Empiricism uber alles?

antiskeptic

koth wrote: »

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.

Empirically speaking, what would you like to see him do?

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?'

Let's suppose he replies "I'm here to extract vengence - and I want you to see me do it"

Will that do?

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

I've excluded answers that suppose we cannot trust empirical observations to be what they appear to be (after jumping through the various hoops demanded by empiricism). Because if we cannot trust them (but must instead suppose alien activity) then we have no such thing as empirically arrived at knowledge at all.

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

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)

Simple. All it would require is for certain aspects of the universe (say physics equations) to be discovered/arrived at independently (which has happened)
or for a completely theoretical model derived from previously observed facts being proved correct (again which has happened.)

If the universe is not consistent how can this happen?

antiskeptic wrote: »

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.

The bible is very inconsistent, ask any of the regulars here.
For example the idea that God is all powerful is directly disprove in the bible, as is the idea that he is benevolent.

And if there is One true god, why are there so many differ ones?
And then how do you know that God is your version?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure how anyone can state that God has not been observed (without knowing all there is to know).

Well if you know of an observation that shows God exists where fraud and delusion have definitely been excluded, I'd love to see it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Nor am I sure how probabilities of his "cannot be observed" are arrived at.

Well going by the bible, he's magic and deceptive so he could always just be hiding.
We'd have no way of excluding that.

antiskeptic wrote: »

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.

So then, why hasn't he been observed empirically?

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

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".

Both examples could be produced by significant technology or indeed with the power of Thor.
Neither of those examples by themselves could be empirical examples of God.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

Simple. All it would require is for certain aspects of the universe (say physics equations) to be discovered/arrived at independently (which has happened)
or for a completely theoretical model derived from previously observed facts being proved correct (again which has happened.)

If the universe is not consistent how can this happen?

Okay. Thanks

The bible is very inconsistent, ask any of the regulars here.
For example the idea that God is all powerful is directly disprove in the bible, as is the idea that he is benevolent.

Now we're talking about perceptions. And ideas of what omnipotence/benevolence mean.

And if there is One true god, why are there so many differ ones?
And then how do you know that God is your version?

At this point, I'm going to steer things back to the OP.

Well if you know of an observation that shows God exists where fraud and delusion have definitely been excluded, I'd love to see it.

The OP is suggesting God has done this to your satisfaction. It's not suggesting he has or will do it. This...

Both examples could be produced by significant technology or indeed with the power of Thor. Neither of those examples by themselves could be empirical examples of God.

..is not permitted for it would be brain-in-jar territory - a territory excluded in the OP on the grounds that such references destroy all observations - not just ones regarding God. This computer screen could be the product of alien influence too afterall.

Delirium

antiskeptic wrote: »

Empirically speaking, what would you like to see him do?

I'm not actually sure. For example, I thought maybe create a new continent. But that could happen possibly due to nature.

maybe walk me through the creation of existence. He'll have to rush me through a couple of millenia of brain development first though.

Let's suppose he replies "I'm here to extract vengence - and I want you to see me do it"

Will that do?

Honestly? Nope, because then God seems less enlightened than what I'd expect.

He has millenia of existence over me, but that would just seem petty for someone with the scope of power that God claims to have.

I've excluded answers that suppose we cannot trust empirical observations to be what they appear to be (after jumping through the various hoops demanded by empiricism). Because if we cannot trust them (but must instead suppose alien activity) then we have no such thing as empirically arrived at knowledge at all.

But the entity first appearing and claiming to be God would be unreliable also. How would it be proven to be God? It's not like we have His toothbrush that he left behind to compare DNA with.

Ickle Magoo

antiskeptic wrote:

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

Obviously. Empirical evidence of god is only relevant to those who require empirical evidence of god but isn't relevant to belief?

Currently belief in god depends on faith, there is a choice whether to believe christian, muslim, buddist, etc, version of events or have no particular supernatural belief at all...if a god made his existence an inarguable fact by showing himself to the world in a way that cannot be denied by most rational people then his existence would no longer be a question of faith, we would have knowledge of a godly existence, there would be no such thing as atheists or agnostics.

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

Now we're talking about perceptions. And ideas of what omnipotence/benevolence mean.

Omnipotence, being the ability to do anything.
Benevolence, being a kind and loving person.

There are numerous examples of God being the exact opposite in the Bible.
It's pretty clear cut.

antiskeptic wrote: »

At this point, I'm going to steer things back to the OP.

So then, no you can't know?

antiskeptic wrote: »

The OP is suggesting God has done this to your satisfaction.

So even if he has proven that he exists and that he is everything people claim to be and is the person talked about in the bible.
Then yes I would concede he exists.
However i certainly wouldn't worship him as he's a bit evil.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's not suggesting he has or will do it. This...

And why not?
He had no problem doing it in the old testament.

And I'll take it you can't provide a single example of God being observed.

antiskeptic wrote: »

..is not permitted for it would be brain-in-jar territory - a territory excluded in the OP on the grounds that such references destroy all observations - not just ones regarding God. This computer screen could be the product of alien influence too afterall.

So since nothing can be empirically observed,David Copperfield can actually fly right?

antiskeptic

koth wrote: »

I'm not actually sure. For example, I thought maybe create a new continent. But that could happen possibly due to nature.

Before your very eyes, whilst you're suspended over the earth watching it happen in the space of a few hours (not that God need take that long but he want's to let you enjoy the show)?

maybe walk me through the creation of existence. He'll have to rush me through a couple of millenia of brain development first though.

Hop on board. And bring as many mates as you like so that the empirical element be strengthened. Sure, everyone at home won't believe you but you'd be empirically satisfied. Hell, bring a whole stadium full of people if you like.

Honestly? Nope, because then God seems less enlightened than what I'd expect.

He has millenia of existence over me, but that would just seem petty for someone with the scope of power that God claims to have.

Your model of God had God vengeful so I had God fulfill your model of him (for simplicities sake). And you're not happy with his answer

Some people

The point is hypothetical. And the hypothetical point is that you be satisified that God exists - based on empirical evidence.

But the entity first appearing and claiming to be God would be unreliable also. How would it be proven to be God? It's not like we have His toothbrush that he left behind to compare DNA with.

How do you prove DNA is DNA? By using something else? But how do you prove the something else is the something else?

Which is why we exclude such meanderings from the discussion. They lead endlessly to nowhere. Instead, we suppose God jumping through whatever empirical hoops we require - to be God. And not aliens, and not worldwide delusion.

strobe

Ahh Skep, I really like your OP's. At least you seem to put a decent amount of thought into them which is a nice change to the "You DO believe in God" style threads. But then the "No Nexxt" responses to peoples perfectly good answers always let you down.

Emperical evidence is something that can be tested and demonstrated to everybody else. The other evidence you are talking about, God whispering into your ear that he loves you and the like, can not be tested or demonstrated to anybody else, at all, ever, in anyway. It's that simple, this is why emperical evidence is worth more than the other types of "evidence" you want to claim as equally as valuable.

The Mad Hatter

antiskeptic wrote: »

Sunk

2 : done for, ruined

Sunk is a participle, not a verb. So Sink's sunk would have been ok (if it were true), but Sink sank. [/pedantry]

Pray tell.

Occam's razor. Your mum might be an alien, but it's far more probable she's your mum. Something claiming to be a god is far more likely to be a part of this universe than apart from it.

antiskeptic

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Obviously. Empirical evidence of god is only relevant to those who require empirical evidence of god but isn't relevant to belief?

The argument demonstrates how the provision of satisfying empirical evidnence of God - leading to trust that God exists - rests on God's provision all the way down the line.

If so, trust that God exists supplied by God by any other means is as good as the empirically provided means.

Currently belief in god depends on faith, there is a choice whether to believe christian, muslim, buddist, etc, version of events or have no particular supernatural belief at all...if a god made his existence an inarguable fact by showing himself to the world in a way that cannot be denied by most rational people then his existence would no longer be a question of faith, we would have knowledge of a godly existence, there would be no such thing as atheists or agnostics.

Agreed. The OP takes the atheist/agnostic, provides empirical evidence, makes the atheist/agnostic a believer in Gods existance.

What is suggested is that this means of God making believers is as good as any other means God makes believers (say by direct, personal revelation)

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

Conclusion: 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. I can be as certain of the one method as I can be of the other.

You certainly can not be as certain of this "method" as the other, given your alternative method is just based on philosophical musings.

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

It's relevant to any valid belief that God exists.

antiskeptic

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Sunk is a participle, not a verb. So Sink's sunk would have been ok (if it were true), but Sink sank. [/pedantry]

Consider: baked bean

Sucksinkt?

Occam's razor. Your mum might be an alien, but it's far more probable she's your mum. Something claiming to be a god is far more likely to be a part of this universe than apart from it.

Why? When the universe could as easily be part of God.

Ickle Magoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

The argument demonstrates how the provision of satisfying empirical evidnence of God - leading to trust that God exists - rests on God's provision all the way down the line.

If so, trust that God exists supplied by God by any other means is as good as the empirically provided means.

But it isn't....because god whispering in your ear isn't any kind of evidence to me. If I claimed Elvis whispered in my ear would you just accept that as fact? Would the rest of the world?

Of course not, it would take Elvis showing himself to the world to prove he exists and although in hindsight it might make my claims more believable, it still doesn't make them true - unless Elvis also says that is what happened when he shows himself.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Agreed. The OP takes the atheist/agnostic, provides empirical evidence, makes the atheist/agnostic a believer in Gods existance.

What is suggested is that this means of God making believers is as good as any other means God makes believers (say by direct, personal revelation)

Direct, personal revelation is only good to the people that have direct, personal revelation - empirical evidence is there for everyone to see, test and study - I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that they are one and the same. Until & unless a god does show himself then claims of direct, personal revelations don't prove anything other than people think they have direct, personal revelations.

Delirium

antiskeptic wrote: »

Before your very eyes, whilst you're suspended over the earth watching it happen in the space of a few hours (not that God need take that long but he want's to let you enjoy the show)?

More like it. But it would still only prove abilities of the entity and not the identity of it.

It all hinges on trust. For example if a guy says his name is Dave Jones. It doesn't change much for me to trust that is his name. But is someone/thing claims to be God, that potentially changes my view of reality. It's now possible for all things that have been mentioned in books/movies to exist.

Hop on board. And bring as many mates as you like so that the empirical element be strengthened. Sure, everyone at home won't believe you but you'd be empirically satisfied. Hell, bring a whole stadium full of people if you like.

That would be very cool, regardless who was behind it.

Your model of God had God vengeful so I had God fulfill your model of him (for simplicities sake). And you're not happy with his answer

Some people

The point is hypothetical. And the hypothetical point is that you be satisified that God exists - based on empirical evidence.

I actually didn't. I proposed that He explain why He suddenly stopped with the vengenance in new testament. But I take your point about empirical evidence.

How do you prove DNA is DNA? By using something else? But how do you prove the something else is the something else?

Which is why we exclude such meanderings from the discussion. They lead endlessly to nowhere. Instead, we suppose God jumping through whatever empirical hoops we require - to be God. And not aliens, and not worldwide delusion.

No, you misunderstand. If I take a strand of my hair and give it to someone, they can confirm that I am the owner of the DNA. I was ruminating on the idea of having a sample of God to compare to the alleged God who has appeared.

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

You certainly can not be as certain of this "method" as the other, given your alternative method is just based on philosophical musings.

The alternative method permits arrival at the conclusion "God exists" through empirical evidence. You don't seem to want to consider the consequences of this eminantly possible hypothesis .. for some reason.

At least you haven't gone the brains-in-jars route

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

The alternative method permits arrival at the conclusion "God exists" through empirical evidence.

So then can you show any of the empirical evidence for the existence of God?
That's a rather important bit of empiricism.

Also remember your "alternative method" means that David Copperfield can fly.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You don't seem to want to consider the consequences of this eminantly possible hypothesis .. for some reason.

So I take it you're not actually reading the replies.

Gregor Samsa

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

Some might, some might not. There's plenty of empirical evidence for evolution by natural selection, yet many Christians don't believe in it. I'm sure plenty of atheists could be just as irrational.

Personally I would believe in god (let's assume the exact god you believe in for simplicity's sake, as we could be talking about any number of gods) if he demonstrated his existence empirically for all to see, but I honestly couldn't tell you what level of empirical evidence it would entail. Extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proof and all that. Suffices to say parting the clouds and appearing like a Monty Python animation would not suffice. If this god is indeed omnipotent, I'd let him worry about the details of how to sufficiently impress me. But I have to say, if your god did demonstrate his existence empirically to me, I still wouldn't worship him, because existing or not, anything that demands worship in exchange for salvation is a tyrant.

Now, lets flip this for a second: if Thor, Vishnu and Odin all demonstrated their existence empirically for all to see, and demonstrated that they were the only gods, then would then would you, as a Christian, cease to believe in your "one true god"? If the answer is no, then you really have no business talking about empiricism, because it doesn't concern you.

As for the so called problem you say your OP is posing for A&As, I really don't see it.

antiskeptic

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

But it isn't....because god whispering in your ear isn't any kind of evidence to me. If I claimed Elvis whispered in my ear would you just accept that as fact? Would the rest of the world?

The suggestion isn't that God whispering in my ear should be as convincing to you as God turning up in the sky to you. The suggestion is that God whispering in your ear is as good as God turning up in the sky to you.

Direct, personal revelation is only good to the people that have direct, personal revelation - empirical evidence is there for everyone to see, test and study - I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that they are one and the same.

What does God turning up to lots of people do to add to your conviction that God exists that God whispering in your ear doesn't? I mean, once you realise that God has turned up to many, you also have to realise that God has installed in you a trust-system that happens to be fueled by the fact that others see as you see.

Your level of trust via the empirical is God enabled. Why can't he install another system of trust that enables just as much. Or more so than empirical (where we could possibly have reason reason to suppose it could be aliens).

Until & unless a god does show himself then claims of direct, personal revelations don't prove anything other than people think they have direct, personal revelations.

The subject is your trust that God exists (however God provides it). Not the abilility of your trust to influence others. The suggestion is that God might have better ways of ensuring trust that he exists than the empirical.

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

The alternative method permits arrival at the conclusion "God exists" through empirical evidence.

No it doesn't. It's a philosophical or theological postulation. In layman's terms - it's clutching at straws.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You don't seem to want to consider the consequences of this eminantly possible hypothesis .. for some reason.

While you might like to think you have posed some form of dilemma for atheists, your hypothesis is no more eminently possible than one offered by an Amazonian tribesman concerning his tree-god. The basic fact that you can come up with an idea doesn't lend it any weight whatsoever.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

So then can you show any of the empirical evidence for the existence of God?

No. Hypothetical situations don't usually require it.

Also remember your "alternative method" means that David Copperfield can fly.

No it does not.

So I take it you're not actually reading the replies.

I am. Some folk seem to be considering what to do with God showing up. Others seem bent on invoking aliens.

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

No it doesn't. It's a philosophical or theological postulation. In layman's terms - it's clutching at straws.

Perhaps you'd attempt a deconstruct in a more .. er.. substantial way?

While you might like to think you have posed some form of dilemma for atheists, your hypothesis is no more eminently possible than one offered by an Amazonian tribesman concerning his tree-god. The basic fact that you can come up with an idea doesn't lend it any weight whatsoever.

Which says not a lot. Are you suggesting God would be incapable of demonstrating his existance empirically?

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

No. Hypothetical situations don't usually require it.

So then we can agree that God is purely hypothetical?
If not, why isn't there any empirical evidence for his existence?

antiskeptic wrote: »

No it does not.

And why not?
I'm following you exact logic.

It can't possibly be a trick because if you suggest that, then everything must be a trick.
Therefore David Copperfield can fly.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I am. Some folk seem to be considering what to do with God showing up. Others seem bent on invoking aliens.

Then you would have seen that I said:

So even if he has proven that he exists and that he is everything people claim to be and is the person talked about in the bible.
Then yes I would concede he exists.
However i certainly wouldn't worship him as he's a bit evil.

But you still asked:

You don't seem to want to consider the consequences of this eminantly possible hypothesis .. for some reason.

Also the various other questions I asked that you don't seem to want to consider.... for some reason.

Gregor Samsa

antiskeptic wrote: »

The suggestion is that God whispering in your ear is as good as God turning up in the sky to you.

Lets say I hear such a whispering in my ear. Some reactions I might have:

1. Woah! Acid flashback!
2. Wop! Wop! Wooooo! I'm insane!
3. Damn my ventriloquist brother!
4. I hear dead people!
5. God spoke to me!
6. Sh!t, L. Ron Hubbard was right!


Now, if I was to assume number 5, it most likely wouldn't be because the evidence of hearing the whisper was empirically convincing by itself, but rather that I'm pre-dispositioned to believing that such an occurrence must be god for some reason. Most of the people on this board (myself included), of course, are not.

strobe

antiskeptic wrote: »

The suggestion isn't that God whispering in my ear should be as convincing to you as God turning up in the sky to you. The suggestion is that God whispering in your ear is as good as God turning up in the sky to you.

This will be the last time I post in the thread because unfortunately you are doing just what I suggested you would earlier. Great OP, ludicrous responses to peoples answers.

Of course god whispering in my ear is not going to be as convincing as proper emperical evidence because of the point already made. Other people can test the emperical evidence and confirm it's real. They can't do that with the whisper. People hear voices in thier head all the time. If god raised mount everest out of the ground spun it round in circles, formed it into a big statue of himself that said "I am god" on it and then set in back down. I'd accept that, because everybody else in the world would confirm it actually happened. I could go there and touch it. If I hear a voice in my head constantly saying "I am god" I would go see a doctor.

The two types of "proof" are not the same. Just please admit that. Like always, good thread, congrats. But admit when you are mistaken. Please man.

Ickle Magoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

The suggestion isn't that God whispering in my ear should be as convincing to you as God turning up in the sky to you. The suggestion is that God whispering in your ear is as good as God turning up in the sky to you.

Riiiighhhht....but I'm an atheist because neither has happened...atheist, without god...remember?

antiskeptic wrote: »

What does God turning up to lots of people do to add to your conviction that God exists that God whispering in your ear doesn't? I mean, once you realise that God has turned up to many, you also have to realise that God has installed in you a trust-system that happens to be fueled by the fact that others see as you see.

Well, nothing. If I thought god whispered in my ear then I'd be a theist & there would be no need for the sky writing. Rather than thinking god installed anything, I realise that thousands of gods apparently turned up to billions of people - my issue in requiring empirical evidence is establishing who, if anyone, is right.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your level of trust via the empirical is God enabled. Why can't he install another system of trust that enables just as much. Or more so than empirical (where we could possibly have reason reason to suppose it could be aliens).

Only if I have belief that god exists, which I don't. Your whole argument circles around a belief in god proving god exists; god exists to some and that is proof enough for all - the trouble is none of that is proof to me, any more than the all the muslim belief/revelations convince you to be muslim or all the hindu belief/revelations convince you to be hindu.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The subject is your trust that God exists (however God provides it). Not the abilility of your trust to influence others. The suggestion is that God might have better ways of ensuring trust that he exists than the empirical.

I don't have trust that a god exists, I certainly have no trust that it's your god that exists. If god had great ways of ensuring trust in his existence then the world would be 100% theist, if your god had any kind of convincing argument for his particular existence then the world would be 100% christian. It's not. "Trust" in whatever gods existence is all down to personal faith & living in a particular demographic.

antiskeptic

phutyle wrote: »

Some might, some might not. There's plenty of empirical evidence for evolution by natural selection, yet many Christians don't believe in it. I'm sure plenty of atheists could be just as irrational.

Granted, atheism is merely absence of belief in gods. It doesn't mean adherence to knowledge through empircism. But let's suppose we're dealing with atheists and agnostics who typically frequent this forum. They seem to object along the lines of "no empirical evidence"

Personally I would believe in god (let's assume the exact god you believe in for simplicity's sake, as we could be talking about any number of gods) if he demonstrated his existence empirically for all to see, but I honestly couldn't tell you what level of empirical evidence it would entail. Extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proof and all that. Suffices to say parting the clouds and appearing like a Monty Python animation would not suffice. If this god is indeed omnipotent, I'd let him worry about the details of how to sufficiently impress me. But I have to say, if your god did demonstrate his existence empirically to me, I still wouldn't worship him, because existing or not, anything that demands worship in exchange for salvation is a tyrant.

Reading that was like taking a too-tight pair of shoes off

1) You can now progress to the the dilemma of the OP given that God has (we'll assume) demonstrated his existance to your empirical satisfaction.

2) A side note: God doesn't demand your worship in order that you be saved. The sequence is: he saves you without your having to do a thing THEN you find he's great and worship follows as a result

Now, lets flip this for a second: if Thor, Vishnu and Odin all demonstrated their existence empirically for all to see, and demonstrated that they were the only gods, then would then would you, as a Christian, cease to believe in your "one true god"? If the answer is no, then you really have no business talking about empiricism, because it doesn't concern you.

The title of the thread questions whether empirisim is indeed uber alles.

The OP forces (I suggest) the empiricist believer into accepting other ways of God bringing a person to belief. What it doesn't say is that these other ways could provide higher levels of trust than empiricism. If so, then Thor would have to be able to trump the highest card that God could produce in order to be sure I'd trust in him and not God.

I'm open to his attempt. Hell, I can't not be - seeing as the OP supposes any trust I have in God's existance to be the result of God's work. Ditto to what Thor might do.

As for the so called problem you say your OP is posing for A&As, I really don't see it.

The problem is that the clamour "no empirical evidence for God" might as well be "I have no personal revelation of God". Because the two can be of equal value. Yet the atheist/agnostic values the one over the other without due cause.

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

The problem is that the clamour "no empirical evidence for God" might as well be "I have no personal revelation of God". Because the two can be of equal value.

No they can't.
Personal revelation is subjective and anecdotal, it can be any number of effects that can make you think something is true when it is not.

A man flying for example.

Empirical evidence is the exact opposite by definition.
It is objective and testable. You can arrive at it independently or it can be demonstrated and repeated.

Let's take an example.
My personal revelation leads me to believe that objects accelerate to the ground at 3.221 metres per second per second.

Empirical evidence shows that it accelerates at around 9.8 metres per second per second.

Now you can test and verify one but not the other.
But by your logic, my personal revelation is as correct as the empirical evidence.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yet the atheist/agnostic values the one over the other without due cause.

Can you name one single scientific fact or advance that is based solely on "personal revelation"?

Skrynesaver

Are you seriously attempting to argue that, based on a hypothetical argument that god exists, you delusions have the same value as empirical evidence?

And that this will shake the foundation of my disbelief?

I haven't heard anything this daft in ages, but perhaps you should be posting in the humour thread.

antiskeptic

strobe wrote: »

This will be the last time I post in the thread because unfortunately you are doing just what I suggested you would earlier. Great OP, ludicrous responses to peoples answers.

Oh well..

Of course god whispering in my ear is not going to be as convincing as proper emperical evidence because of the point already made. Other people can test the emperical evidence and confirm it's real. They can't do that with the whisper. People hear voices in thier head all the time. If god raised mount everest out of the ground spun it round in circles, formed it into a big statue of himself that said "I am god" on it and then set in back down. I'd accept that, because everybody else in the world would confirm it actually happened.

Let me remind you what this "great" OP says.

Now that you've believed God exists (because of his great empirical feats), you'll also believe he installed a system in you whereby you could have high degrees of trust that x is the case. Yes? You'll now know that he designed it so that you would have this sensation called "trust" when many others confirmed your view. Let's call that system of trust-generation, X.

What's to stop God installing another system of trust-generation called Y. Y would be God's direct revelation of himself to you whereby trust is generated you that he exists.

If the sensation "trust" is an arrangement of your neural network then it doesn't really matter whether God uses system X or system Y to arrange it so. Note: you can't cite trust in system X over system Y because you've no external-to-God reason to trust one system over the other having agreed that God exists.

The two types of "proof" are not the same. Just please admit that. Like always, good thread, congrats. But admit when you are mistaken. Please man.

The hypothetical situation in the OP posits empirical arrival at God. Once agreeing that this is possible, the A/A agrees that any God supplied method is as good as the next (better said: God is the decider on which method engenders most trust). It could be that empiricism is the worse of the two ways God has of proving his existance to someone.

antiskeptic

Skrynesaver wrote: »

Are you seriously attempting to argue that...

No.