Empiricism uber alles?

antiskeptic

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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

And who, asks the OP of the via-empiricism-now-believing-ex-atheist, do you now realise has designed and installed this truth-generating 'software' in you? And who has inputted the empirical data necessary to produce the output (in you): "I trust God exists"?

Assuming you answer as you should (ie: God), you might then ask the question: what part in my arriving at the point of trusting did I play in all this.

Assuming you answer as you should (ie: no part, everything was done to me) you might then ask the question: whose acitivity from start to finish produced my arrival in this state of trust?

Assuming you answer as you should (ie: God's activity), you might then ask the question: could God have other means of demonstrating his existance that produce trust? Other software that engenders trust in a different way to the empirical way?

Assuming you answer as you should (ie: of course he could) you'll have concluded as the OP concludes/

- personal testimony will never equal empirical evidence. Whether they reach the same conclusion doesn't equate to their equal worth as truth establishing mechanisms.

The issue isn't personal testimony. The issue is personal revelation: by God to man. It might not equal empirical evidencing as a way of generating trust in a person - it might actually be better it. The decider on how good a method is in producing trust in a person is God.

Done to you. You wouldn't have played any part./

antiskeptic

Skrynesaver wrote: »

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.

Your continued unwillingness to engage in the OP is noted. Thus endeth our intercourse.

antiskeptic

phutyle wrote: »

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..."

The OP makes it clear which class of atheist if being discussed. Those who object to God's existance because of a lack of empirical evidence.

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.

You'll understand that I'm on my own in this thread. So I'll have to cut to the chase and stay with the issue outlined in the OP

Empirical evidence and personal revelation are not of equal value.

From the perspective of the ex-atheist in our OP they must be. Argue from that perspective - not the perspective of an atheist outside the OP.

And even, in the wildest stretches of the imagination, if they were, the fact that I have no personal revelation can't be ignored.

If I'm ignoring it from now on, it's because it's not relevant to this discussion

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

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.

When trying to determine something the reliability of the method used is very very relevant. As I just said to you over on t'other forum, there is one theory of the atom but thousands of religions, millions of different revelations and billions of different interpretations. "Personal revelation" has proven itself to be totally unreliable as a means of determining anything, let alone ultimate truth. Now, I'm sure we'll both agree that god cannot do things that are logically impossible, e.g. he cannot make an object that he himself cannot move. When god is demonstrating his existence to someone, the reality that personal revelation has proven itself to be unreliable must be taken into account. If I have what I think is a personal revelation it could be anything from Satan to a day dream to some cheese I ate to some drugs I took to a brain tumour to paranoid skitzophrenia. There are a millions different ways in which a personal revelation can be explained, a million different things that it could have been other than god and, although you correctly point out that in those cases you couldn't "know" it was god simply because it wasn't god, you would still think you knew, which is indistinguishable from actually knowing.

So, antiskeptic, it is not logically possible for god to demonstrate his existence through a personal revelation because it is impossible for you to distinguish between "knowing" it was god and "thinking you know" it was god but being mistaken. And if I am to accept your argument that empricism does not help us at all then it is not possible for god to demonstrate his existence to us at all in a way that we can be sure that something else is not going on. The only way god could ever demonstrate his existence in such a way that you can "know" and not just "think you know" is if he had created a universe where no one is ever mistaken about anything. In the universe where we currently exist, it is not possible to "know" that god exists. All we can ever have is levels of confidence.

And that's when I again have to mention the fact that there is one theory of the atom but thousands of religions, millions of different revelations and billions of different interpretations. "Personal revelation" has proven itself to be totally unreliable but, while empiricism isn't perfect, it has proven itself to be infinitely more reliable. You can have a far higher level of confidence with empiricism than with personal revelation because a personal revelation can be caused by a high temperature.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

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

I think your problem is that you are not looking at the OP. In the OP we have a (now former) atheist who has empirical evidence of God's existance sufficient to enable trust that God indeed exists. That is what he believes

Why he trust in Gods existance is, he now realises, the complete work of God. God has:

a) installed a method of trust-generation in this person called: Trust-Through-Empirical-Methodism. Consider it software if you like.

b) inputted data into this software (by way of his showing up and stimulating sensory equipment) which outputs a product called Trust.

God has produced the trust from start to finish. The former atheist has done not one stitch to contribute.

Why do I believe (by personal revelation). Well it turns out that we can say precisely the same thing as we do with empiricism. God has produced trust (via that method) from start to finish. This former unbeliever has done not one stitch to contribute.

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.

I agree perhaps. It could be that God chooses to provide higher levels of trust by other means than empirical means.

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.

As I say, that why (you would then realise) is because God took steps: from software design and installation, to data input. Consider it a Trust generation Black Box - the actual workings aren't important. Indeed, any importance you give this particular trust generation device (empiricism) arises out of all the trust you have been caused to place in it (which too is all the work of God - you would now realise as a former atheist)

You need to see this from the position of the former atheist in the OP. Not from your position as a current atheist.

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

You should realise by now that "the reason why I trust" is simply a part of the mechanism that produces that trust. God chose to design this particular trust method this way. It need not be intrinsic to all methods he has for engendering trust.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Mark Hamill wrote:

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..

Mark Hamill wrote:

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.

Why are these side issues for other threads? These show a logical inconsistency in your argument. If yor argument holds, then free-will doesn't exist (which contradicts most christian teachings that it does) and god punishes people for doing things he makes them do (and christians claim that doesn't happen becase god is "good"). Your argument is a self contradictory mess.

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)

Why would we be recognising that god is the truth-value provider? You said that is doesn't matter how you trust in gods existence as you can be as certain of emprical evidence as you can be of personal reveleation and I said that the A&As here would very unlikely to agree with that statement-that you (or anyone) can be as certain of empirical evidence as they can be of personal revelation (in any situation). Empirical evidence always trumps personal revelation as it is unaffected by things like human fallibility and human bias thanks to the requirement of independent reproducibility.

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

When trying to determine something the reliability of the method used is very very relevant.

Relevant to what - if not trust-level for the determination? And who, realises our OP's (former) atheist, has decided on the reliability of the empirical method when it comes to enabling trust?

Rather than go through your whole post just now, can I ask that you answer the above just to see if you're approaching this thing from the OP (former) atheists perspective or from an atheists perspective (which I'm already aware of)

Cheers..

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Relevant to what - if not trust-level for the determination? And who, realises our OP's (former) atheist, has decided on the reliability of the empirical method when it comes to enabling trust?

People have decided on the empirical method because it has been proven to give reliable results. People have equally rejected personal revelation because it has proven itself to give totally unreliable results.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Rather than go through your whole post just now, can I ask that you answer the above just to see if you're approaching this thing from the OP (former) atheists perspective or from an atheists perspective (which I'm already aware of)

Cheers..

What I'm doing is trying to show you that the perspective you want us to approach it from is, as Mark Hamill points out, a self contradictory mess.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why are these side issues for other threads? These show a logical inconsistency in your argument. If yor argument holds, then free-will doesn't exist (which contradicts most christian teachings that it does) and god punishes people for doing things he makes them do (and christians claim that doesn't happen becase god is "good"). Your argument is a self contradictory mess.

Firstly I don't agree that most Christians teach that man has free will. Two common systems (Calvinism and Arminianism) - shades of either very many churchs will hold to, see the will as seriously compromised. Which is not to say man has no will at all

But to look at what you said:

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.

My own version of the argument holds that man can wilfully prevent God from bringing man to the point of fulfilling God's criterion for saving man. If man achieves this, God clearly won't save him and won't subsequently turn up so that man can believe in God's existance. If, on the other hand, man fails to achieve this, then he will be brought to the point of fulfilling God's criterion for saving him. And after saving man, God will turn up.

Point being: man's will plays a central role in whether he is saved or not.

Why would we be recognising that god is the truth-value provider?

Who else would have designed and installed truth-value-via-empiricism in you now that you see God exists?

You said that is doesn't matter how you trust in gods existence as you can be as certain of emprical evidence as you can be of personal reveleation and I said that the A&As here would very unlikely to agree with that statement-that you (or anyone) can be as certain of empirical evidence as they can be of personal revelation (in any situation). Empirical evidence always trumps personal revelation as it is unaffected by things like human fallibility and human bias thanks to the requirement of independent reproducibility.

I'm assuming the answer to the above question is "God". If not then perhaps we need to tease out your alternative answer.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Who else would have designed and installed truth-value-via-empiricism in you now that you see God exists?

Why do you ask "who" as if it had to be a conscious decision made by an intelligent being?

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

People have decided on the empirical method because it has been proven to give reliable results

Wrong. Who has designed and installed a system that permits trust-value in an observation to be increased when it is seen by an individual that many other people share his same observation?

(I knew you weren't looking at things from the perspective of our (former) atheist in the OP!)

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Empirical evidence and personal revelation are not of equal value.

From the perspective of the ex-atheist in our OP they must be. Argue from that perspective - not the perspective of an atheist outside the OP.

This is where your argument goes down the toilet. You are trying to make us argue from the point of view of an ex-atheist who doesnt exist ,who comes to a conclusion we all contradict. You have set up a textbook strawman, you made up a an atheist who doesnt exist and are then trying to claim that any revelation that applies to this made up atheist applies to all atheists, its nonsense.
Lets say I went to the other forum and said "Imagine there was this theist, right, who suddenly realised that there is ration reason, logical proof or physical need for gods existence and recognised that his believe was entirely emotional and so he became an atheist. The only logical conclusion is if this is true for this imaginary theist, it must true for all you guys, so quite the theism and be atheist". Would I be taken seriously?

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This is where your argument goes down the toilet. You are trying to make us argue from the point of view of an ex-atheist who doesnt exist ,who comes to a conclusion we all contradict.

I'm am requiring you argue from the point of view of someone who accepts that God (if he exists) could demonstrate himself empirically. If you refuse to argue from that postition then we have no business with each other.

Once arguing from that position I then ask you to argue from the (hypothetical - but eminently feasible) position of an atheist who has just seen God turn up empirically. If you won't argue from that position then we have no business with each other either.

I don't know of many atheists who would contradict either of the above positions.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Wrong. Who has designed and installed a system that permits trust-value in an observation to be increased when it is seen by an individual that many other people share his same observation?

(I knew you weren't looking at things from the perspective of our (former) atheist in the OP!)

I think this is a very convoluted version of the Euthyphro dilemma. It asks "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?". This question is essentially unanswerable from the religious persepctive because if good is only good because god has decided it is then morality is arbitrary and he could have just as easily decided that child rape is a moral responsibility but if god is telling us what is inherently good then morality is independent of god, he is irrelevant to morality, he is simply its messenger.

The question you're asking here is very similar. Do we see a particular method as more reliable because god has arbitrarily decided that we should, meaning we could have just as easily believed that tossing a coin to make a decision was more reliable than doing an indepth analysis or do we see the idea of producing successful results as more reliable because it is inherently more reliable? In the first case we are simply drones operating whatever program god has arbitrarily downloaded into our brains but in the second, god is constrained by an inherent logic that even he cannot violate (e.g. he can't make an object that he himself cannot move).


So, from the perspective that god exists your question is unanswerable but from an atheist perspective the answer is trivial and not the one you're hoping for

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

God has produced the trust from start to finish. The former atheist has done not one stitch to contribute.

Yes but every time he goes back to the belief that God exists he believes that because he has empirical evidence for it. If in doubt he can look at the data again.

If you remove or short cut that, as you are suggesting we can, then this reason evaporates, and he is left with a belief he doesn't know why he believes.

So you end up back at square one. You cannot simply remove the reason he believes and consider that the same thing.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Why do I believe (by personal revelation). Well it turns out that we can say precisely the same thing as we do with empiricism. God has produced trust (via that method) from start to finish.

No we can't, because the trust requires the empirical data.

If you don't have that you don't have the trust, you just have the belief. You have that what you believe but not the why.

God has already decided that when he made empirical data reliable compared to non-empirical data.

Your argument basically is arguing that God was wrong when he did this, which is a logical oxymoron is we assume God exists.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I agree perhaps. It could be that God chooses to provide higher levels of trust by other means than empirical means.

Given how badly non-empirical exploration goes that isn't the case.

God has, for what ever reason, given empirical measurement, and more specifically science, as the way to find out about reality.

And he has, for what ever reason, made us very bad at figuring out reality without this, as anyone who has ever tried to measure distance by eye, or tell what temperature it is in a room, will tell you.

Your whole argument is based around the idea that God was some how wrong when he did this, that empirical exploration is fine but we are actually much better when we don't use empirical exploration.

Which is contradicting God and thus fails at the first hurdle.

If we assume God exists then current reality is a product of God and you can't ignore the facts about current reality when exploring God. Reality itself is a revelation from God.

antiskeptic wrote: »

As I say, that why (you would then realise) is because God took steps: from software design and installation, to data input. Consider it a Trust generation Black Box - the actual workings aren't important.

Oh but they are. Without the working you don't have trust. We trust empirical evidence far more than non-empirical evidence. That is just the way we are, and thus the way God made us.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You should realise by now that "the reason why I trust" is simply a part of the mechanism that produces that trust. God chose to design this particular trust method this way. It need not be intrinsic to all methods he has for engendering trust.

It is illogical to suppose that God would have us trust methods that he has chosen to make unreliable, and thus we find that we don't. Reality itself contradicts your position.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Firstly I don't agree that most Christians teach that man has free will. Two common systems (Calvinism and Arminianism) - shades of either very many churchs will hold to, see the will as seriously compromised. Which is not to say man has no will at all

Catholicsm, ie over half of all christians, teach that man has free will.

antiskeptic wrote: »

But to look at what you said:

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.

My own version of the argument holds that man can wilfully prevent God from bringing man to the point of fulfilling God's criterion for saving man. If man achieves this, God clearly won't save him and won't subsequently turn up so that man can believe in God's existance. If, on the other hand, man fails to achieve this, then he will be brought to the point of fulfilling God's criterion for saving him. And after saving man, God will turn up.

Point being: man's will plays a central role in whether he is saved or not.

But mans will is entirely dependent on what will god gives to him, as you said in the OP "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". Our will, our trust are all part of the same decision making process that we use to run our lives and god has total control over that and happily punishes us for failing to do things he doesn't let us do in the first place.
We will only wilfully prevent god from giving us trust if we dont trust god exists, and we wont trust god exists if we wilfully prevent god from giving us this trust. So we have a situation know where god has made an circular reasoning mess which will end up with man being punished for something outside of his control.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Who else would have designed and installed truth-value-via-empiricism in you now that you see God exists?

Why is there a "who"?

antiskeptic wrote: »

You said that is doesn't matter how you trust in gods existence as you can be as certain of emprical evidence as you can be of personal reveleation and I said that the A&As here would very unlikely to agree with that statement-that you (or anyone) can be as certain of empirical evidence as they can be of personal revelation (in any situation). Empirical evidence always trumps personal revelation as it is unaffected by things like human fallibility and human bias thanks to the requirement of independent reproducibility.

I'm assuming the answer to the above question is "God". If not then perhaps we need to tease out your alternative answer.

Did you quote the wrong part of my post there? I dont see any question, only a statement explaining why empirical evidence > personal revelation.

Herbal Deity

So let's get this straight:

I, as an atheist, am provided with extremely strong empirical evidence for God's existence, causing me to believe he exists.

The question posed to me, as a now former atheist, is that if God designed everything and is capable of everything, could he magically "brainwash" (for want of a better word) certain people into believing in him?

And of course he could.

I don't see what the point of this is though.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm am requiring you argue from the point of view of someone who accepts that God (if he exists) could demonstrate himself empirically. If you refuse to argue from that postition then we have no business with each other.

Once arguing from that position I then ask you to argue from the (hypothetical - but eminently feasible) position of an atheist who has just seen God turn up empirically. If you won't argue from that position then we have no business with each other either.

I don't know of many atheists who would contradict either of the above positions.

This is not what you said earlier:

antiskeptic wrote:

Empirical evidence and personal revelation are not of equal value.

From the perspective of the ex-atheist in our OP they must be. Argue from that perspective - not the perspective of an atheist outside the OP.

You are trying to get us to argue from the point of view of someone who sees empirical evidence as equal to personal revelation, not just someone who recognises that god could empirically reveal himself, or someone who believes he has.
Seems you have shifted the goaposts since posting that statement...39 minutes ago.

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think this is a very convoluted version of the Euthyphro dilemma. It asks "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?". This question is essentially unanswerable from the religious persepctive because if good is only good because god has decided it is then morality is arbitrary and he could have just as easily decided that child rape is a moral responsibility but if god is telling us what is inherently good then morality is independent of god, he is irrelevant to morality, he is simply its messenger.

If you want to open a thread on the Euthypro (supposed) dilemma then by all means. There's a reasonably swift way to deal with it.

The question you're asking here is very similar. Do we see a particular method as more reliable because god has arbitrarily decided that we should, meaning we could have just as easily believed that tossing a coin to make a decision was more reliable than doing an indepth analysis or do we see the idea of producing successful results as more reliable because it is inherently more reliable? In the first case we are simply drones operating whatever program god has arbitrarily downloaded into our brains but in the second, god is constrained by an inherent logic that even he cannot violate (e.g. he can't make an object that he himself cannot move).

The inherancy of reliablity is merely a function of the overall mechanism called "How the Empirical World Was Designed To Function And How Humanity Was Designed To Interact With It". And the level of reliability (ie: confidence we may have) is as much as God permitted it to be.

God is indeed constrained to conform to the logic inherent in the design of the empirical world. His is not constrained to only this design however. There are lots of other avenues open to him which defy no logic: for instance, he could install a sense which, whilst subject to variance in how well it detects all attributes of God, is unfailing in detecting God in the first place. That such a sense is stimulated non-empirically is neither here nor there.

It is not empiricism uber alles if God doesn't decide so. This is something our newly-believing atheist should comprehend straight away.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This is not what you said earlier:


You are trying to get us to argue from the point of view of someone who sees empirical evidence as equal to personal revelation, not just someone who recognises that god could empirically reveal himself, or someone who believes he has.
Seems you have shifted the goaposts since posting that statement...39 minutes ago.

My apologies for unclear writing. I'm arguing that our OP's atheist must come to the conclusions suggested. What I'm asking you to do however is argue from the initial position of the atheist in the OP: one who has just had God appear empirically .. and see if you arrive at the same conclusions he does.

Gregor Samsa

antiskeptic wrote: »

phutyle wrote:

Empirical evidence and personal revelation are not of equal value.

From the perspective of the ex-atheist in our OP they must be. Argue from that perspective - not the perspective of an atheist outside the OP.

I certainly won't argue from that perspective. Your OP may have assumed this, but that assumption is not valid. Thought experiments are all well and good, but they have to have some basis in the conditions of reality, otherwise they have no merit. In reality, empirical evidence trumps personal revelation. If your thought experiment denies this without offering a valid and plausible refutation, then it has no merit. Your thought experiment has not offered a valid and plausible refutation of the notion that empirical evidence trumps personal revelation - it just assumes it could if god wanted it to.

Basically, you're trying to illustrate how it could be verified that a god exists by providing conditions whereby it's only possible that he exists. Then you're removing the critical brick of those conditions, and claiming that another brick can take its place.

You're onto a loser if you think that anyone with a half rational mind would argue from such a fundamentally flawed position, thought experiment or not.

Morbert

antiskeptic wrote: »

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.

It's the "has potential" that is the operative issue. You have shown that it might be possible that a personal revelation despite the lack demonstratable evidence may be true. No one would disagree with that. But that is very different to showing us that we should accept personal revelation. In otherwords, yes, your supposition makes logical sense. But that's not enough.

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.

Please don't split my paragraphs. The answer to your question was answered in the rest of the paragraph you omitted.

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.

Again, you aren't going far enough regarding understanding atheism. If you tell us the reason we don't believe in God is there is some special criterion that we haven't met then *shrug* that might be the case, but we still don't have any reason to believe it is the case.

antiskeptic

Herbal Deity wrote: »

So let's get this straight:

I, as an atheist, am provided with extremely strong empirical evidence for God's existence, causing me to believe he exists.

Spot on!

The question posed to me, as a now former atheist, is that if God designed everything and is capable of everything, could he magically "brainwash" (for want of a better word) certain people into believing in him?

And of course he could.

The "better word" used througout this thread has been "an alternative-to-empirical method for evoking trust in a person. One that is possibly better at invoking trust than even the empirical method"

Otherwise, thanks!

Consider yourself a pioneer amongst your peers/

I don't see what the point of this is though.

There are all kinds of consequences. For example: Richard Dawkins would have to re-write large tranches of The God Delusion given that he would have to agree that personal revelation by God is as good a means for God to demonstrate himself to people as is the empirical method hithertoe idolised by his good self. This is currently NOT the course navigated in that book.

Goduznt Xzst

give me a beat... uncha uncha uncha

antiskeptic wrote: »

The OP outlines... outlined in the OP

antiskeptic wrote: »

OP

antiskeptic wrote: »

OP... OP... OP

antiskeptic wrote: »

The OP

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

...the OP...

The OP forces... the OP supposes...

antiskeptic wrote: »

Oh well..

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

the OP posits

antiskeptic wrote: »

You need to begin at the OP

antiskeptic wrote: »

The OP is for you then.

the OP starts out...

The OP... okay?

antiskeptic wrote: »

the OP tells our newly believing atheist

antiskeptic wrote: »

OP... OP...

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

antiskeptic wrote: »

the OP... the OP

antiskeptic wrote: »

the OP is noted. Thus endeth our intercourse.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The OP makes it clear... the OP... the OP.

antiskeptic wrote: »

you are not looking at the OP. In the OP we have

antiskeptic wrote: »

OP... the OP

Cheers..

Dades

Behold the enormous leap in logic:

antiskeptic wrote: »

personal revelation by God is as good a means for God to demonstrate himself to people as is the empirical method

So because you can think of it - it is as good a means?

Fail.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Spot on!




The "better word" used througout this thread has been "an alternative-to-empirical method for evoking trust in a person. One that is possibly better at invoking trust than even the empirical method"

Otherwise, thanks!

Consider yourself a pioneer amongst your peers/




There are all kinds of consequences. For example: Richard Dawkins would have to re-write large tranches of The God Delusion given that he would have to agree that personal revelation by God is as good a means for God to demonstrate himself to people as is the empirical method hithertoe idolised by his good self. This is currently NOT the course navigated in that book.

I'll tell you what antiskeptic, how about you go and live in a cave in the woods and forego all of these things that empiricism has given us. When deciding whether or not the berries you're about to eat are poisonous you should rely on personal revelation and not any other form of verification since none of them are any better. In a year, if you're still alive, come back to us and tell us if you still think that personal revelation is as reliable as empiricism.


The point, of course, is that personal revelation is not as reliable as empiricism and it's only when mankind realised this, when they realised that the universe follows predictable and reliable rules that can be determined, that we dragged ourselves out of the mud and flew ourselves to the moon. Asking us to argue from the perspective of personal revelation being equal in value to empiricism is asking us to ignore reality. If god does exist then he has made a reality where empiricism is far more reliable than personal revelation so any argument for his existence must be made from that perspective. If reality is as you say then there is absolutely no point in me ever doing anything, there is no way for me to determine anything, I have never determined anything, I am simply a drone following the commands of an almighty puppet master. If reality is as you say it is then this conversation is pointless, it's just god arguing with himself

Gregor Samsa

antiskeptic wrote: »

There are all kinds of consequences. For example: Richard Dawkins would have to re-write large tranches of The God Delusion given that he would have to agree that personal revelation by God is as good a means for God to demonstrate himself to people as is the empirical method hithertoe idolised by his good self. This is currently NOT the course navigated in that book.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! You're making a huuuuuuge unwarranted leap here.

You've set up a thought experiment with such narrow conditions that it only applies to one very specific set of circumstances:

1. God exists
2. We have an empirical atheist
3. God does something to empirically demonstrate his existence to said atheist
4. God created everything and can do anything
5. God has decided that personal revelation is as valid as (or maybe even more valid than) empirical evidence
6. This (ex) atheist then has to accept that claiming personal revelation is a valid way of objectively deducing god's existence

The items listed above are not your argument - they're your predefined conditions.

Now it appears that you're trying to claim that because your thought experiment has all these conditions that someone not in the realms of the experiment, but out in the real world (Dawkins or any of us) - where the number 2 is the only condition that can be validly assumed - has to accept personal revelation as valid!

This is worse than I thought...

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

My apologies for unclear writing. I'm arguing that our OP's atheist must come to the conclusions suggested. What I'm asking you to do however is argue from the initial position of the atheist in the OP: one who has just had God appear empirically .. and see if you arrive at the same conclusions he does.

OK, but we have been doing that and problems have come up every step of the way- there have been issues with the idea of taking personal revelation as equal to empirical evidence and then deciding that you can ignore the source of information, the idea of there having to be a someone who creates our truth-value systems in the first place and then, even if you ignore the first problems, you are still left with a situation where god is punishing people for not trusting in his existence when it is entirely his decision that they dont trust in his existence in the first place.

antiskeptic

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

give me a beat... uncha uncha uncha

Herbal Deity

antiskeptic wrote: »

There are all kinds of consequences. For example: Richard Dawkins would have to re-write large tranches of The God Delusion given that he would have to agree that personal revelation by God is as good a means for God to demonstrate himself to people as is the empirical method hithertoe idolised by his good self. This is currently NOT the course navigated in that book.

Well there are hundreds of thousands of beliefs and deities people believe in. Assuming we agree on the existence of objective truth, and we suppose that the Christian God, according to one of the many, many branches of Christianity, exists, this means that billions of theists are deluded.

So personal revelation is not as good a method as objective empirical evidence, because if one must make an initial step before God reveals himself to them, there are a huge amount of different belief systems and there is no way of telling which theists have actually received personal revelation from God and which are deluded, then an atheist has no way of knowing what they must do, or even that they must do anything, to receive this personal revelation from God.