that is an awful lot more reliable than what you call the "god sense" because, as I keep pointing out, there are millions upon millions of people who all think they're using this "god sense" but the overhelming majority of them definitely aren't because all of their ideas gleaned from this so-called god sense are contradictory. I cannot bring myself to trust a sense that I'm supposed to have when I know for a fact that the majority of people using it have been steered towards a false god. I'd have to have some evidence that my god sense is somehow more reliable than theirs. Just because I think something doesn't automatically mean I'm right

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I can independently verify that there is computer screen in front of me. My senses could be fooled into thinking that there is a computer screen in front of me so I can ask a line of people to come in and independently verify that they can also see a computer screen.

Trusting, presumably, the sense you suspect able to fool you into perceiving the computer screen to somehow not fool you into detecting the line of people??

All of those people could be suffering from the same flawed perception as I am so I can then take a scientific tool that is not subject to the same flaws as our perception and have it also verify that there is a computer screen there. One example would be to take a photograph or a video of the screen and verify that it's also visible there and so is not just a trick of the mind.

Adding to the above circularity, we see the same mind which is not trusted to confirm the presence of a screen directly, is deemed suitable for evaluating the presence of a photograph which posits the presence of the screen indirectly.

I could be imagining all of this because I could be a brain in a jar but I can be as sure as a human being can possibly be that there is actually a computer screen in front of me by taking my own perception out of the equation as much as possible and using independent methods to verify what I think I'm seeing.

The point was that you don't take your perception out of the equation at all. Sitting at the root of all you know are;

a) your perceptions,

b) your trusting that your perceptions accurately reflect a reality you assume to be there.

When we get into the fluffy philosophical level it's technically impossible to verify anything because we could be brains in jars but this philosophical idea should not prevent us from trying to verify things and neither should it validate anyone's completely baseless assertions. It doesn't mean that if someone thinks they're perceiving something they're as likely to be right as someone who has a mountain of independent evidence to support their assertion.

Okay. What independent evidence can you produce to support the knowledge you have that you thought what you were thinking a minute ago? I'll presume you know what you were thinking then, and I'll ask that you not disappear out the diversionary escape hatch marked "there is empirical evidence that we think"

You know what you thought. Independent evidence for that knowledge, please.

The human mind is known to be extremely flawed. It can produce false perceptions and does so regularly. The simple fact that there are millions of people who are equally sure as you of completely contradictory ideas prove this. You can say "we all have to assume the reality as we perceive it is actually there. Mine just happens to include God and no amount of evidently blind men could (or should) cause me to question that" all you want but I can find any number of guys who will say exactly the same thing except their reality includes a totally different kind of god.

Which only goes to show the limitations involved in saying "I know x". You can know; but it doesn't mean it's actually the case. Not in the case of your computer screen, and not in the case of our God.

Which means we're each left with simply supposing that we are accurately perceiving reality (unless we each have grounds to suppose that we aren't doing so). And it's for us to decide where it is we draw the line of assumption. Me, I draw it at the line of what I perceive: thus I trust there is a line of people there to tell me my screen exists. But I don't actually call on them, because I trust too, my ability to percieve the screen. And avoid going in the circles you do above.

What do you say to people who are as sure as you of something totally contradictory? Would you also argue that nothing you say should cause them to question their perception of reality even though it totally contradicts yours?

I'd be happy to discuss it with them and would be prepared to settle for agnosticism on what they say they know. Like I say, knowledge depends on one big fat assumption regarding ones own ability to percieve. And when one isn't prepared to scribe the circle that is Empiricism (with all the bootstrapping involved in same) then agnosticism is the only remaining option.

I think that if god was actually making himself known to people he would do it in a way that is an awful lot more reliable than what you call the "god sense" because, as I keep pointing out, there are millions upon millions of people who all think they're using this "god sense" but the overhelming majority of them definitely aren't because all of their ideas gleaned from this so-called god sense are contradictory.

This doesn't really address the conundrum. No matter what method God used to reveal himself to you, you'd be trusting in God having made that method a reliable on for you to know it's him. Given that, what matter what method, so long as you trust it's reliable?

Remember, the sense I trust is merely an arrangement of atoms in your brain (we might suppos for the sake of argument). Something God can arrange by all manner of means. You need to explain why his doing so the one way (via empirical experience) is superior to another way of his doing so - given that he'd be the one operating both systems.

I cannot bring myself to trust a sense that I'm supposed to have when I know for a fact that the majority of people using it have been steered towards a false god. I'd have to have some evidence that my god sense is somehow more reliable than theirs. Just because I think something doesn't automatically mean I'm right

From the above point we see that it's not you you'd be relying on (at root) whatever way it was that you knew God existed. You'd be relying on God - the instigator, designer, installer of the system whereby you know.

It should be realised also that if God, then the perceptions which conclude the existance false gods wouldn't be the same as the sense that detects the true God. The problem lies with you, an outsider, not being able to tell the difference between them. But there would be a difference between them and so you wouldn't be talking of the same sense.

Your objection seems to centre on how you can know that what I know is the case. I agree you can't. But what I don't think you can say is that God is unable to reveal himself directly to a person so that they are as sure of his existance as they are of anything else. Such a task would seem like a mere trifle to me, and one not at all requiring the invocation of but one system of knowledge designed by him.

I might have made this point before but in worshipping at the throne of Empiricism, are you not trying to jump through the impossible hoop of utilising that which would have been designed by God (in the case he exists) to confirm or deny the existance of God. I mean, how could you utlise the created (empiricism) to confirm the Creator without assuming that which you are trying to demonstrate?

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Trusting, presumably, the sense you suspect able to fool you into perceiving the computer screen to somehow not fool you into detecting the line of people??

Adding to the above circularity, we see the same mind which is not trusted to confirm the presence of a screen directly, is deemed suitable for evaluating the presence of a photograph which posits the presence of the screen indirectly.

The point was that you don't take your perception out of the equation at all. Sitting at the root of all you know are;

a) your perceptions,

b) your trusting that your perceptions accurately reflect a reality you assume to be there.

Okay. What independent evidence can you produce to support the knowledge you have that you thought what you were thinking a minute ago? I'll presume you know what you were thinking then, and I'll ask that you not disappear out the diversionary escape hatch marked "there is empirical evidence that we think"

You know what you thought. Independent evidence for that knowledge, please.

Which only goes to show the limitations involved in saying "I know x". You can know; but it doesn't mean it's actually the case. Not in the case of your computer screen, and not in the case of our God.

Which means we're each left with simply supposing that we are accurately perceiving reality (unless we each have grounds to suppose that we aren't doing so). And it's for us to decide where it is we draw the line of assumption. Me, I draw it at the line of what I perceive: thus I trust there is a line of people there to tell me my screen exists. But I don't actually call on them, because I trust too, my ability to percieve the screen. And avoid going in the circles you do above.

I'd be happy to discuss it with them and would be prepared to settle for agnosticism on what they say they know. Like I say, knowledge depends on one big fat assumption regarding ones own ability to perceive. And when one isn't prepared to scribe the circle that is Empiricism (with all the bootstrapping involved in same) then agnosticism is the only remaining option.

This doesn't really address the conundrum. No matter what method God used to reveal himself to you, you'd be trusting in God having made that method a reliable on for you to know it's him. Given that, what matter what method, so long as you trust it's reliable?

Remember, the sense I trust is merely an arrangement of atoms in your brain (we might suppos for the sake of argument). Something God can arrange by all manner of means. You need to explain why his doing so the one way (via empirical experience) is superior to another way of his doing so - given that he'd be the one operating both systems.

From the above point we see that it's not you you'd be relying on (at root) whatever way it was that you knew God existed. You'd be relying on God - the instigator, designer, installer of the system whereby you know.

It should be realised also that if God, then the perceptions which conclude the existance false gods wouldn't be the same as the sense that detects the true God. The problem lies with you, an outsider, not being able to tell the difference between them. But there would be a difference between them and so you wouldn't be talking of the same sense.

At its root empiricism relies on perception but only at its root. Empiricism uses as many different methods as possible to verify the same conclusion, for example scientists use 3 or 4 different methods to measure the age of the Earth. One method could be wrong but four are less likely to be. If I want to verify the presence of a monitor, before I even call anyone else in or bring in scientific equipment I can use my senses of sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell so that all 5 senses have come to the same conclusion. Five senses are less likely to be wrong than one. Five people are less likely to be wrong than one. 5 different types of scientific equipment are less likely to be wrong than one. Five attempts at the same experiment are less likely to be wrong than one. Five attempts at different experiments to confirm the same thing are less likely to be wrong than one. Yes it all comes down to perception in the end but you're perceiving it in many different ways with each method confirming the other methods

Each time you use a different method to verify your perception you make it less likely that you're wrong but you're trying to argue that there's no point doing any of that, whether you just assume something or verify it a hundred different ways you're equally likely to be right and you should just forego all that silly science and assume that you're right about whatever you happen to think. Sorry mate but every time you use one of the many many fruits of empiricism you prove yourself wrong. Nothing man has ever made was made right first time because our perception is flawed, it was all refined through a process of trial and error, ie empiricism. Empiricism does not always arrive at the right answer but it has shown itself time and time and time again to be a hell of a lot better than one guy declaring that he's right about something. If empiricism was actually as you think it is, a circular waste of time that provides no benefit over simply assuming you're right, human beings would still be living in caves. The entirety of human accomplishment proves you wrong and if you're so sure of that we're all just "worshipping at the alter" of this useless process I think you should go and live in a cave and stop reaping the rewards of this system that you think is so useless. You and I both know that empiricism reaps endless benefits and if you could independently verify god's existence you'd jump at the chance but because you can't you've had to come up with all these reasons for why you shouldn't have to verify it and it's enough to "just know". tell me antiskeptic, if you were ill and you had two people offering to help you with dangerous procedures, one of whom had ten peer reviewed journals demonstrating that his procedure worked and the other "just knew" that what he was going to do would work, which would you pick and why?

edit: in fact empiricism can be empirically shown to be better than one guy declaring that he's right about something

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your objection seems to centre on how you can know that what I know is the case.

No it doesn't. It centres on how can you know you what you think you know is the case when there are millions of people who are just as sure as you of contradictory things? Your entire position rests on the assumption that your perception alone is all the verification you need but the existence of billions of people who disagree with you proves you wrong. If perception alone was good enough there would be no such thing as disagreement. As far as I'm concerned it's just ego, you just think you're better than them at perceiving the world. When you shun independent verification there's nothing left except "I'm right and you're wrong so there" which goes some way to explaining why religion has caused so much conflict

antiskeptic wrote: »

I might have made this point before but in worshipping at the throne of Empiricism, are you not trying to jump through the impossible hoop of utilising that which would have been designed by God (in the case he exists) to confirm or deny the existance of God. I mean, how could you utlise the created (empiricism) to confirm the Creator without assuming that which you are trying to demonstrate?

No I'm not. You seem to be suggesting that if someone designed something it should for some reason be impossible to verify that they designed it

I have to assume that creation exists but that does not mean in any way, shape or form that I have to assume it was created by some Jewish guy who lived 2000 years ago. I think we're experiencing a common problem where theists seem to assume that their particular perception of god is the only possibility, that if there is any god it must be their god, and if they're wrong it must mean that the atheists are right but that is of course not the case. Even if I approached the problem with the assumption that there is a creator, I would be no closer to believing Christianity over Hinduism than I am today. The question is not "Is there a god?", it's "If there is a god, which one is it?"

nozzferrahhtoo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Oh dear! I said that your second scenario was couched in a moral context.

I fail to recognise this as a moral context nor did I intend that meaning. The person calling it bad could, for example, merely be referring to the fact that it is inadvisable to go against the “bosses orders”. Or that it is bad because going against it’s will tends to lead to other unfortunate consequences. Nothing about morality there…. at…. all.

However I repeat yet again, the content of the conversations is irrelevant to the point that I was actually making and one you seem keen to leave lying forgotten in the corner. The point I am making is that there is a difference between faith as a conversation stopper when you compare its use IN a conversation, and its use as a topic OF conversation, which is the point you made which started this whole tangent off.

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

This atheist line of enquiry (how do you know you aren't deluded/reasoning wrongly) assumes the higher ground of supposing they aren't the blind ones.

The difference being of course that, like our conversation before, sight is a „sense“ which we can actually establish the existence of independently before going into a conversation of blindness and seeing. So it is not circular.

This is not true of your position. You have assumed X (that there is a god) you then assumed Y (that there is a sense for sensing said entity) and you then apply Y as evidence for X and X as evidence for Y. This is circular and so kills your analogy to sight.

Should you, at any time, manage to establish the existence of either X or Y independently of the other, you would be on almost unassailably strong ground in this discussion.

However at this time it is about as useful to me as someone saying “I am Napoleon reincarnated and the only reason you do not believe that is you lack the sense I have which enables me to see my past lives”.

Why I should accept this reasoning from you, and not from our would be Napoleon, is something I am yet to see you establish.

Fanny Cradock

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I fail to recognise this as a moral context nor did I intend that meaning. The person calling it bad could, for example, merely be referring to the fact that it is inadvisable to go against the “bosses orders”. Or that it is bad because going against it’s will tends to lead to other unfortunate consequences. Nothing about morality there…. at…. all.

Yes, very good. But I've already explained how al that is twaddle. At the root you still have to ask yourself why it is against the "bosses orders" (which is no different an option from what has already been suggested) or why it will bring "unfortunate consequences". In both cases the answer points to a moral transgression.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

However I repeat yet again, the content of the conversations is irrelevant to the point that I was actually making and one you seem keen to leave lying forgotten in the corner. The point I am making is that there is a difference between faith as a conversation stopper when you compare its use IN a conversation, and its use as a topic OF conversation, which is the point you made which started this whole tangent off.

I don't buy your hyperbole, I'm afraid. I've already discussed the issue in detail. I've even given examples how faith used in a conversation ("a Christian context") doesn't end that conversation. Indeed, previous examples aside, denominational ecumenism (a conversation held in faith and about it) would be rather unfruitful if what you insist to be true is actually true.

I've also highlighted the curious selective criticism of faith by Harris. It seems that all other forms of faith slip through his fingers as he goes for the jugular of religion.

The tone of your posts suggest you are getting frustrated. Reply if you wish but I'm going to do us both a favour and bow out.

nozzferrahhtoo

I still do not see the problem.

I could say „This is a cleaning product“ and you could say „I have an example here of it not being used as a cleaning product, so you are wrong” as if this changes the fact it is a cleaning product.

I stand by my claim that faith is a conversation stopper. Just because you can find examples where it is not, does not negate my point.

If we have a long conversation about something and we stick to evidence and data we have then we can have the argument until a conclusion is reached.

If however in a discussion you present as data or evidence for your position, data or evidence you do not actually appear to have, then this kills the conversation. Especially if you start making up things like “faith” to support the existence of the data or evidence that you have entirely created.

So, if one were to present an entity like god in a conversation and cite Faith as your only support for that, then this is a conversation stopper. One has literally declared onesself unassailable by further conversation, having offered nothing to support the existence of the entity in question, nor any way to dismiss the claim.

If, as in the example I said, an attack on homosexuality for example consisted of “Homosexuality should be stamped out because it is against gods plan”, what more can I possibly say to that person or have said to me? There is nothing at all to lend a single shred of credence to the persons claim, but they have decided to go with it anyway. Conversation is impossible on the issue.

Were anyone to actually present some data, evidence or argument to lend any credence to the existence of this entity or that this is in fact its opinion or that its opinion should even count, then we could talk. This is however not forthcoming.

jmaycock

PDN wrote: »

So, for example, consider our truth seeker. They have reached the following incremental beliefs by a series of small steps based on their experimentation and/or assessment of the evidence.

1. That belonging to a church community is beneficial.
2. That they prefer being in the company of these church people more than with other people.
3. That when they pray they see a significant number of prayers answered when compared to similar situations where they didn't pray.
4. That asking Jesus to come into their life (even without fully understanding what that might mean or who He might be) appears to have improved their life.
5. That reading the Bible describes a worldview that makes sense to them, and which explains, in their opinion, certain features of their life and past events better than any other explanation anyone has offered them.
6. That when they began applying biblical teachings and principles to other parts of their lives (for example, in the area of their marriage) they saw an improvement in those areas.

This list is well put together and for some will be convincing, but, and it's a rather large but, for 95%+ of the world's population this list is not applicable. Most of the religious people in this world are religious because they were born into religious families and children who are born in Pakistan are likely to be Muslim, whereas children born in Ireland are more likely to be Christians. I have spoken to many Christians and their process is nothing like you describe.

Now if all religions (and the possibility that there is no God) were thought equally and children were left to make up their own minds, allowed to think critically and weigh up all the options, I would speculate that the landscape of the religious world would look a lot different.

Furthermore, if your God is all powerful, why not pray for some kind of miracle that cannot be ascribed to coincidence. Maybe God works in mysteries ways or maybe he does't work at all.

TravelJunkie

My 2 cents on the OP.

I totally agree with antiskeptic.

It is one of my favourite verses, and the way you've explained it, has put into words what I couldn't.

great revelation, thanks.

It does pose a problem for people who want 100% evidence before they believe, but, I think to believe in God takes a leap of faith in any circumstance.

How does one make that first leap of faith? Well I think this is one of the miracles the human spirit.

There rest can only be understood afterwards.

antiskeptic

TravelJunkie wrote: »

My 2 cents on the OP.

I totally agree with antiskeptic.

It is one of my favourite verses, and the way you've explained it, has put into words what I couldn't.

great revelation, thanks.

My pleasure. Except that you don't seem to agree with me . Compare..

You said:

TravelJunkie wrote:

]It does pose a problem for people who want 100% evidence before they believe, but, I think to believe in God takes a leap of faith in any circumstance.

Whereas I said:

Our verse above (Hebrews 11:1) tells us the biblical view of faith sees faith as synonymous with evidence. It's not evidence that can be detected by 5 sense means (as indicated by "...not seen"). Rather it is detected primarily by the God sense which is switched on - on being reborn.

Hebrews tells us that faith is evidence (of a particular, non-empirical kind). There is no leaping involved with evidence - rather, you'll believe x once presented with evidence of x. And since the onus is on God to provide us with the faith/evidence in order that we can believe he exists, there is no leap involved on our part.

I'd need "100% evidence" before I'd believe in something as fantastical as God-of-the-Bible (or god of any sort). It turns out that I got 100% evidence. From God. And so I believe in God.


Thus..

How does one make that first leap of faith?

One doesn't. God delivers it to your door. You ... do nothing.

TravelJunkie

antiskeptic wrote: »

My pleasure. Except that you don't seem to agree with me . Compare..

You said:



Whereas I said:



Hebrews tells us that faith is evidence (of a particular, non-empirical kind). There is no leaping involved with evidence - rather, you'll believe x once presented with evidence of x. And since the onus is on God to provide us with the faith/evidence in order that we can believe he exists, there is no leap involved on our part.
I'd need "100% evidence" before I'd believe in something as fantastical as God-of-the-Bible (or god of any sort). It turns out that I got 100% evidence. From God. And so I believe in God.


Thus..




One doesn't. God delivers it to your door. You ... do nothing.

I disagree a little.

Firstly, I understand that evidence means different things to different people and it is a personal matter.

However, it takes effort on our part as we have to act on our faith.

For example, when the penny dropped, I believed, profoundly, that God is true, and Jesus is the way the truth and the light with great certainty, but I still had to confess this (speak it out loud). It takes a bit of guts to do this (eg. say you're in a church and you have to put your hand up or go to the front to be prayed for?)

Or later, if you're already a christian, and God urges you to tell a prophecy or go up to someone and say something, it takes trust.

Maybe God takes us 95% there and we have to go the other 5%.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hebrews tells us that faith is evidence (of a particular, non-empirical kind). There is no leaping involved with evidence - rather, you'll believe x once presented with evidence of x. And since the onus is on God to provide us with the faith/evidence in order that we can believe he exists, there is no leap involved on our part.

I'd need "100% evidence" before I'd believe in something as fantastical as God-of-the-Bible (or god of any sort). It turns out that I got 100% evidence. From God. And so I believe in God.


Thus..

One doesn't. God delivers it to your door. You ... do nothing.

Just to be clear here, are you saying that you did nothing and god presented 100% evidence of his existence to your door so you now believe? I have been presented with no such evidence so it hardly seems fair for god to present this evidence to some people but not to others and then punish the people he didn't present the evidence to for not believing, no?

Or would you be of the opinion that he must have presented me with the evidence at some point in my life and I ignored it? And if so, what was the nature of this evidence so I can look out for it if he tries it again?

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Just to be clear here, are you saying that you did nothing and god presented 100% evidence of his existence to your door so you now believe?

I did do something. I believed God (which doesn't require belief in God nor even knowing that it's God you happen to be believing when it's actually him you're believing*). Because I did that (believed God) I fulfilled the criterion for his turning up and demonstrating his existance to me - after which I believed in God.

In other words, a person tips over the fulcrum point from Lost status to Found status on their believing God. God turning up personally - enabling the person to believe in God .. is a subsequent event.

*for example, if you believe 'murder is wrong' then you also happen to believe God (who would, it is argued be the one 'telling' you - by way of conscience - that murder is wrong). So, even though you're an atheist you can believe God in this general way. Indeed, atheists believe God on a whole raft of things. Their moral relativism might stray from Gods absolute - but is related to it all the same.

I have been presented with no such evidence so it hardly seems fair for god to present this evidence to some people but not to others and then punish the people he didn't present the evidence to for not believing, no?

You never asked why I think God presented evidence of his existance to me and not (we'll assume) to you. If you knew the answer to that then you might have another view on whether it's fair or not. For example, if it is your actions that ensure you continue disbelieving God (in the matter which he's attempting to bring you to belief on) then you could see how culpability for the consequences could be laid at your own door.

Or would you be of the opinion that he must have presented me with the evidence at some point in my life and I ignored it? And if so, what was the nature of this evidence so I can look out for it if he tries it again?

I'm not of the opinion that God presented you with evidence as to his existance. If he had - in the same sense he's done for me - then you'd believe he exists just like I do.

antiskeptic

TravelJunkie wrote: »

I disagree a little.

Firstly, I understand that evidence means different things to different people and it is a personal matter.

This is true. But what the Hebrews passage considers faith to be is evidence leading to certainty. It's the very substance of our hope. The very best kind of evidence of all. It's not the kind of evidence that can have this person lean this way and that person lean that way. It's not fuzzy evidence in other words.

However, it takes effort on our part as we have to act on our faith.

For example, when the penny dropped, I believed, profoundly, that God is true, and Jesus is the way the truth and the light with great certainty, but I still had to confess this (speak it out loud). It takes a bit of guts to do this (eg. say you're in a church and you have to put your hand up or go to the front to be prayed for?)

My contention would be that you were already saved at this point (prior to your confessing). What you did subsequently, by way of public announcement, didn't take faith of the Hebrews type - it took courage. You already had 100% faith that God existed and needed no more to express it.

A person who is saved is in a position to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Their confession is a consequence of their being saved - not a cause of it. It's the same kind of thing as operates in James 'famous' "faith without works is dead".

Or later, if you're already a christian, and God urges you to tell a prophecy or go up to someone and say something, it takes trust.

Maybe God takes us 95% there and we have to go the other 5%.

Indeed. But the faith in question here is that leading to salvation - which involves no blind leaping - not the expression of faith/trust which has us obey God subsequently.

Take your own case for instance: did you take a blind leap when it came to knowing God exists for sure. Or did God do that work for you by simply providing irrefutable evidence. That evidence (I am supposing Hebrews to say) is also called faith. Faith, the evidence of things (like God, Jesus Christ as Lord) unseen.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

I did do something. I believed God (which doesn't require belief in God nor even knowing that it's God you happen to be believing when it's actually him you're believing*). Because I did that (believed God) I fulfilled the criterion for his turning up and demonstrating his existance to me - after which I believed in God.


In other words, a person tips over the fulcrum point from Lost status to Found status on their believing God. God turning up personally - enabling the person to believe in God .. is a subsequent event

for example, if you believe 'murder is wrong' then you also happen to believe God (who would, it is argued be the one 'telling' you - by way of conscience - that murder is wrong). So, even though you're an atheist you can believe God in this general way. Indeed, atheists believe God on a whole raft of things. Their moral relativism might stray from Gods absolute - but is related to it all the same.

But what if I see no connection between believing that murder is wrong and believing an old story about a man walking on water?

antiskeptic wrote: »

You never asked why I think God presented evidence of his existance to me and not (we'll assume) to you.

well you did say you did nothing and are now saying that you did something.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you knew the answer to that then you might have another view on whether it's fair or not. For example, if it is your actions that ensure you continue disbelieving God (in the matter which he's attempting to bring you to belief on) then you could see how culpability for the consequences could be laid at your own door.

I'm not of the opinion that God presented you with evidence as to his existance. If he had - in the same sense he's done for me - then you'd believe he exists just like I do.

I thought that all sin was sin in the eyes of god, that we are all deserving of hell. And I also thought that god was supposed to love us all and want us to believe. What could I have possibly done in my life that would make him hide himself away from me while giving you 100% proof? By your own definition I aready believe god on many things even if I don't realise that's what I'm doing. I fulfil the criterion just as much as you so why you and not me?

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But what if I see no connection between believing that murder is wrong and believing an old story about a man walking on water?

It makes no odds that you don't see it - not for the purposes of your salvation (or no) being determined by you (even if, in the case of your damnation, you'll only find out that you determined it and how you determined it after it's too late to alter anything). Believing that old story about a man walking on water belongs to the same category of events as the one in which God demonstrates his existance to you 100% - it's a belief that is evidenced to you post your salvation - not prior to it.


-

Assume (for the sake of illustrating the above point) that God exists and is in fact the 'source' at the root of your belief that murder is wrong. You'll agree that your believing murder is wrong is your believing God on the matter - even though you're not conciously aware of it and have no belief in God's existance.

God is the one 'saying' it, you're the one believing it - ergo, you believe God.

Now expand that idea out into all kinds of areas of right and wrong. We'd likely find you believe God on a large number of things and disbelieve him in a large number of other things. Consider, for example, how many times a day you have opportunity to display your belief/disbelief in the simple notion "do unto others". My guess is that you, like me, will display both belief and disbelief - depending on the circumstances. Many times each day!

Now actions arising out of your believing/disbelieving him bring consequences and forces to bear on you. Examples of this would be a clear conscience or a guilty one. Or sexual health or an STD (whether due to your disbelieving God or your wifes disbelieving God - no smear intended). These forces are multifold: physical/emotional/psychological/spiritual and are utilised by God in his attempt to bring you to belief about an overall issue he has in mind regarding you - namely, that there is something seriously amiss with you, something you can't evade and something you can't fix yourself.

Similar to other areas of belief, you can (come to) believe God regarding this specific case just as you can believe that murder is wrong. You can however resist bring brought to that belief - just as your resistance sustains other disbeliefs. In which case your resistance will provide for your damnation. Damnation can be seen as the terminus attaching to the path which refuses to be brought to saving belief.

I thought that all sin was sin in the eyes of god, that we are all deserving of hell. And I also thought that god was supposed to love us all and want us to believe. What could I have possibly done in my life that would make him hide himself away from me while giving you 100% proof? By your own definition I aready believe god on many things even if I don't realise that's what I'm doing. I fulfil the criterion just as much as you so why you and not me?

The general beliefs that people have which align with what God 'says', shouldn't be confused with a specific belief arrived at which results in your salvation (after which God reveals his existance to a person plainly and unmistakably)

The default position - until such time as a person arrives at this specific belief - is God's hiding of himself from them. That specific belief involves, as I say above, the person arriving at a certain conviction about themselves. Because I arrived at that conviction, I was saved (because arriving at that conviction satisfies the criterion a man must satisfy in order that he be saved). And because you haven't (yet... hopefully) arrived at that conviction, you haven't satisfied the criterion for salvation and so are not saved. And because you are not saved, God hasn't demonstrated his existance to you in this 100% way.

It's important to remember the place for God's 'showing up'. It's a post salvation event ... not prior to salvation event. And the cause of salvation in the first place is believing God - not believing in God.

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But what if I see no connection between believing that murder is wrong and believing an old story about a man walking on water?

I thought that all sin was sin in the eyes of god, that we are all deserving of hell. And I also thought that god was supposed to love us all and want us to believe. What could I have possibly done in my life that would make him hide himself away from me while giving you 100% proof? By your own definition I aready believe god on many things even if I don't realise that's what I'm doing. I fulfil the criterion just as much as you so why you and not me?

What have you done in your life? You have, quite deliberately, rejected God. It is quite clear Sam, to anyone who reads your posts, that your rejection of God and of Christianity is more than intellectual. It is also clear that whatever evidence is provided to you, you will find a way of explaining it away - because that is what you want.

God sees your heart, and He gives you want you want. You want to reject Him and He allows you to do that. I used to be in the same boat. If, 30 years ago, I had discovered conclusive evidence supporting Christianity, I would have been very annoyed.

Then, through a combination of circumstances, I began looking at things with an open mind. It's not that I wanted to jump into Christianity whether it all added up or not (I detest contradictory beliefs) - but now I examined it in a different way. I was no longer examining Christianity and the Bible in order to prove them wrong - I was examining them to see if they were true or not. And once my attitude changed - from one of attack to one of genuinely seeking after truth - then God revealed to me what I needed to see.

Jesus said, "Seek and you will find".

If you seek for stuff to bash Christianity with, then you can find it. But that is not seeking truth.

If you seek for confirmation of every belief you were raised with as a child or that your religion teaches, then you can find it. But that is not seeking truth.

But if you genuinely seek truth, whether it produces results that you like or not, then you can find it.

Very few people actually seek truth. Just look at the debates in these fora. Everyone googles wikipedia to find articles that will support their argument (and conveniently ignore anything that contradicts it). They read newspapers and watch TV that will reinforce their ideological stance. How many people actually read books without knowing in advance that they will confirm their existing beliefs? I mean, reading books because they have a genuine interest in the subject and want to learn more about it? But, for those who genuinely seek truth, there is much to be discovered.

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Assuming (for the sake of illustrating the above point) that God exists and is in fact the 'source' at the root of your belief that murder is wrong, then your believing murder is wrong is in fact your believing God on the matter - even though you're not conciously aware of it. Now, expand that idea right out into all kinds of areas of right and wrong. We'd likely find you believe God on a large number of things and disbelieve him in a large number of other things.

Yes, but I also agree with Gandalf the magician on a lot of things, The mad hatter and the Cheshire cat were not far off on a few things also, and I heartily agree with a few of Supermans outlooks on life.

None of this grants even a slight modicum of credence to the notion these characters exist. Who I am actually agreeing with is the author of the text.

Given there is nothing on offer to suggest your god exists, the only conclusion left available is that you and I are agreeing with the author of the text (Bible) and not with the character therein.

The danger, of course, with assuming that you are agreeing with a god and not with an author, is that this often comes with the impression that god is right in all things. Therefore you risk possibly negating the ability to disagree with the author on anything else he says in the book, based solely on agreeing with him on others.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

What have you done in your life? You have, quite deliberately, rejected God. It is quite clear Sam, to anyone who reads your posts, that your rejection of God and of Christianity is more than intellectual. It is also clear that whatever evidence is provided to you, you will find a way of explaining it away - because that is what you want.

God sees your heart, and He gives you want you want. You want to reject Him and He allows you to do that. I used to be in the same boat. If, 30 years ago, I had discovered conclusive evidence supporting Christianity, I would have been very annoyed.

Then, through a combination of circumstances, I began looking at things with an open mind. It's not that I wanted to jump into Christianity whether it all added up or not (I detest contradictory beliefs) - but now I examined it in a different way. I was no longer examining Christianity and the Bible in order to prove them wrong - I was examining them to see if they were true or not. And once my attitude changed - from one of attack to one of genuinely seeking after truth - then God revealed to me what I needed to see.

Jesus said, "Seek and you will find".

If you seek for stuff to bash Christianity with, then you can find it. But that is not seeking truth.

If you seek for confirmation of every belief you were raised with as a child or that your religion teaches, then you can find it. But that is not seeking truth.

But if you genuinely seek truth, whether it produces results that you like or not, then you can find it.

Very few people actually seek truth. Just look at the debates in these fora. Everyone googles wikipedia to find articles that will support their argument (and conveniently ignore anything that contradicts it). They read newspapers and watch TV that will reinforce their ideological stance. How many people actually read books without knowing in advance that they will confirm their existing beliefs? I mean, reading books because they have a genuine interest in the subject and want to learn more about it? But, for those who genuinely seek truth, there is much to be discovered.

Yeah but PDN you think "the truth" is the comforting arms of God and Christianity.

So the "Truth" just happens to give you a God who loves you, an authority to dish out morality and ethics and an after life, the stuff most humans desire.

And all this is based on religious faith no one can confirm or test to a standard independently of personal assessment. You guys give lip service to science (medicine, its great) but then you wholly criticizes people who refuse to accept your religion because it has not demonstrated itself to a scientific standard. And then you criticize science when it start to explain why you believe what you believe but without God.

It is some what ridiculous then criticizes Sam for sticking to a truth that offers him nothing but cold hard uncaring view of the universe around him. He may be bias (we may all be bias) but his bias doesn't offer him half of what yours does. It doesn't claim to help him, offer him what he wants, give him love, give him life after death, turn his life around etc etc.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Yeah but PDN you think "the truth" is the comforting arms of God and Christianity.

So the "Truth" just happens to give you a God who loves you, an authority to dish out morality and ethics and an after life, the stuff most humans desire.

And all this is based on religious faith no one can confirm or test to a standard independently of personal assessment. You guys give lip service to science (medicine, its great) but then you wholly criticizes people who refuse to accept your religion because it has not demonstrated itself to a scientific standard. And then you criticize science when it start to explain why you believe what you believe but without God.

It is some what ridiculous then criticizes Sam for sticking to a truth that offers him nothing but cold hard uncaring view of the universe around him. He may be bias (we may all be bias) but his bias doesn't offer him half of what yours does. It doesn't claim to help him, offer him what he wants, give him love, give him life after death, turn his life around etc etc.

Er, I'm not criticising Sam. He's the one who has come into the Christianity forum in order to criticise.

I'm simply answering his question. And, since it doesn't provide the kind of answer he's looking for, I have no doubt that he will summarily reject it (as you have just done).

What I've said is that if you genuinely seek truth you will find it. It doesn't matter whether that truth is cold or comforting - so long as someone is genuinely interested in finding the truth.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Assuming (for the sake of illustrating the above point) that God exists and is in fact the 'source' at the root of your belief that murder is wrong, then your believing murder is wrong is in fact your believing God on the matter - even though you're not conciously aware of it.

If you are not consciously aware of it then you don't believe God, you share God's belief.

To believe God you would have to believe God, you would have to be aware of God's opinion and agree with it.

If I say to you that mass on Earth falls at 9.8m/s/s you can believe me or not believe me.

If though before that someone else told you this, and you believed then, and you never meet me, you don't by proxy also believe me.

You have no opinion towards me at all. You don't believe or not believe me, you have never met me.

It is illogical to say that if I believe murder is wrong I believe God. I simply share the same opinion as God, in the same way that if I believe mass falls at 9.8m/s/s and you believe that also and we have never met or talked to each other, you don't believe me and I don't believe you we simply share the same belief.

Otherwise it would make as much sense to say God believes me as it would to say that I believe God.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

What have you done in your life? You have, quite deliberately, rejected God. It is quite clear Sam, to anyone who reads your posts, that your rejection of God and of Christianity is more than intellectual. It is also clear that whatever evidence is provided to you, you will find a way of explaining it away - because that is what you want.

God sees your heart, and He gives you want you want. You want to reject Him and He allows you to do that. I used to be in the same boat. If, 30 years ago, I had discovered conclusive evidence supporting Christianity, I would have been very annoyed.

Then, through a combination of circumstances, I began looking at things with an open mind. It's not that I wanted to jump into Christianity whether it all added up or not (I detest contradictory beliefs) - but now I examined it in a different way. I was no longer examining Christianity and the Bible in order to prove them wrong - I was examining them to see if they were true or not. And once my attitude changed - from one of attack to one of genuinely seeking after truth - then God revealed to me what I needed to see.

Jesus said, "Seek and you will find".

If you seek for stuff to bash Christianity with, then you can find it. But that is not seeking truth.

If you seek for confirmation of every belief you were raised with as a child or that your religion teaches, then you can find it. But that is not seeking truth.

But if you genuinely seek truth, whether it produces results that you like or not, then you can find it.

Very few people actually seek truth. Just look at the debates in these fora. Everyone googles wikipedia to find articles that will support their argument (and conveniently ignore anything that contradicts it). They read newspapers and watch TV that will reinforce their ideological stance. How many people actually read books without knowing in advance that they will confirm their existing beliefs? I mean, reading books because they have a genuine interest in the subject and want to learn more about it? But, for those who genuinely seek truth, there is much to be discovered.

It might be quite clear to you that my rejection is more than intellectual but I can assure you it's not. My rejection of the bible is no more emotional than my rejection of scientology, UFOs or bigfoot, I simply find the whole thing ridiculous. I have gone out of my way to give believers a chance to put forward an argument that is not:

1. Circular
2. Confirmation bias (eg "god works in mysterious ways" and variants to explain the huge number of events in the world that contradict the idea of a loving god)
3. An argument from personal incredulity (I don't know so it must be god)
4. Applicable to any and all superstitions, confirming the great Ju Ju under the sea as much as it does Yahweh
5. An attempt to make it look like not believing an old magic story without a shred of physical evidence takes as much faith as believing it
6. An argument that christianity's perceived usefulness or benefit to your life (eg as a source of morality or a code by which to live your life) has some kind of bearing on whether or not its supernatural claims are true.
7. Etc etc etc

and they have failed every single time. I have looked at the work of the apologists that believers hold in such high regard and I honestly cannot fathom why anyone listens to them. I know it's helpful to think of me as simply closed-minded and hard-hearted but I can assure you that is not the case. I would love for there to be a loving god looking over me, it sounds fantastic, and it would make my girlfriend very happy if I believed but I simply find it unconvincing. I'm sure christianity makes a lot of people happy, it can change lives and inspire people to do great things. But none of that means that a Jewish guy walked on water 2000 years ago

antiskeptic

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes, but I also agree with Gandalf the magician on a lot of things, The mad hatter and the Cheshire cat were not far off on a few things also, and I heartily agree with a few of Supermans outlooks on life.

None of this grants even a slight modicum of credence to the notion these characters exist. Who I am actually agreeing with is the author of the text.

Given there is nothing on offer to suggest your god exists, the only conclusion left available is that you and I are agreeing with the author of the text (Bible) and not with the character therein.

The danger, of course, with assuming that you are agreeing with a god and not with an author, is that this often comes with the impression that god is right in all things. Therefore you risk possibly negating the ability to disagree with the author on anything else he says in the book, based solely on agreeing with him on others.

I'm merely explaining what I consider the mechanism of salvation to be. It is a given that we're assuming God exists for the purpose of discussion (something which Sam is doing in his objecting why it is that God has demonstrated himself to me and not to him).

Your objection need be with the mechanism posed - not with the assumption required to evaluate the mechanism posed.