Empiricism uber alles?

antiskeptic

Something that has arisen in t'other forum.

A drumbeat objection to the existance of God is the lack of empirical evidence for God. Theists will often attempt to approach the problem indirectly by pointing to arguments that look at what God has (they say) created - as a means of permitting us to infer God. The argument from design, the argument from fine tuning, the argument from morality etc. Aside from the fact that these arguments can be countered, it remains the case that such arguments are always approaching things indirectly. There is no empirical evidence for God himself.

But what if there was empirical evidence for God. What if God boomed down from the sky "It is true what they say - I do exist". What if he wrote "This is God and I wrote the Bible" in impossibly large letters across the sky". If he did, the atheist/agnostic demand for empirical evidence would be satisfied and, barring appeals to brains-in-jars or alien activity, the atheist/agnostic would now believe God exists.

But in his doing so, the atheist/agnostic should immediately realise that the trust he now has that God exists arises out of a method of trust-generation that God himself had designed and installed in humans: namely, Arrival at Knowledge via Empiricism. In other words, God is the one that has caused a phenomenon called 'trust' to arise in these now ex-atheists. And because God has done this, and only because he has done this, they find themselves trusting.

They have been subject to what God has done in them and should also realise that there is no means whereby they can generate this trust for themselves. It's God activity all the way down the line: from design of method of trust-generation to utilisation of method to evoke trust.

So, what if God causes this same level of trust to arise by another method. One that is not empirically based. If so, there can be no talk of one method being better, more trustworthy or more accurate than the other - because both methods would have been designed by God and the trust arising would have been provided by God through either method. The person is passive in both cases and contributes nothing to the trust they would have.

Conclusions/consequences:

it doesn't make a difference whether I trust that God exists because God has revealed it directly (if unempirically) to me or whether I trust that God exists because God writes it across the sky. If God reveals himself then I trust he exists - period.

atheists should realise that this hypothetical situation renders their demand for empirical evidence alone, void. Given that God can use different methods to reveal himself and that one can be as good as the next, they might as well demand that God reveal himself through personal revelation.

atheists like Richard Dawkins should stop dissing faith. Perhaps God hasn't turned up this way. Perhaps he has. It's not only possible, it's as good a way as any if God decides so. Agnosticism would be a safer option on the subject of personal revelation.

Goduznt Xzst

Your whole argument falls to pieces when you realize the majority of Atheists would not "trust" that a being displaying itself as an Omniscient Deity was in fact such.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_Due_(TNG_episode)

sink

That's why they call it faith. You're also engaging in some pretty poor circular reasoning.

I believe God exists -> God designed me to believe in him -> I believe in him so he must exists -> I believe god exists

cavedave

Isn't this the argument about the babelfish in the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy?

God refuses to prove that (S)He exists because proof denies faith and without faith God is nothing.

Man then counters that the Babel fish is a dead giveaway because it could not have evolved by chance. It therefore proves God exists, but by God's own arguments God does not exist.

God realizes (S)He hadn't thought of that and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

antiskeptic

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Your whole argument falls to pieces when you realize the majority of Atheists would not "trust" that a being displaying itself as an Omniscient Deity was in fact such.

Rather than debate a link, could I ask you what they would believe it to be? (given the exclusion of alien activity/brain in jar escape hatches)

antiskeptic

sink wrote: »

That's why they call it faith. You're also engaging in some pretty poor circular reasoning.

I believe God exists -> God designed me to believe in him -> I believe in him so he must exists -> I believe god exists

You seem to have missed dealing with the problem posed the atheist/agnostic (this being the athiest/agnostic forum I thought it'd be a good place to post it). Care to have a bite of the apple?

sink

antiskeptic wrote: »

You seem to have missed dealing with the problem posed the atheist/agnostic (this being the athiest/agnostic forum I thought it'd be a good place to post it). Care to have a bite of the apple?

I don't believe god exists, therefore if he designed me and my environment so that I would believe in him he's done a piss poor job. Very unimpressive for an omnipotent being, which leads me to believe he doesn't exist.

See I can use circular reasoning too.

antiskeptic

Care to have a bite of the apple?

sink wrote: »

I don't believe god exists, therefore if he designed me and my environment so that I would believe in him he's done a piss poor job. Very unimpressive for an omnipotent being, which leads me to believe he doesn't exist.

See I can use circular reasoning too.

Not thus...

NEXXXXT!!!

antiskeptic

cavedave wrote: »

Isn't this the argument about the babelfish in the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy?

No.

cavedave

sink
Quote:
Originally Posted by antiskeptic View Post
You seem to have missed dealing with the problem posed the atheist/agnostic (this being the athiest/agnostic forum I thought it'd be a good place to post it). Care to have a bite of the apple?

I don't believe god exists, therefore if he designed me and my environment so that I would believe in him he's done a piss poor job. Very unimpressive for an omnipotent being, which leads me to believe he doesn't exist

But if everyone believed in god that would not show much evidence of free will would it? You need a certain amount of badness to make good a choice that is worthy of praise.

Oh btw here is an article about the evolution of belief

“Our psychological architecture makes us think in particular ways,” says Bering, now at Queens University in Belfast, Northern Ireland. “In this study, it seems, the reason afterlife beliefs are so prevalent is that underlying them is our inability to simulate our nonexistence.”

antiskeptic

cavedave wrote: »

But if everyone believed in god that would not show much evidence of free will would it? You need a certain amount of badness to make good a choice that is worthy of praise.

Oh btw here is an article about the evolution of belief

“Our psychological architecture makes us think in particular ways,” says Bering, now at Queens University in Belfast, Northern Ireland. “In this study, it seems, the reason afterlife beliefs are so prevalent is that underlying them is our inability to simulate our nonexistence.”

To be honest, I'd like to hear responses on the problem posed by the OP.

Thanks.

sink

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not thus...

NEXXXXT!!!

I'm sorry what is your specific objection? My lack of trust in god is not worthy evidence of his non-existence, but your trust that he exists, is?

Goduznt Xzst

antiskeptic wrote: »

Rather than debate a link, could I ask you what they would believe it to be? (given the exclusion of alien activity/brain in jar escape hatches)

Why are you excluding options? Why can't it be an Alien race?

The religious like to exclude variables from their paradigms. I however do not.

That episode of TNG I linked is a demonstration of Clarkes third law:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

So maybe they can count the hairs on my head, create solar systems, extinguish the sun, rejuvenate my body... how do I know humans won't also have the technology to do this in the future?

antiskeptic

sink wrote: »

I'm sorry what is your specific objection? My lack of trust in god is not worthy evidence of his non-existence, but your trust that he exists, is?

My specific objection is that you are not dealing with the problem posed atheists/agnostics in the OP. You're off topic in other words.

antiskeptic

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Why are you excluding options? Why can't it be an Alien race?

Because if it could be aliens pretending to be God, it could be aliens pretending to be your mother. And aliens pretending to be this computer screen in front of you. All empirical observations fall - not just the empirical observation of God.

Which kicks talk of anything into touch and is thus, a pointless manoevre.

sink

antiskeptic wrote: »

My specific objection is that you are not dealing with the problem posed atheists/agnostics in the OP. You're off topic in other words.

What's the problem? Theists have "faith", atheists don't.

cavedave

antiskeptic

To be honest, I'd like to hear responses on the problem posed by the OP.

Thanks.

Ok here goes. Of course having faith in god requires faith. Thats a tautology.

"Most witches don't believe in gods. They know that the gods exist, of course. They even deal with them occasionally. But they don't believe in them. They know them too well. It would be like believing in the postman."
-- Terry Pratchett, Witches Abroad

And so the atheist/agnostic objection that there is no empirical evidence of God is irrelevant to belief that God exists

Faith in an afterlife has evolutionary explanations (as explained in the article you don't think is relevant). There are many things i can claim exist and only exist because there is no evidence for them but I find that argument silly.

antiskeptic

cavedave wrote: »

Ok here goes. Of course having faith in god requires faith. Thats a tautology.

"Most witches don't believe in gods. They know that the gods exist, of course. They even deal with them occasionally. But they don't believe in them. They know them too well. It would be like believing in the postman."
-- Terry Pratchett, Witches Abroad


Faith in an afterlife has evolutionary explanations (as explained in the article you don't think is relevant). There are many things i can claim exist and only exist because there is no evidence for them but I find that argument silly.

The OP outlines a problem for the atheist/agnostic centred around empirically based knowledge. None of what you say above has anything to do with the problem outlined in the OP.

antiskeptic

sink wrote: »

What's the problem? Theists have "faith", atheists don't.

Sink sunk

cavedave

antiskeptic

The OP outlines a problem for the atheist/agnostic centred around empirically based knowledge. None of what you say above has anything to do with the problem outlined in the OP.

Is the Op making a falsifiable hypothesis? If so could you please state it. Otherwise there is nothing I can argue about so, one must remain silent.

sink

antiskeptic wrote: »

Sink sunk

Thanks for that.

I guess I don't understand what your question is, it's not very clear.

antiskeptic

cavedave wrote: »

Is the Op making a falsifiable hypothesis? If so could you please state it. Otherwise there is nothing I can argue about so, one must remain silent.

The hypothesis that we actually occupy empirical reality is unfalsifiable. It is assumed we do occupy it. That God demonstrates his existance within that empirical reality is just another empirical occurance that we can assume occurs within the overall hypothesis regarding the reality of reality.

Your question belongs to brain-in-jar territory (which being unfalsifable territory) is excluded from the discussion.

antiskeptic

sink wrote: »

I guess I don't understand what your question is, it's not very clear.

Then break it down into pieces. First part poses a question:

But what if there was empirical evidence for God. What if God boomed down from the sky "It is true what they say - I do exist". What if he wrote "This is God and I wrote the Bible" in impossibly large letters across the sky". If he did, the atheist/agnostic demand for empirical evidence would be satisfied and, barring appeals to brains-in-jars or alien activity, the atheist/agnostic would now believe God indeed exists.

Do you agree that if God demonstrates his existance empirically for all to see then the atheist/agnostic would then believe God exists?

sink

antiskeptic wrote: »

Then break it down into pieces. First part poses a question:



Do you agree that if God demonstrates his existance empirically for all to see then the atheist/agnostic would then believe God exists?

Most would yes.

King Mob

Empiricism makes exactly 2 assumptions.
1. The Universe is consistent.
2. We can observe the universe.

Both assumptions have stood up to all the testing and hypothesising we have done so far.

We know that all the theories about God are inconsistent both internally and with other thoeries.
And we know that God has not and probably cannot be observed.

The examples you give are not the same as "brain in the jar" or Descartes' Demon.
For example take this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wChk5nY3Kzg

It could be a trick.
Or it could be Magic.

Well you could just be a brain in a jar, so therefore it's magic.

antiskeptic

sink wrote: »

Most would yes.

An aside. Why would some not (the OP doesn't permit us to suppose aliens pretending to be God and the like)?

sink

antiskeptic wrote: »

An aside. Why would some not (the OP doesn't permit us to suppose aliens pretending to be God and the like)?

Because people are not entirely rational.

The Mad Hatter

antiskeptic wrote: »

Sink sunk

Sank.

:P

you seem to have missed something fundamental in Goduznt Xzist's post, by the way.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

Empiricism makes exactly 2 assumptions.
1. The Universe is consistent.
2. We can observe the universe.

Okay

Both assumptions have stood up to all the testing and hypothesising we have done so far.

Okay. (Although how you test the assumption that the Universe is consistant without invoking that assumption in the very instruments/techniques you use to observe the Universe is beyond me)

We know that all the theories about God are inconsistent both internally and with other thoeries.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I wouldn't agree that the Bible (as a theory of God) is internally inconsistant. I would agree different gods are mutally exclusive in their detailing.

And we know that God has not and probably cannot be observed

I'm not sure how anyone can state that God has not been observed (without knowing all there is to know). Nor am I sure how probabilities of his "cannot be observed" are arrived at.

All it would take for God to be observed is

a) God to exist
b) God to turn up empirically.

I know of nothing that prevents these two things occurring.

The examples you give are not the same as "brain in the jar" or Descartes' Demon.
For example take this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wChk5nY3Kzg

It could be a trick.
Or it could be Magic.

Well you could just be a brain in a jar, so therefore it's magic.

I'm not sure what you mean by "examples I give". Could you elaborate?

Delirium

The entity claiming to be God would have to do a lot better than say 'I'm God' in a loud voice to back up that claim.

If you were to consider the possibility it was God. You'd have to ask 'why return now? what happened in Gods existence to mellow out the vengeful God of the old testament?'

And I'd have to ask why you're excluding certain answers from your proposed scenario.

antiskeptic

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Sank.

:P

Sunk

2 : done for, ruined

you seem to have missed something fundamental in Goduznt Xzist's post, by the way.

Pray tell.