Faith: the evidence of things not seen

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

?

We don't need to have an absolute correct view of anything in order that it's existance be very relevant indeed. Are we to suppose the existance of the car crash irrelevant just because we don't know which of the three versions is true (or closest to true)?

You seem to be taking a very black and white view. If we can't tell everything then we can tell nothing. Life just doesn't work like that, Sam.

the point I'm making is that if there are a million conflicting versions of god and no way to determine which, if any, is right then we can tell nothing. You might as well tell me that there is a box on a planet a million light years away that has "something" in it but we have no idea what that something is. The obvious response being: so what?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which brings us back to God's ability. Assuming God is able to demonstrate his existance to someone then he must be able to engender something in that person that the other person doesn't have. God-source certainty would differ from false certainty in a material way.

Else God cannot demonstrate his existance to someone.

You're slipping again into the error of putting the onus on me to correctly ascertain God. And not on God to be able to demonstrate his existance.


The same error again. IF God has demonstrated his existance to someone THEN there is no deciding on the issue of whether he has or not. He's just done so and the objection stops.




Ditto the above..

IF God can .. there is no reliance on me in this.

I'm not making any error mate, you are. You are making an assumption about the nature of god that could I suppose be said to make sense in theory but does not take account of reality. If god was able to do this and if it was possible to reliably tell the difference between true certainty and false certainty, there wouldn't be a billion different people who are all as certain as you of things that contradict what you think is true. You say that if god exists it should be possible to reliably tell the difference between a true certainty and a false one but it is demonstrably not possible to do that so your god must not exist

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm not making any error mate, you are. You are making an assumption about the nature of god that could I suppose be said to make sense in theory but does not take account of reality. If god was able to do this and if it was possible to reliably tell the difference between true certainty and false certainty, there wouldn't be a billion different people who are all as certain as you of things that contradict what you think is true. You say that if god exists it should be possible to reliably tell the difference between a true certainty and a false one but it is demonstrably not possible to do that so your god must not exist

Sorry Sam, but you've just made the same error again.

I have no part to play with my arrival at the knowledge that God exists. My arriving at that point has to do with something he does. If you place the reliance on me in any way then you've shifted the onus from him to me for the knowledge.

And the question has always been "Can God demonstrate his existance to a person". If he can then I've nothing to do with it.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Sorry Sam, but you've just made the same error again.

I have no part to play with my arrival at the knowledge that God exists. My arriving at that point has to do with something he does. If you place the reliance on me in any way then you've shifted the onus from him to me for the knowledge.

And the question has always been "Can God demonstrate his existance to a person". If he can then I've nothing to do with it.

If god could demonstrate his existence to a person in a way that it was reliably possible to tell the difference between a true demonstration and a false one then then every single view of god in the world would be indentical. Every single view is not identical, in fact they vary massively, so clearly god cannot demonstrate himself in a way that it is reliably possible to tell the difference between a true demonstration and a false one. And if you say god must be able to do this if he exists, then he doesn't exist

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If god could demonstrate his existence to a person in a way that it was reliably possible to tell the difference between a true demonstration and a false one then then every single view of god in the world would be indentical.

Hmm.

I don't know whether you've ever been in love. If you've been so fortunate then you'll know what I mean when I talk of the 'heightened sense' of the other person: their smile, their scent, the way their mouth curls when they laugh. You run up enormous phone bills. You want to be as physically close as possible as often as possible - indeed, separation for even short periods is a torture.

Fortunately, 'in love' doesn't last for very long - perhaps a year, two at most. During that time, the lustre will begin to tarnish and you'll start seeing faults and failings in the beloved: the fact they don't shower everyday. Or the way they have this annoying habit of tapping their feet under the table during dinner (that drives you mad at times). Or that hyena laugh. We forget that the lustre is probably wearing off us to, for them

What sometimes occurs during the in love period is that you come to actually love the other person. Such that even when the in loveness has worn off (in love perhaps being considered as Natures way of getting folk together in the first place) you want to stick around and share your life with the other person. Blissful, sweet, carefree, heady in love is exchanged for the gritty, tough, frustrating, more rewarding territory of love.

Ask a person whose in love whether they love the other person and they'll say "yes, yes, YES!!" The other person is the centre of their world. Ask a person who loves whether they love the other person and they'll say they do too. The other person is at the centre of their world - along with all the other people loved.

There is a very reliable way to tell the difference between the two totally different states of love. And that's experience the two.

I've experienced god-in-my-image and likeness. I've also experienced God. And so I can tell the difference between two. Anyone who is utterly convinced they experience God need first experience God in order to compare. Then they'll know. Note that going from one god-in-own-image to another (say atheism to Islam) is like going from one in-love experience to the next: there is no material difference between the states in order that a comparison be drawn.

(note that my claiming to know God isn't something I ask you to believe. Rather, I'm merely saying that certainty of experience of God need not necessarily mean God has been experienced - it would have been an in love kind of god-experience. Then again, certainty of experience of God can result from experiencing God - it would arise from a love God)

Every single view is not identical, in fact they vary massively,

You could say that the object of love in the in love experience #1 'varies massively' from the object of love in experience #2. But you'd see that the essence of experiences (although different in detail) have similar flavour. So is it with all the gods (godless or otherwise). They all share the same essence in that they position man on the throne of mans life. Atheism does it. Islam does it. They are different ways to achieve the very same result.

so clearly god cannot demonstrate himself in a way that it is reliably possible to tell the difference between a true demonstration and a false one. And if you say god must be able to do this if he exists, then he doesn't exist

Which would make this a proof against the Christian God. Dawkins would be pleased given that he only has a bootstrap deck of probabilities to deal from. So why hasn't he used this proof of yours?

Well, it turns out your assertion falls over a major hurdle - and it doesn't look like it is going to get up anytime soon. Certainty in knowledge about anything you care to mention would, if God exists, rely ultimately on God as provider/sustainer of the means whereby we are certain. He would, for example, be the provider/sustainer of the method we call Empiricism (a means whereby certainty is provided within the empirical realm) and any knowledge that we are certain of - whilst utilising empirical evaluation unto certainty - is provided us by God.

If God can't provide a means of being certain it is him, then he cannot provide us with a means of being certain about anything. It follows that IF you can be certain about things AND God exists THEN it is possible to be certain God exists.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which would make this a proof against the Christian God. Dawkins would be pleased given that he only has a bootstrap deck of probabilities to deal from. So why hasn't he used this proof of yours?

I've never actually heard this logic being put forward as one of the arguments for god so I think it's safe to say he's never heard it or if he has, it's a minority view that would have most believers shouting straw man at him if he tackled it. Most say they believe by faith. It's one of many problems caused by the fact that there a billion definitions of god all claiming to be the true one, no matter which definition you use someone will have a different definition and accuse you of not knowing what you're talking about. so this is not a "proof" against the christian god, it's a "proof" against god as you have defined it, which is just one of millions of envisionings of the christian god

antiskeptic wrote: »

If God can't provide a means of being certain it is him, then he cannot provide us with a means of being certain about anything. It follows that IF you can be certain about things AND God exists THEN it is possible to be certain God exists.

No matter how convincing your experience was you have absolutely no way of knowing how convincing the experience that someone else claims to have was. For all you know theirs could have been a hundred times more convincing and would make yours like like a mushroom induced hallucination. The only way for you to be certain of this is to be able to read their mind and experience exactly what they experienced. You do not have this ability therefore god can't provide us with a means to be certain it is him, therefore he can't provide us with a means of being certain about anything, therefore god as you describe him must not exist

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I've never actually heard this logic being put forward as one of the arguments for god so I think it's safe to say he's never heard it or if he has, it's a minority view that would have most believers shouting straw man at him if he tackled it. Most say they believe by faith.

And one of the main criticisms of The God Delusion is it's demolishing of a straw man faith. People saying their faith is based on direct revelation by God are a dime a dozen so I can't understand how this view hasn't been heard of before.

It's one of many problems caused by the fact that there a billion definitions of god all claiming to be the true one, no matter which definition you use someone will have a different definition and accuse you of not knowing what you're talking about. so this is not a "proof" against the christian god, it's a "proof" against god as you have defined it, which is just one of millions of envisionings of the christian god

Fair enough. Your proof has a hurdle to leap over however. Lets see whether it does...

No matter how convincing your experience was you have absolutely no way of knowing how convincing the experience that someone else claims to have was. For all you know theirs could have been a hundred times more convincing and would make yours like like a mushroom induced hallucination. The only way for you to be certain of this is to be able to read their mind and experience exactly what they experienced. You do not have this ability therefore god can't provide us with a means to be certain it is him, therefore he can't provide us with a means of being certain about anything, therefore god as you describe him must not exist

There is no attempt to address the IF God exists AND reveals himself to antiskeptic THEN antiskeptic knows God exists argument here, Sam. You're wandering off into irrelevant (and well-trodden) territories:

- a person being convinced of God (but to whom God hasn't revealed himself) represents no problem for any business between me and God. I don't need to see inside his mind as I would already know his conviction is misplaced. The IF God exists AND reveals himself to antiskeptic THEN antiskeptic knows God exists argument is untouched by this tack.

- putting the onus on me to produce a means whereby I can be certain - when the argument places the onus on God to provide the means whereby I can be certain (whether by empirical means or otherwise). The IF God exists AND reveals himself to antiskeptic THEN antiskeptic knows God exists conundrum remains unaddressed and untouched.


You are incorrect that I need to see inside another mind to ensure my own certainty. All I need is:

a) for God to exist

b) God to decide to reveal himself to me

Once God satisfies those conditions then I will know. And that knowledge is knowledge - not conviction.


__________________

Another conundrum for you which you might consider addressing. You'd probably accept that God could demonstrate his existance empirically and to your satisfaction. He could recite the Bible backwards from memory, turn loaves and fishes into a feast for millions before your eyes, or flatten Mt. Everest by jumping up and down on it.

Why would you trust this God-designed means of enabling you to know he exists and no other? Like, in order for him to demonstrate to you empirically, you'd have to accept that he designed empiricism. And you would have to place your trust in him regarding his design as an adequate means for him to reveal himself to you.

Indeed, I can think of no hoop you could ask God to jump through that wouldn't ultimately rely on your trusting God for any confidence you have it's him.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

And one of the main criticisms of The God Delusion is it's demolishing of a straw man faith. People saying their faith is based on direct revelation by God are a dime a dozen so I can't understand how this view hasn't been heard of before.

Maybe he has heard it and chose not to include it in his book. You'd have to ask him why he didn't include antiskeptic's favourite argument of "I know because god has revealed himself to me and all those other people who "know" contradictory things are of no concern to me because they all only think they know but I really know because god has revealed himself to me but not to them no matter how much they say otherwise because if it's really god then I can tell the difference between a true revelation and a false one even though no one else seems to be able to". You've have to ask him

antiskeptic wrote: »

Fair enough. Your proof has a hurdle to leap over however. Lets see whether it does...


There is no attempt to address the IF God exists AND reveals himself to antiskeptic THEN antiskeptic knows God exists argument here, Sam. You're wandering off into irrelevant (and well-trodden) territories:
- a person being convinced of God (but to whom God hasn't revealed himself) represents no problem for any business between me and God. I don't need to see inside his mind as I would already know his conviction is misplaced. The IF God exists AND reveals himself to antiskeptic THEN antiskeptic knows God exists argument is untouched by this tack.

- putting the onus on me to produce a means whereby I can be certain - when the argument places the onus on God to provide the means whereby I can be certain (whether by empirical means or otherwise). The IF God exists AND reveals himself to antiskeptic THEN antiskeptic knows God exists conundrum remains unaddressed and untouched.


You are incorrect that I need to see inside another mind to ensure my own certainty. All I need is:

a) for God to exist

b) God to decide to reveal himself to me

Once God satisfies those conditions then I will know. And that knowledge is knowledge - not conviction.


__________________

Another conundrum for you which you might consider addressing. You'd probably accept that God could demonstrate his existance empirically and to your satisfaction. He could recite the Bible backwards from memory, turn loaves and fishes into a feast for millions before your eyes, or flatten Mt. Everest by jumping up and down on it.

Why would you trust this God-designed means of enabling you to know he exists and no other? Like, in order for him to demonstrate to you empirically, you'd have to accept that he designed empiricism. And you would have to place your trust in him regarding his design as an adequate means for him to reveal himself to you.

Indeed, I can think of no hoop you could ask God to jump through that wouldn't ultimately rely on your trusting God for any confidence you have it's him.

antiskeptic, could you please explain all those other people to me? How is it that they can be totally convinced, as convinced as you, and still be wrong? And more importantly, what makes you different to them? Remember that an awful lot of them (probably all) will justify their position in exactly the way you do, that if it's really god then they can be certain. They're certain, and yet they're wrong. You say that if it's really god then it's possible to be certain but if it's not god,
it's still possible to be certain............

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

The will is "doing nothing" to contribute to not falling over the edge.

But that doesn't work because if that was the case no good deed would be rationalized.

In which case you would never get someone pulling someone from a burning building cause the person would just run into a wall (instinct can navigate a collapsing building, or operate a stair lift.

If I choose to operate a stair lift, climb up it and jump into a burning building, navigate myself around the flames, grab a child, consider the best way to get out of here (perhaps consider leaving the rest of the people in the building to die in order to save myself), there is no way someone can call that "doing nothing". It is along series of conscious rational choices, each on the opportunity to do something heroic and good or something cowardly and selfish.

Saying the fire fighter did nothing, he just let God's will hold him in place, rather than choose sin, is ridiculous.

So clearly the analogy fails for anything other than the most basic instinctive urge, which doesn't cover most altruistic actions.

antiskeptic wrote: »

We aren't supposing "doing nothing" to mean you enter suspended animation when faced with decisions. Rather, "doing nothing" means not exercising your will to the point where the restraint is cut.

Yes but as I explained above that doesn't make sense in situations where your conscious will is doing the driving.

antiskeptic wrote: »

When it's not cut you'll remain restrained from sin and it's opposite (good) will be done. Good could be physcically active or passive - which it is, isn't the point.

I think you need to leave the analogy of the man hanging from a rope because it clearly doesn't explain things particularly well and you have started self-referencing it. You do nothing when hanging from a rope, but you can't keep referring to hanging from a rope to demonstrate this point.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Okay. Although it must be noted that the sinful nature is you. Not something separate to you. You, your personhood, and it, are one

Well in you, is you, that is some what semantics. The point is that I have two voices in my head both telling me different things (classically visualized as the angel on one shoulder and the devil on the other)

They both got there because they were placed in me, either by God or by the Fall (we weren't created with a sinful nature, it was given to us).

It makes no sense to say I don't choose to listen to the angel but I do choose to listen to the devil.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Again, I'm not sure where rationality comes into it. You've got two influences operating in you and you're not going to remain standing there. One will win out.

Because I pick one. Rationally.

Your argument seems to be that when I pick God I'm not actually picking anything, I'm "doing nothing", just hanging there, but when I pick sin I'm choosing sin, I'm doing something.

That argument seems to not hold up on any analogy bar the one of hanging from a rope. The fire fighter is clearly not doing nothing, nor is he unconsciously choosing a side.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Consider: a person lifts your eyelids and places a matchstick under them to keep them open. You'll now see (and be affected and influenced by) whatever travels across your vision. You'll keep on seeing until such time as you choose not to see. All you have to do is knock away the matchsticks and your eyes will close.

Again these analogies are flawed because they literally don't require action. But that is clearly not the case in so many instances.

The fire fighter does not do nothing when he sees a burning building, nor does he go running to the building out of subconscious instinct.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's a mall technicality Wicknight. Something which brings about salvation by grace alone (for which there are good reasons)

I'm curious is this something you have actually worked out from base principles, or is it doctrine you have simply accepted because it is in the Bible?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is no attempt to address the IF God exists AND reveals himself to antiskeptic THEN antiskeptic knows God exists argument here, Sam. You're wandering off into irrelevant (and well-trodden) territories

Two posibilities (well more than 2 but for the sake of argument)

• God exists and has altered antiskeptics brain so he knows God exists
  
• God isn't real and biology has altered antiskeptics brain so he thinks God exists when he really doesn't

Given that from your perspective both of these possibilities results in the same out come, how you tell one from the other?

And if you can't tell one from the other, how can you say God has revealed himself to you?

This is the corner stone of knowledge, the idea that we can differentiate between explanations. But both explanations give the exact same result, so how can one be demonstrated to you?

Goes back to what I was saying about God revealing himself as a tree that you cannot tell apart from another tree.

Someone says to you that tree over there is God. You go examine the tree and it looks like every other tree

Now, assume it is God. Has God revealed himself to you? No, of course not because you can't tell the difference between the God tree and every other tree.

But now imagine you say "That just looks like a tree", and the person says If it is God are you saying God can't be a tree? If God exists can he not reveal himself to you as a tree? Would you pay much stock to that? Would you think, yes that is right, God can reveal himself as a tree (if he exists), and then assume God has revealed himself to you as a tree?

The same principle holds. God might have altered your brain to make you believe he exists, but I imagine your brain looks identical to the brain of everyone else with the naturally occurring tendency to believe supernatural human like agents exist in the world.

So God has "revealed" himself to you in a manner that you can't tell the difference between God and a naturally occurring phenomena, the same as if he appeared as a tree that looks like every other tree.

Sam Vimes

Also antiskeptic, what we're doing here is trying to determine whether or not god has revealed himself to you. you say that given the following assumptions you can be certain that he has:

All I need is:

a) for God to exist

b) God to decide to reveal himself to me

Once God satisfies those conditions then I will know. And that knowledge is knowledge - not conviction.

So you are concluding that god has revealed himself to you based on the assumption that god has revealed himself to you. Of course we both know that an argument that assumes it's own conclusion is commonly known as a circular argument and is a logical fallacy. If we don't begin with the assumption that god has revealed himself to you the whole argument falls apart because it's possible to be absolutely certain that god has revealed himself to you whether he has or not. Your level of certainty, what you think you "know" is irrelevant.

I am now going to "prove" by the same method you're using that god has not revealed himself to you.

All I need is:

a) for god not to exist

b) for god not to reveal himself to people, what with not existing and all

Once these conditions are satisfied then I will know that god has not revealed himself to you. And that knowledge is knowledge - not conviction. That's right antiskeptic, I have "proved" that god has not revealed himself to you by assuming that he has not revealed himself to you just as you have "proved" that he has revealed himself to you by assuming that he has revealed himself to you

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Maybe he has heard it and chose not to include it in his book. You'd have to ask him why he didn't include antiskeptic's favourite argument of "I know because god has revealed himself to me and all those other people who "know" contradictory things are of no concern to me because they all only think they know but I really know because god has revealed himself to me but not to them no matter how much they say otherwise because if it's really god then I can tell the difference between a true revelation and a false one even though no one else seems to be able to".

It's not so much my favorite argument as an argument arising out of a fairly widespread claim as to what faith is.

There are explanations as to why it is that other people claim as they do and you'd have to evaluate other things this faith 'theory' says in order to a) discover what those explanations are b) that they harmonize well with the observations.

Isn't that how theories go: see if they can explain the observations and in the measure they do, they are considered sound(er)

You've have to ask him

I think I know the reason why Richard set a strawman on fire instead. He'd be one of those "contradictory beliefs" I was talking about above. An observation that fits the theory perfectly.

antiskeptic, could you please explain all those other people to me? How is it that they can be totally convinced, as convinced as you, and still be wrong? And more importantly, what makes you different to them? Remember that an awful lot of them (probably all) will justify their position in exactly the way you do, that if it's really god then they can be certain. They're certain, and yet they're wrong. You say that if it's really god then it's possible to be certain but if it's not god,
it's still possible to be certain............

Firstly, I'm not sure that other world religions have a personal God who turns up (as it were). Islam doesn't. Roman Catholicism doesn't (in that it accomodates large numbers of people who claim no personal tete a tete with God). Neither does Hinduism as far as I can tell. That said, a person can say they are convinced as convinced can be that their god exists. And there are many who claim personal experience of God just as I do.

How is this?

Well (when speaking of those who actually claim personal revelation), Satan is described as being able to manifest as an "angel of light" and be capable of "signs and wonders" that would lead astray even the elect (Christians). We see in Old Testament times that members of Pharoahs court were able to counter Mose's supernatural efforts with their own in a kind of magical shootout at the OK Corral. So I'd suspect him behind things mainly.

None of which, I hasten to add, affects the position presented: "IF God then..."

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Also antiskeptic, what we're doing here is trying to determine whether or not god has revealed himself to you.

Why are you trying to do that? I'm not attempting to present anything that could enable you to conclude one way or the other. This isn't about proving God. It's about dismantling various atheist/agnostic positions.

For example: the agnostic position "I cannot know God exists" is dismantled by

a) If God exists

b) ..and reveals himself to you

c) ..then you would know God exists.

You'll appreciate (hopefully) by now, the futility of appealing to empiricism as a defence against God's personal revealation (empiricism being an invention of God in the case he exists)

So you are concluding that god has revealed himself to you based on the assumption that god has revealed himself to you. Of course we both know that an argument that assumes it's own conclusion is commonly known as a circular argument and is a logical fallacy.

There you go again: finding a form of words that sidesteps the statements made so as to turn them into something else. I don't "conclude because.. based on an assumption.." (what a mangled sentence!). Rather, if I know God exists it is because he does. If he doesn't then what I'm left with isn't knowledge, it's something else. There is no circular involved in a straight line. It's either/or.

So how do I decide? Well I don't decide - anymore than I decide that I'm not a brain in a jar. Anymore than I decide I exist. Some questions are pointless for there is no means of answering them.

All I need is:

a) for god not to exist

b) for god not to reveal himself to people, what with not existing and all

Once these conditions are satisfied then I will know that god has not revealed himself to you. And that knowledge is knowledge - not conviction.

This is a variation on Dawkins 0-7 scale.

Whereas it is possible that a person know that God exists (a 0 score), it is not possible for a person to know he doesn't (a 7 score). The only way you could know God doesn't exist is for you to know everything (which would make you God ).

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

For example: the agnostic position "I cannot know God exists" is dismantled by

a) If God exists

b) ..and reveals himself to you

c) ..then you would know God exists.

That is not true, at least not to the standard most agnostics take.

Again consider the the possibilities

• God exists, he reveals himself to you
• God doesn't exist, something pretending to be God reveals himself to you
• God doesn't exist, no supernatural beings exist, humans are prone to imagining incorrectly that God has revealed himself to you

An agnostic would reasonably say that since he can't tell the difference between these position, since the out come is the exact same, it can't determine which is true and therefore cannot know God exists, even if A is true and the others are false.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

That is not true, at least not to the standard most agnostics take.

I recall presenting you with the problem of agnostics/atheists trying to apply empirical standards to the situation - namely, that God presenting himself empirically (as an agnostic might demand) would involve the agnostic/atheist (now finding themselves) trusting a God-designed method of attaining knowledge.

And if agreeing that they must trust one God-designed method (for God would clearly have designed them so that that 'trust' be something that is evoked in them by it) then they should agree that they would necessarily trust any other God-sourced method designed to produce trust in them.

They should agree that it's not really up to them. They they are subject to what God produces in them

Again consider the the possibilities

Sure..

God exists, he reveals himself to you

In which case all the onus is on God to equip and sustain my knowing (see up top).

God doesn't exist, something pretending to be God reveals himself to you

Okay - but brain in jar territory, which we agree there is no point entertaining.

God doesn't exist, no supernatural beings exist, humans are prone to imagining incorrectly that God has revealed himself to you

Okay. But this statement says there can be no difference between imagining and God actually turning up. Which means the agnostic is saying God cannot demonstrate his existance to people. Which he patently can: I mean, the agnostic must agree he could do so empirically (or admit he can know nothing at all) - which returns us to the top of page.

The breakout of this loop might be found in the limits of imagination. We don't suppose we are falsely imaging our existance or the world around because something in us sits above imagination and pronounces judgement on/evaluates this 'lower' activity. This higher us, isn't imagination - which seems to leave us with the first two possibilities - one of which might be true but isn't worth considering.

Which leaves me left considering only the first possibility. I'm not saying you should consider it the case - because you haven't had the experience.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

There you go again: finding a form of words that sidesteps the statements made so as to turn them into something else. I don't "conclude because.. based on an assumption.." (what a mangled sentence!). Rather, if I know God exists it is because he does. If he doesn't then what I'm left with isn't knowledge, it's something else. There is no circular involved in a straight line. It's either/or.

Ah I think I'm finally understanding what you're saying and in part I agree with you. It is not possible to "know" that god exists unless he exists and has reveladed himself to you. Makes perfect sense. But this is nothing more than semantics. You say that if god hasn't revealed himself to you then "what you're left with isn't knowledge, it's something else". The thing that you're left with is that you think you know he has revealed himself to you. As I said before, people who are mistaken do not know they are mistaken.

You say that Satan can make himself appear as an "angel of light" but if this happened then you wouldn't "know" it was god, because it wasn't. I fully agree with this but you would still think you knew and that's all that matters because thinking you know is indistinguishable from actually knowing

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Okay. But this statement says there can be no difference between imagining and God actually turning up. Which means the agnostic is saying God cannot demonstrate his existance to people. Which he patently can: I mean, the agnostic must agree he could do so empirically (or admit he can know nothing at all) - which returns us to the top of page.

Yeah but you are ignoring how he does it. You don't need to get into brain in a jar territory

He can't demonstrate his existence if it is in a manner that is indistigousable from a natural event. Which is what he is doing in your case

liamw

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which leaves me left considering only the first possibility. I'm not saying you should consider it the case - because you haven't had the experience.

Seriously, why are you ignoring the third possibility? Not only is it a naturalistic explanation but it has science to back it up. Why are you just ruling out this possibility? I don't get it.

Zombrex

1. Assume God exists
2. Assume God created humans
3. If God created humans he made us to rely on empirical testing, demonstrated by how successful that is compared to other methods (one theory of the atom, thousands of religions)
4. Therefore God cannot reveal himself in a manner other than empirical as this would contradict 3.
5. Therefore anyone who experienced the revealed God without empirical testing hasn't.

There pretty simply logic similar to your own antiskeptic that demonstrates God hasn't revealed himself to you

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

1. Assume God exists
2. Assume God created humans
3. If God created humans he made us to rely on empirical testing, demonstrated by how successful that is compared to other methods (one theory of the atom, thousands of religions)
4. Therefore God cannot reveal himself in a manner other than empirical as this would contradict 3.
5. Therefore anyone who experienced the revealed God without empirical testing hasn't.

There pretty simply logic similar to your own antiskeptic that demonstrates God hasn't revealed himself to you

I've a bit of a problem calling 3. logic. 3. appears to me to involve an unwarranted assumption. If God made us then all you can say for sure about the empirical nature he equipped us with is that it allows us to deal with the nature of the empirical realm. That we rely on empirical testing says something about the variation possible - both within (our senses) and without (the world around us) which makes it sensible (if desired) to test things.

It says nothing about any other way God might have for dealing with us. Not does it say that such ways need suffer from the problems that the empirical side of things patently does.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

It says nothing about any other way God might have for dealing with us. Not does it say that such ways need suffer from the problems that the empirical side of things patently does.

As Wicknight says, one theory of the atom, thousands of religions. And within those religions, millions of different revelations and billions of different interpretations. Whatever problems empiricism suffers from it terms of reliability, it is clear that personal experience alone suffers from a hell of a lot more.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

If God made us then all you can say for sure about the empirical nature he equipped us with is that it allows us to deal with the nature of the empirical realm.

No quite. He made it so that we can only deal well with the nature of the empirical realm.

If we don't deal with the empirical realm we end up with a whole load of different view points and assessment and no one can figure out properly which is right.

When I say figure out I mean to a level they can figure out other things, like electricity.

There is a huge gulf in how we understand things we can test empirically and things we can't. Things we can't people are basically just going on guesses that they might be right (as you yourself admit)

So he has made us so that we are very bad at figuring out anything we can't measure and test.

That is sourced from God, as you like to put it. It is how God has arranged it. He could have arranged it so that we were very good at personal assessment. He didn't (assuming he exists)

antiskeptic wrote: »

It says nothing about any other way God might have for dealing with us.

Yes it does, because the other ways don't work well, and again that is sourced/determined by God.

It is illogical that God would reveal himself to us in a way he has already made to not work well, as God doesn't do bad things.

Therefore you can conclude that those who believe they have had God reveal himself to them in a manner that is non-empirical, haven't

If we assume God exist we can't then simply ignore how nature is, or how we are. All your arguments earlier in the thread fall apart because you ignore that empirical study itself comes from God.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

That is sourced from God, as you like to put it. It is how God has arranged it. He could have arranged it so that we were very good at personal assessment. He didn't (assuming he exists)

Bit of cart before horse here. When you elevate "empirical objective truth" (a concept in itself riddled with philosophical problems) to the top of how we know about the world then in the hierarchy assessing things the "personal assessment" you refer to is subjective and non empirical. But the hierarchy is YOUR categorisation. You hae decided that empirical "truth" is the greatest form of truth. You can't then say it is God's fault for not arranging something in the way you care to arrange it.

Yes it does, because the other ways don't work well, and again that is sourced/determined by God.

Again "work well" according to objective empirical standards.

It is illogical that God would reveal himself to us in a way he has already made to not work well, as God doesn't do bad things.

Again where does God say objective empirical truth is "well"?

Therefore you can conclude that those who believe they have had God reveal himself to them in a manner that is non-empirical, haven't

according to testable criteria of objective empirical truth they haven't. Your point being?

If we assume God exist we can't then simply ignore how nature is, or how we are.

But epistemological interpretations are not ontological entities.

How we rate the ways about which we know about the nature is not itself nature.

The type of map we make will not change the territory no matter how much better we consider one form of map over another.

All your arguments earlier in the thread fall apart because you ignore that empirical study itself comes from God.

Yes but so what? There are problems with elevating empiricism to lofty heights . the Logical positivists encountered similar problems with logic and reason. Postmodern science was the result of the science wars.

Science itself accepts the critiques just as mathematics isn't sufficient.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Bit of cart before horse here. When you elevate "empirical objective truth" (a concept in itself riddled with philosophical problems)

Why are you quoting that as if I said it?

I didn't, and I agree it is riddled with philosophical problems, but then I never said that

ISAW wrote: »

You hae decided that empirical "truth" is the greatest form of truth.

Well for a start I never said "truth" either (where are you getting these quotes?)

But anyway, what I was talking about is knowledge derived from empirical testing. And I didn't decide that it was a greater form of knowledge than personal assessment, God did.

Which is the point. God (assuming he exists) already decided this, and reality reflects it.

There is no point pretending we live in a reality we don't.

ISAW wrote: »

You can't then say it is God's fault for not arranging something in the way you care to arrange it.

Well yes, that is the point.

You can't blame God just because you can't empirically test for God yet you want to know he exists. What you want is irrelevant.

ISAW wrote: »

Again "work well" according to objective empirical standards.

According to God's standards. He made them after all (we are assuming).

ISAW wrote: »

Again where does God say objective empirical truth is "well"?

He "says" that through reality, through the fact that it does.

Where does God say things fall down? Through the fact that things fall down.
Where does God say planets move around the Sun? Through the fact that they do.
Where does God say that angles in a triangle add up to 180? From the fact that they do.

This is what we were saying to antiskeptic. You can't assume God exists and then ignore the reality around us.

ISAW wrote: »

according to testable criteria of objective empirical truth they haven't.

I don't know what the testanle criteria of objective empirical truth is so you are going to have to explain that one to me.

ISAW wrote: »

How we rate the ways about which we know about the nature is not itself nature.

No, God decides nature. We simply observe what he decided.

ISAW wrote: »

Yes but so what? There are problems with elevating empiricism to lofty heights

We "elevate" empiricism to the height God has decided we can observe it at.

No one is claiming empiricism is perfect, but God has not revealed a better way to us yet.

He has revealed thought that personal assessment is worse than empirical assessment. Where they fall the the scales of worst to perfect of methods is irrelevant once we know that one comes above the other.