Empiricism uber alles?

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

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.


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

You need to begin at the OP and progress from there. This isn't a general claim that personal revelation trumps empirical observation.

Until then, over and out.

Gregor Samsa

antiskeptic wrote: »

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"

This hypothesis seems to be getting narrower and narrower with every post. Soon it will be "Suppose we're talking only about people who agree with me..."

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

Don't get too comfortable just yet...

antiskeptic wrote: »

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.

Nope, still not seeing the dilemma.

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

How very disingenuous. You left out all the stuff about me having to recognize that I'm a sinner from birth, that I need saving and that that saving can only come through JC. If you're assuming that god's revelation has convinced me of that, you may as well be saying "If you were a Christian, would you believe in Christianity?" - it goes back to the constant narrowing of your hypothesis.

antiskeptic wrote: »

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.

But my hypothesis clearly assumed that Thor, Odin and Vishnu demonstrate that they are the only gods. This leaves your one holding two Jokers and the Rules of Bridge.

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

At last! It's only taken you to post 57 to get around to saying what you mean. It won't surprise you to find out I completely disagree. Empirical evidence and personal revelation are not of equal value. And even, in the wildest stretches of the imagination, if they were, the fact that I have no personal revelation can't be ignored.

Not enough evidence, God. Not enough evidence. - Bertrand Russell.

antiskeptic

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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

No worries. The OP is for you then. You'd be an atheist who has just had God demonstrate himself empirically to you.

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.

Which is where the OP starts out... move from there.

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.

The argument begins at you believing God exists via empirical means.

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,

Having and deploying to all are two different things. The OP onwards - okay?

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

You need to begin at the OP and progress from there. This isn't a general claim that personal revelation trumps empirical observation.

Until then, over and out.

And my post wasn't saying that.

It was demonstrating the fundamental difference between empirical evidence and personal revelation (AKA making stuff up).

So then how can you say that personal revelation is equal to empirical evidence?

If all you have to go on is personal revelation, how can you possibly know it's true?
But with empirical evidence you can show it's true?

sink

antiskeptic wrote: »

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 these 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 indeed exists.

But in his doing so, the atheist/agnostic would 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 created beings. And because God 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 to utilisation of method to evoke trust.

So, what if God causes 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.

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.

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

Going back to the OP, after reading all the replies I think I now understand what you are getting at.

In a hypothetical situation where God has been shown through empirical evidence to definitely exist, you purport that divine revelation alongside the empirical evidence would be just as conclusive as the empirical evidence.

I would say you are wrong, empirical evidence will always trump personal experience because it can be confirmed by an independent observer, personal experience by definition can't.

The mindset of a true sceptic is one where even ones own personal experience can't be relied upon; for ones own senses are as fallible as the next guys. The only true measure of what is real and what is not is independent observation with sufficient data.

Gregor Samsa

sink wrote: »

The mindset of a true sceptic is one where even ones own personal experience can't be relied upon;

You have seen the OP's username, right?

sink

phutyle wrote: »

You have seen the OP's username, right?

Yeah I think it's very apt.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

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 these 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 indeed exists.

This is just a long way of saying "supposin' god exists, right, and supposin' he did something that showed he exists, right, then you (A&A) would have to believe in him"

antiskeptic wrote: »

But in his doing so, the atheist/agnostic would 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 created beings. And because God 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 to utilisation of method to evoke trust.

Of course this would mean that A&As who didnt have trust in gods existence before god gave it to them, didnt have the trust because god didn't give it to them, because he didn't fulfil the trust-generation process he instilled in them. Which just kicks free will in the nuts, doesn't it?

antiskeptic wrote: »

So, what if God causes 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.

This still brings up the same problem. Regardless of how god gives you the trust, if it is only god and god alone that give you the trust then there is no free will involved. The humans who believe in god only believe because god does things to their brains to make them believe and the ones that dont beleive have things done to their brains that stop them from believing. It begs the question of why god then rewards or punished people for doing something that only he has control over.

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.

The problem with this statement is that I dont think anyone here in A&A is going to accept that empiricle evidence and subective evidence can be taken equally.

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

Its only irrelevent if the people holding that belief doesn't care about empiricle evidence.

Zombrex

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.

I think your problem is you are looking simply at what you believe, rather than why you believe it.

If I woke up tomorrow and just believed God existed, I wouldn't take that too seriously. I might think it is odd, but there are plenty of reasons why it could happen that don't involve god doing anything.

You are equating me believing something because I have empirical evidence and me believing something when I don't as if those are the same thing, they aren't. If God revealed himself to me by writing God is Great in the stars I would believe but I would also know why I believe. That would not be the same as God simply making me believe because I would have no idea why I believed and thus couldn't discount all the natural explanations, where I know there is no natural explanation for the stars suddenly saying God is Great.

I would imagine that God, being the clever bloke he is, would realize this too, and give you are reason to believe he exists rather than simply making you believe he exists

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

If all you have to go on is personal revelation, how can you possibly know it's true?

But with empirical evidence you can show it's true?

Any truth-value extracted from empiricism would be revealed to be such (the OP tells our newly believing atheist) by the fact that God has designed empiricism as a truth-revealing mechanism. One of the componants God has decided to include in this particular truth-revealing mechanism is "other people seeing the same thing as me increases my confidence that what I'm seeing isn't a delusion". The reason he has done so arises, presumably, out of the fact that our eyes can fool us or our minds can become confused.

At all points, the truth we can arrive at is the result of God designing us the way we are and God designing the truth mechanism the way he designs it and the way it interacts with us. Our trust is the result only of God's actions regarding us. Thus:

Question: how do we know God exists empirically (if he turns up)?

Answer: Because God ensures we know.

Question: Is there any reliance on the person to evaluate that their knowing God exists empirically is correct?

Answer: No! God has designed them to respond to sufficient empirical evidence and has stimulated them with that evidence to produce the response he desires. They now believe. There is no onus on any part of the person to conclude they can trust God exists. They do because he ensures they do.

Now consider personal revelation in the case God turns up.

Question: How do we know God exists by person revelation?

Answer: Because God ensures we know

Question: Is there any reliance on the person to evaluate that their knowing God exists by personal revelation is correct?

Answer: No! God has designed them to respond to sufficient personal evidence and has stimulated them with that evidence to produce the response he desires. They now believe. There is no onus on any part of the person to conclude they can trust God exists. They do because he ensures they do.

_______

doctoremma

This thread is ace. I never realised the lengths some people would go to to reconcile their cognitive dissonance.

Gregor Samsa

@ antiskeptic (#71) So, you're basically saying that if it's assumed that this god has designed the value of empirical evidence and personal revelation to be the exact same, then empirical evidence and personal revelation have equal value? You have a very long winded way of saying nothing at all.

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

Any truth-value extracted from empiricism would be revealed to be such (the OP tells our newly believing atheist) by the fact that God has designed empiricism as a truth-revealing mechanism.

Hang on now, were are we getting this "God designed empiricism" nonsense?
The idea didn't really appear until a few centuries ago, and was opposed by all religious teachers of the time.

Why isn't in the bible?

antiskeptic wrote: »

One of the componants God has decided to include in this particular truth-revealing mechanism is "other people seeing the same thing as me increases my confidence that what I'm seeing isn't a delusion". The reason he has done so arises, presumably, out of the fact that our eyes can fool us or our minds can become confused.

So if God was designing us with a "truth-revealing mechanism" why did he design us with eyes that can be fooled?

antiskeptic wrote: »

At all points, the truth we can arrive at is the result of God designing us the way we are and God designing the truth mechanism the way he designs it and the way it interacts with us. Our trust is the result only of God's actions regarding us.

And again this doesn't make any sense.
Why did he design us with empiricism so we could learn to trust him, then refuse to show any empirical evidence of his existence?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Thus:
Question: how do we know God exists empirically (if he turns up)?

Answer: Because God ensures we know.

Question: Is there any reliance on the person to evaluate that their knowing God exists empirically is correct?

Answer: No! God has designed them to respond to sufficient empirical evidence and has stimulated them with that evidence to produce the response he desires. They now believe. There is no onus on any part of the person to conclude they can trust God exists. They do because he ensures they do.

That's not how empiricism works at all.

We would know god exists empirically because we would be able to independantly test his existence and claims and exclude the possibility of cheating and/or delusion.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Now consider personal revelation in the case God turns up.

Question: How do we know God exists by person revelation?

Answer: Because God ensures we know

Circular reasoning, how do you know God ensures you know anything by personal revelation?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Question: Is there any reliance on the person to evaluate that their knowing God exists by personal revelation is correct?

Answer: No! God has designed them to respond to sufficient personal evidence and has stimulated them with that evidence to produce the response he desires. They now believe. There is no onus on any part of the person to conclude they can trust God exists. They do because he ensures they do.

So basically, if you believe in god, assume you are right and don't bother to examine your belief?

How do you know your "personal evidence" is accurate?

antiskeptic

sink wrote: »

In a hypothetical situation where God has been shown through empirical evidence to definitely exist, you purport that divine revelation alongside the empirical evidence would be just as conclusive as the empirical evidence.

Indeed.

I would say you are wrong, empirical evidence will always trump personal experience because it can be confirmed by an independent observer, personal experience by definition can't.

In a general sense I would agree. But we are dealing with a specific case where the formerly atheist believer realises he believes because of a mechanism of arriving at truth (empiricism) installed in him by God. It's God's mechanism in him that demonstrates the existance of God - not independent observations (which are but componants of this particular mechanism).

You'd be pointing at componants of one of God's mechanism as if they can comment on the efficiacy of God's mechanism. It would be better to realise that God decides on the efficiacy of a mechanism and that he is not constrained from developing a more effective one.

The mindset of a true sceptic is one where even ones own personal experience can't be relied upon; for ones own senses are as fallible as the next guys. The only true measure of what is real and what is not is independent observation with sufficient data.

This only deals with empirical data/senses I'm afraid. The world is a far larger place than that which is empirically measurable/observable (thankfully)

antiskeptic

doctoremma wrote: »

This thread is ace. I never realised the lengths some people would go to to reconcile their cognitive dissonance.

The term "cognitive dissonance" used in a discussion forums. So very 00's

Ickle Magoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

No worries. The OP is for you then. You'd be an atheist who has just had God demonstrate himself empirically to you.





Which is where the OP starts out... move from there.




The argument begins at you believing God exists via empirical means.





Having and deploying to all are two different things. The OP onwards - okay?

I know you really want it to but it still doesn't make sense. The very nature of empirical evidence is that it can be tested and subjected to the rigours of external examination - personal testimony will never equal empirical evidence. Whether they reach the same conclusion doesn't equate to their equal worth as truth establishing mechanisms.

sink

antiskeptic wrote: »

Indeed.



In a general sense I would agree. But we are dealing with a specific case where the formerly atheist believer realises he believes because of a mechanism of arriving at truth (empiricism) installed in him by God. It's God's mechanism in him that demonstrates the existance of God - not independent observations (which are but componants of this particular mechanism).

You'd be pointing at componants of one of God's mechanism as if they can comment on the efficiacy of God's mechanism. It would be better to realise that God decides on the efficiacy of a mechanism and that he is not constrained from developing a more effective one.




This only deals with empirical data/senses I'm afraid. The world is a far larger place than that which is empirically measurable/observable (thankfully)

A logically consistent God has to be constrained by logic. Even in his omnipotence, God could not create a triangle on the euclidean plane with the sum of it's angle angles equalling anything other than 180 degrees. Similarly God can't create two methods which both have equal merit while one lacks qualities the other posses.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This is just a long way of saying "supposin' god exists, right, and supposin' he did something that showed he exists, right, then you (A&A) would have to believe in him"

So far so good.

Of course this would mean that A&As who didnt have trust in gods existence before god gave it to them, didnt have the trust because god didn't give it to them, because he didn't fulfil the trust-generation process he instilled in them. Which just kicks free will in the nuts, doesn't it?

Indeed it does. Although that's a side issue..

This still brings up the same problem. Regardless of how god gives you the trust, if it is only god and god alone that give you the trust then there is no free will involved. The humans who believe in god only believe because god does things to their brains to make them believe and the ones that dont beleive have things done to their brains that stop them from believing. It begs the question of why god then rewards or punished people for doing something that only he has control over.

It's an interesting area for which there are answers. But not one for this thread.

The problem with this statement is that I dont think anyone here in A&A is going to accept that empiricle evidence and subective evidence can be taken equally.

Then they would need to say why not - seeing as they would be recognising that God is the one to provide truth-value to any system he installs (goes the OP)

doctoremma

antiskeptic wrote: »

The term "cognitive dissonance" used in a discussion forums. So very 00's

Sorry, is it not de rigueur? You should be flattered - for me to portray you as reconciling personal dissonance means that I consider you intellectually capable of recognising the contradiction in the first place

Gregor Samsa

King Mob wrote: »

Hang on now...

No, King Mob, you don't get it. None of us do. We have to assume that everything antiskeptic says is true, and any criticisms we have of it inherently go against the truths we have to assume. It's all in the OP, and it's perfectly reasonable - it assumes that god exists, has irrefutably convinced you of his existence and has created and controls all the mechanisms that are used to convince you.

What is there about this that's so hard to get?

King Mob

phutyle wrote: »

it assumes that god exists, has irrefutably convinced you of his existence and has created and controls all the mechanisms that are used to convince you.

Oddly if this was the case I could not be convinced that God exists.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Then they would need to say why not - seeing as they would be recognising that God is the one to provide truth-value to any system he installs (goes the OP)

If God has designed atheists to require emprical evidence for his existence then he cannot reveal himself any other way that empirical evidence

Otherwise he would be contradicting himself, which he can't do.

Blame God, not us.

Morbert

antiskeptic wrote: »

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 these 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 indeed exists.

But in his doing so, the atheist/agnostic would 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 created beings. And because God 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 to utilisation of method to evoke trust.

So, what if God causes 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.

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.

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

What you have done is shown that belief in God in the absence of empirical evidence is logically consistent. I don't really have an issue with that, and am also quick to defend religious belief when people call it illogical.

However, logical consistency is not enough for us. We like our assumed truths to be demonstratable on some level. If we are talking strictly philosophy, then this requirement is somewhat arbitrary, and adopted only for pragmatic reasons, but it is how we go about our lives. To me it would feel even more arbitrary to apply one set of assumptions to certain epistemic issues, and another set to others.

Another, perhaps more straightforward reason is the absence of revelation. If God instils such knowledge directly, then he has omitted a large portion of the population, either because they didn't pray the right way or were unfortunate enough to try the wrong religion.

antiskeptic

sink wrote: »

A logically consistent God has to be constrained by logic. Even in his omnipotence, God could not create a triangle on the euclidean plane with the sum of it's angle angles equalling anything other than 180 degrees.

Indeed. But there's nothing stopping God producing two different triangles, each with sum of angles equal to 180 degrees

Similarly God can't create two methods which both have equal merit while one lacks qualities the other posses.

The meritoriousness (is that a word) of a method is a function of it's ability to produce a desired result. Now if trust is considered a state that one is brought into by a method (as if it were a destination) then certainly God can create two different methods with different qualities. Whether you fly or drive to your destination isn't the issue. That you arrive at it is.

antiskeptic

Morbert wrote: »

What you have done is shown that belief in God in the absence of empirical evidence is logically consistent. I don't really have an issue with that, and am also quick to defend religious belief when people call it illogical.

I think I've gone a bit further than that. I think I've shown that an atheist who accepts that God could demonstrate his existance empirically must then find that; personal revelation by God has the potential to be as good as (or even better than, if God decides) empirical demonstration, as a way for God to engender trust that he exists.

Unfortunately, much of the response to date has equivocated on God's ability to demonstrate he exists empirically () or else it has refused to step into the position of the OP - where the atheist has had God demonstrate himself empirically and considers the situation from that perspective.

However, logical consistency is not enough for us. We like our assumed truths to be demonstratable on some level.

Why? If not that God (if you assume the position of the now-former atheist in the OP) has designed you so. Your ability to trust by this route is God-given you, as a new believer would understand. And realising yourself utterly dependent on God for the trust he has delivered you via a method he has installed in you, you are in no position to comment on the merits (or no) of any other method of trust-generation that he might deploy. Not if you haven't experienced them yourself in order to draw comparison at least.

Another, perhaps more straightforward reason is the absence of revelation. If God instils such knowledge directly, then he has omitted a large portion of the population, either because they didn't pray the right way or were unfortunate enough to try the wrong religion.

Or they didn't meet the single criterion that must be met by a person before he will reveal himself to that person. You would agree that if everyone has that potential opened to them (irrespective of when/where or to whom they were born) and that permission is granted that a person not avail of meeting that criterion (by way of choice however that choice is rendered to a person) then one could expect a situation where some will receive that personal revelation. And some won't.

That the majority have not is neither here nor there. The line of any yea/nay survey is always going to land somewhere.

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

The meritoriousness (is that a word) of a method is a function of it's ability to produce a desired result. Now if trust is considered a state that one is brought into by a method (as if it were a destination) then certainly God can create two different methods with different qualities. Whether you fly or drive to your destination isn't the issue. That you arrive at it is.

Finally we agree on something.

As far as many religious are concerned, it doesn't matter how you reach the conclusion, as long as the desires conclusion is reached. Whether you use pure logic or mere speculation isn't the issue. That you arrive at it is.

It's the same reasoning that creationists use. A preconceived conclusion that must be borne out by some method of inquiry. Any method of inquiry.

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

Finally we agree on something.

As far as many religious are concerned, it doesn't matter how you reach the conclusion, as long as the desires conclusion is reached. Whether you use pure logic or mere speculation isn't the issue. That you arrive at it is.

It's the same reasoning that creationists use. A preconceived conclusion that must be borne out by some method of inquiry. Any method of inquiry.

Your continued ability to talk about anything but the problem contained in the OP is noted.

antiskeptic

doctoremma wrote: »

Sorry, is it not de rigueur? You should be flattered - for me to portray you as reconciling personal dissonance means that I consider you intellectually capable of recognising the contradiction in the first place

What contradiction?

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your continued ability to talk about anything but the problem contained in the OP is noted.

Let's be clear on something - you haven't posed a problem.

A problem would be posting a plausible concept that contradicts current understanding, rather a bunch of "what if" scenarios. By all means share your philosophical musings but don't make the mistake of labelling them as anything other than what they are.

Skrynesaver

There isn't a problem in the original post, can't you see that you are equating personal delusion with hard evidence?

While you may believe that a greater power has revealed itself to you and thus provided proof of it's existence I think you're a little bit touched and should have a lie down.

As a result your personal revelation is not evidence to me, it's just the ravings of someone who hears voices.