Empiricism uber alles?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

God can do anything he wants. The point is he didn't, he did it a particular way.

Supposing all the other ways God could have made reality are irrelevant, since he didn't make them the other ways he made them this way.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

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.

As wicknight says, positing all the ways god could have made the universe is irrelevant. If god exists then he has made a universe where it is logically consistent to view a system as more reliable if it regularly produces successful and consistent results than if pretty much everyone on the planet reaches at least a slightly different conclusion. Viewing the universe as it is today, I can objectively say that empiricism is more reliable than personal revelation. If the universe is not as it appears and I only think it appears that way because god is manipulating my mind into thinking it is that way then neither personal revelation nor empiricism are of any use to anyone because, as I said, we'd just be executing the program that god downloaded into our brains and as Mark Hamill pointed out, god would be punishing me for doing the only thing I could do, exactly what he told me to do

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

OK, but we have been doing that and problems have come up every step of the way

Okay? Let's see how many relate to the position of a person whose okayed the OP starting point

- 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 OP ex-atheist okays the source of information AND the source of the internal processor of information which outputs the sensation of "Trust" to him, as God.

He should also realise that God could achieve this result by other means. And realises one God-method is as worthy as the next (if God so chooses)

the idea of there having to be a someone who creates our truth-value systems in the first place

Not a problem if you've okayed the OP.

if you ignore the first problems,

I do because in order to okay the starting postion of the OP, you do.

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.

Which has nothing to do with the OP.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

God can do anything he wants. The point is he didn't, he did it a particular way.

Supposing all the other ways God could have made reality are irrelevant, since he didn't make them the other ways he made them this way.

He made the empirical way this way. And the principle our ex-atheist should accept is that any way that God reveals himself is as good as any other (on average - personal revelation, for example, could engender more trust/less trust than empirical revelation depending on the way God makes it)

antiskeptic

phutyle wrote: »

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

Let's see.

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

Indeed. The situation of the Christian God and personal revelation.

1. God exists

Not an unwarranted leap given the hypothesis.

2. We have an empirical atheist

Hardly an endangered species

3. God does something to empirically demonstrate his existence to said atheist

Eazy Peezy lemon squeezy

4. God created everything and can do anything

Within logical boundaries.

5. God has decided that personal revelation is as valid as (or maybe even more valid than) empirical evidence

We're not saying. It could be less valid/more/non existant as a route God utilises. We're terminating at the realisation that dawns on the ex-atheist: "seeing as God is behind all elements of trust generation in me, any other way he choses to generate trust in a person will generate trust. And so I must accept that someone can believe in God's existance via a means alternative to the empirical route."

My goal isn't to prove personal revelation. My goal is to stump the atheist from dissing personal revelation by indicating that it's "goodness" as a means of trust-generation is determined by God (if he exists) - not by man.

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.

No.5 is a conclusion I think the atheist is forced to arrive at. If he doesn't I'd like to hear how he avoids it. If he comes up against a person claiming personal revelation then he can compare notes to evalulate personal revelation for himself.

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...

Hopefully you'll see that the conclusion I suppose the atheist must arrive at at 5. isn't an assumption. It's a conclusion I suppose the atheist must arrive at.

I'm trusting that the atheist who demands God demonstrate himself empirically before he will believe will work things backwards and realise what this actually means. Logically and rationally, he might as well demand that God give him personal revelation.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

And the principle our ex-atheist should accept is that any way that God reveals himself is as good as any other

But by producing the empirical then God himself has declared that this isn't true. One is better than the other.

I agree entirely that if we rewind back to the beginning that God could make any way as good as any other. The point is he didn't. He made empiricalism the better one, for what ever reason.

And since he did that in this reality we can't then ignore that.

It was God's decision (if we assume he exists) and he is then bound by that decision or he has to destroy the universe as we know it and start again.

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

As wicknight says, positing all the ways god could have made the universe is irrelevant. If god exists then he has made a universe where it is logically consistent to view a system as more reliable if it regularly produces successful and consistent results than if pretty much everyone on the planet reaches at least a slightly different conclusion.

I think you're over reaching here.

Firstly, despite the varience there is a lot of agreement by a lot of people on essential aspects of Gods character. This is analogous to a lot of peoples different take on a car crash not letting us suppose the car crash didn't happen

Secondly, the fact there are a lot of people who believe in other gods doesn't alter the basic argument - if God exists. And if by tomorrow and hundred other gods are added to the growing list then this makes not a jot of difference.

Thirdly, your view need be that of the OP - not the view of an atheist now. The view of the ex-atheist in the OP will be caused to alter by the realisation as to the source of his reliance on the empirical system. It is due to God - not due to anything inherently other than God.

even though there are wide variations onViewing the universe as it is today, I can objectively say that empiricism is more reliable than personal revelation.

I understand your viewpoint. However, it's your viewpoint when occupying the position of the atheist in the OP I'm interested in.

If the universe is not as it appears and I only think it appears that way because god is manipulating my mind into thinking it is that way then neither personal revelation nor empiricism are of any use to anyone because, as I said, we'd just be executing the program that god downloaded into our brains..

There is nothing wrong with your appreciation for empiricism. It's just that you're conflating subjective personal opinion with objective personal revelation from God.

The point isn't to prove the personal revelation occurs. The point is to demonstrate that any God-originated method (which empiricism would be revealed to be - says the OP) is as good as God decides it will be. Not you.

and as Mark Hamill pointed out, god would be punishing me for doing the only thing I could do, exactly what he told me to do

Like I say elsewhere, you can believe/disbelieve God without believing in God. And be saved/lost.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

But by producing the empirical then God himself has declared that this isn't true. One is better than the other.

It ain't necessarily so. You'd experience God through 5 senses only. Perhaps God experienced in another way is better. God is permitted to decide how it is people experience him you'd grant.

I agree entirely that if we rewind back to the beginning that God could make any way as good as any other. The point is he didn't. He made empiricalism the better one, for what ever reason.

He made empiricism better than personal opinion. He didn't necessarily make it better than personal revelation. Personal opinion is sourced in the person. Personal revelation would be sourced in God.

And the point of the OP is that the ex-atheist's previous view (the one you hold above) is tempered by the knowledge that he must be agnostic on which method of God's revelation is better.

antiskeptic

Morbert wrote: »

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.

Not only potentially true. But potentially better than empirical demonstration as a way of engendering trust.

No one would disagree with that.

Hmm.

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.

I'm not trying to show that personal revelation should be accepted. One of the things I'm trying to show is that the atheist objection "I would believe if there was sufficient empirical evidence" might as easily be "I would believe I God gave me personal revelation"

If the one can be as good as the other then why limit your options?

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.

Sorry/

I checked back and didn't understand the rest of your paragraph clearly. Could you rephrase

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.

Understood. I'm not of the opinion that people can be reasoned into the Kingdom of God so I don't see a point in providing one (at least not clearly stated so as to draw inevitable objection)

Fortunately, you don't have to believe there is a criterion to be fulfilled by you in order that you fulfill it (if that's what you end up doing). Salvation comes as a surprise to everyone.

strobe

antiskeptic wrote: »

We're not saying. It could be less valid/more/non existant as a route God utilises. We're terminating at the realisation that dawns on the ex-atheist: "seeing as God is behind all elements of trust generation in me, any other way he choses to generate trust in a person will generate trust. And so I must accept that someone can believe in God's existance via a means alternative to the empirical route."

Whoa, wait wait wait, is the above what it all boils down to, what you are trying to get at? You want us to say "someone can believe in God's existance via a means alternative to the empirical route"?

Ehhh fine..... I don't need god to turn my house to gold to say that. Someone can believe in God's existance {or anything else imaginable} via a means alternative to the empirical route. There I said it. You, and other devoutly religious people are living proof of that......... [/Thread??????]

antiskeptic

strobe wrote: »

Whoa, wait wait wait, is the above what it all boils down to, what you are trying to get at? You want us to say "someone can believe in God's existance via a means alternative to the empirical route"?

That's a little bit loose.

"Someone can arrive at a knowledge that God exists via routes other than the empirical route" is better.

strobe

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's a little bit loose.

"Someone can arrive at a knowledge that God exists via routes other than the empirical route" is better.

•Knowledge is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as (i) expertise, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject, (ii) what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information or (iii) awareness or ...

•Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

Do you view both defintions as the same?

Herbal Deity

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not trying to show that personal revelation should be accepted. One of the things I'm trying to show is that the atheist objection "I would believe if there was sufficient empirical evidence" might as easily be "I would believe I God gave me personal revelation"

I don't think anyone would disagree here.

However, this revelation would have to be 100% indistinguishable from one's mind playing tricks on them.

In order to know whether the "revelation" really was revelation, you would need some form of empiricism

(Or some magical force I can't conceive)

antiskeptic

Herbal Deity wrote: »

I don't think anyone would disagree here.

However, this revelation would have to be 100% indistinguishable from one's mind playing tricks on them.

In order to know whether the "revelation" really was revelation, you would need some form of empiricism

(Or some magical force I can't conceive)

Given that the magical force would be God (our ex-atheist realises) this would present no problem. If he can instill the sense that 1,000,000 people eyes aren't playing tricks on them (when they say they too can see God - resulting in your believing in God) he can instill the sense that your own mind isn't playing tricks with you this time.

Remember whose instilling the confidence in any system

antiskeptic

strobe wrote: »

•Knowledge is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as (i) expertise, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject, (ii) what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information or (iii) awareness or ...

•Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

Do you view both defintions as the same?

No. But seeing as I described the atheist as believing in Gods existance through empirical revelation and that didn't seem to catch your attention, I thought I'd switch the term to knowledge.

Use whatever term you like. But apply it to both parties. For both parties sail on the same sea of belief/trust/knowledge that God exists. Even though the boats they float in are different (says the umph - umph - umph -OP)

strobe

But if belief and knowlege aren't the same, which you accept they aren't above. Then they are not interchangable. So could you present the satement using one or the other. Then I can address it.

Is it,

"Someone can arrive at a knowledge that God exists via routes other than the empirical route"

or

"Someone can arrive at a belief that God exists via routes other than the empirical route"
?

(I realise that this is semantics, but the whole premise of the thread seems to be an exercise in semantics, so just humour me.)

antiskeptic

strobe wrote: »

But if belief and knowlege aren't the same, which you accept they aren't above. Then they are not interchangable. So could you present the satement using one or the other. Then I can address it.

Okay - we'll go with "belief" in the context of a statement by our OP's atheist (who now believes in God's existance via the empirical route)

"And so I must accept that someone can believe in God's existance via a means alternative to the empirical route."

(I realise that this is semantics, but the whole premise of the thread seems to be an exercise in semantics, so just humour me.)

So long as you don't attempt to lever empirically-derived belief into knowledge so as to elevate it over belief via "alternative routes" (given that the OP concludes otherwise), then we should be able to see this isn't an exercise in semantics/

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

It ain't necessarily so.

Yes it is. Empirical study produces better results than non-empirical study. That is just a fact, you don't have to go near the question of God.

antiskeptic wrote: »

God is permitted to decide how it is people experience him you'd grant.

He already has decided. He can't go back on that, since God is defined as being consistent.

antiskeptic wrote: »

He made empiricism better than personal opinion. He didn't necessarily make it better than personal revelation.

But person revelation is based on personal opinion. You think God has revealed himself to you. You have not tested that empirically. It is subjective opinion. Therefore, by God's own decree, that "knowledge" is worse than empirical knowledge and thus God would not have chosen to reveal himself to you in a bad way because he has already declared empirical knowledge to be the good way. To do so would be inconsistent with his own nature.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Personal opinion is sourced in the person. Personal revelation would be sourced in God.

And how we conceptualize knowledge is sourced to God. God has decided that we will use knowledge derived by empirical examination over other types. He made empirical knowledge accurate and non-empirical knowledge inaccurate.

That is just the way we are build. If you want to know why ask God.

But we are build to be incapable of accurately discerning knowledge from personal opinion (and thus personal revelation) and thus God wouldn't reveal himself to us this way
Otherwise why make us this way in the first place. Why construct a being that incapable of accurately discerning knowledge from personal revelation and then reveal himself through personal revelation. That would be inconsistent with himself and thus his nature, something he as defined as not being able to do.

antiskeptic wrote: »

And the point of the OP is that the ex-atheist's previous view (the one you hold above) is tempered by the knowledge that he must be agnostic on which method of God's revelation is better.

That is some what irrelevant. You can set up the initial position as being a logical impossibility but there is little point in us following that. We just end up discussing nonsense.

strobe

antiskeptic wrote: »

"And so I must accept that someone can believe in God's existance via a means alternative to the empirical route."

Ok Skep I still don't get your point with the above. I think everybody here accepts someone can believe in God's existance witout empirical evidence. You are someone and you clearly believe so you are proof of that fact. I don't think anyone here thinks that every religious person alive is just pretending to believe. We accept that most of you really do believe in god.

What inference are you trying to draw from that?

I'm sure you accept the following statement:
"And so I must accept that someone can believe that Elvis is alive and is working in the Burger King near my house via a means alternative to the empirical route."

Does that say anything about you that you can make that statement, the reality of Elvis' current situation or the person the statement is about other than: "That guy believes Elvis works in his local BK?"

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Mark Hamill wrote:

- 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 OP ex-atheist okays the source of information AND the source of the internal processor of information which outputs the sensation of "Trust" to him, as God.

He should also realise that God could achieve this result by other means. And realises one God-method is as worthy as the next (if God so chooses)

You are trying to argue against those claiming that emprical evidence is more important than personal revelation by pointing out that if god exists, he could do the empirical proof, but seeing as if he existed the personal revelation would be true anyway, there is no need for empirical evidence, everyone should just accept the personal revelations.
You are starting from the position that god exists, claiming that since god exists something applies (empirical evidence = personal revelation) and then claiming that this something proves gods existence (or at least disproves the empirical atheists position). And then backing it up with a hypothetical situation involving an atheist with empirical evidence about gods existence. Its a circular argument hiding behind a strawman.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not a problem if you've okayed the OP.

But we havent, because its contradictory and a strawman.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I do because in order to okay the starting postion of the OP, you do.

But why go beyond these problems if they are there?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Mark Hamill wrote:

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.

Which has nothing to do with the OP.

Have nothing to do with the OP? Are you mad? This show a massive internal inconsistency in the workings of god as described in the OP. Its has everything to do with why the OP is wrong.

Mark Hamill

strobe wrote: »

But if belief and knowlege aren't the same, which you accept they aren't above. Then they are not interchangable. So could you present the satement using one or the other. Then I can address it.

Is it,

"Someone can arrive at a knowledge that God exists via routes other than the empirical route"

or

"Someone can arrive at a belief that God exists via routes other than the empirical route"
?

(I realise that this is semantics, but the whole premise of the thread seems to be an exercise in semantics, so just humour me.)

If the difference between knowledge and belief is purely semantic, then so is the difference between cheese and chalk. They are fundamentally different.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think you're over reaching here.

Firstly, despite the varience there is a lot of agreement by a lot of people on essential aspects of Gods character. This is analogous to a lot of peoples different take on a car crash not letting us suppose the car crash didn't happen

The whole point you're making is that god can reveal himself to you and then you will "know". Unless every single detail is exactly the same then no one "knows".

antiskeptic wrote: »

Secondly, the fact there are a lot of people who believe in other gods doesn't alter the basic argument - if God exists. And if by tomorrow and hundred other gods are added to the growing list then this makes not a jot of difference.

The basic argument is flawed. the argument is If god exists and reveals himself then you can know but that is not true. If god doesn't reveal himself you can still have a personal revelation and think you know, which you must acknowledge because of all those people who think they know that a different god to the one you believe in exists. And again, thinking you know is indistinguishable from actually knowing

antiskeptic wrote: »

Thirdly, your view need be that of the OP - not the view of an atheist now. The view of the ex-atheist in the OP will be caused to alter by the realisation as to the source of his reliance on the empirical system. It is due to God - not due to anything inherently other than God.

The view you are asking us to take is inconsistent with reality and asks me to make a number of invalid assumptions. You are defining the parameters to get the answer you want instead of how they actually are or can be shown to be. You might as well ask us to assume that god has revealed himself to us and then ask if god has revealed himself to us based on that assumption.

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with your appreciation for empiricism. It's just that you're conflating subjective personal opinion with objective personal revelation from God.

And you are ignoring personal subjective personal revelation and the fact that it is impossible to distinguish from objective personal revelation from god.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Like I say elsewhere, you can believe/disbelieve God without believing in God. And be saved/lost.

If what you say is correct then no I can't. I can do only what god has told me to do

strobe

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If the difference between knowledge and belief is purely semantic, then so is the difference between cheese and chalk. They are fundamentally different.

The post goes straight to antiskeptics understanding of the meaning of the words. Which is exactly what the area of semantics deals with. I didn't imply that there was only a semantic difference between the terms.

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And you are ignoring personal subjective personal revelation and the fact that it is impossible to distinguish from objective personal revelation from god.

He is also ignore that if we assume God exists then God decided this

So it is not that we are saying that God isn't constrained by the issues with personal revelation

It is that God is constrained by himself, what he already decided would be the truth of reality.

God can't contradict himself. What we think about that is irrelevant

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes it is. Empirical study produces better results than non-empirical study. That is just a fact, you don't have to go near the question of God.

What's study technique aside from God got to do with the mean(s) whereby God decides he will reveal himself to man? If he decides that empirical means are limited (because there are 5 senses with particular attributes which may not be ideal for 'viewing' God as he is) then that is the way it is.

That empiricism is a fantastic spanner, it doesn't mean it fits all nuts (no insulting pun intended). You've no basis for elevating empiricism in the case God demonstrates his existance this way - indeed, his hypothetically doing so is what destroys the atheistic "empiricism uber alles" view.

He already has decided. He can't go back on that, since God is defined as being consistent.

? Consistancy doesn't mean robotic.

But person revelation is based on personal opinion. You think God has revealed himself to you. You have not tested that empirically. It is subjective opinion. Therefore, by God's own decree, that "knowledge" is worse than empirical knowledge and thus God would not have chosen to reveal himself to you in a bad way because he has already declared empirical knowledge to be the good way. To do so would be inconsistent with his own nature.

Aside from the fact your 1st premise falters above

Incorrect. Personal revelation (if it occurred) would be based on however God decides to establish belief/knowledge/trust. If God does it then it is not subjective personal opinion nor is it based on subjective personal opinion. Rather it is objective, God-installed trust.

Just like the objective, God-installed trust which would arise out of empirical demonstration.

And how we conceptualize knowledge is sourced by God. God has sourced us to use knowledge derived by empirical examination over other types. That is just the way we are build. If you want to know why ask God. But we are build to be incapable of accurately discerning knowledge from personal opinion (and thus personal revelation) and thus God wouldn't reveal himself to us this way.

As above: conflation between personal revelation and personal evaluation.

There is this unnecessary and unfounded mantra that all that is non-empirical must be subjective in all conceivable cases. This clearly isn't so. Remembering that empiricisms strength is it's realisation that individual sensory apparatus/evaluation mechanisms can err - can you suppose God installing a non-erroneous* 6th sense in an individual? Let's call is a "God sense.." What do you call information delivered to this rendered-by-God objective sense.

Personal revelation or Personal opinion?

* it is not suggested that this sense need be incapable of error in terms of correctly evaluating the attributes of God. It is suggested that it only be error-free when it comes to detecting God in the first place.

That is some what irrelevant. You can set up the initial position as being a logical impossibility but there is little point in us following that. We just end up discussing nonsense.

Supposing the central assumption of your position dismantled, you might have cause to change this view.

strobe

Does anybody else posting in this thread feel like the guy tied to the chair at 1:10 minutes in in this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXXV-n9sNF4

"C'mom man. Don't you get it??? Please...just get it, man."

Sam Vimes

Let's try it this way antiskeptic.

You say that empiricism doesn't matter if god has provided us another means by which we can know him: personal revelation.

Well, if god had provided us with such a means and a way to reliably tell a true divine personal revelation from the myriad of other things that can cause a similar experience then there wouldn't be a million different people all claiming to have had contradictory personal revelations. They would either all have exactly the same knowledge or they would know that what they had experienced wasn't a divine revelation. So if god does exist then clearly he has not provided us with this method of knowing him any more than he has provided us with the ability to fly by flapping our arms. You saying that he can is beside the point because it's quite clear that he hasn't

no?


edit: or maybe god does exist and he's giving everyone a different divine revelation to cause confusion and conflict for his personal amusement

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

If he decides that empirical means are limited (because there are 5 senses with particular attributes which may not be ideal for 'viewing' God as he is) then that is the way it is.

Exactly, same holds for personal revelation.

He has already decided to create a universe where personal revelation is too limited to decern knowledge from.

He can't go back from that, because he would be contradicting himself. And thus he can't reveal knowledge in this way.

antiskeptic wrote: »

That empiricism is a fantastic spanner, it doesn't mean it fits all nuts (no insulting pun intended).

That is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if there is a better way than empiricism, the point is that it isn't personal revelation.

All we need to do with the existence of empiricism is to demonstrate God created a better method than personal opinion/revelation

There may be better ways than empiricism that we don't know about, in which case God would use the best of them to let us know he exists, and anyone who things they have empirically assessed God would be mistaken.

The point is that the existence of empiricism demonstrates that flaw with personal revelation, and thus demonstrates that God would not use it to be consistent with his own nature.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You've no basis for elevating empiricism in the case God demonstrates his existance this way

Of course I do, you said assume God exists. I'm assuming that.

The issue I think is that you don't appreciate what that actually means. It means God created empiricism.

antiskeptic wrote: »

? Consistancy doesn't mean robotic.

No, but God is, well, a god. He doesn't go back to correct mistakes.

If God wanted personal revelation to work he wouldn't have created empiricism, he would have just make personal revelation the best way to discern knowledge.

He didn't. He is not going to just change that because you take issue with it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Incorrect. Personal revelation (if it occurred) would be based on however God decides to establish belief/knowledge/trust.

You keep saying that as if God hasn't decide this yet, why?

It is like saying the manner in which we will be saved is based on how God will decide to save us, as if Jesus Christ never existed.

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is this unnecessary and unfounded mantra that all that is non-empirical must be subjective in all conceivable cases.

Like I said, blame God. We just live here.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Let's call is a "God sense.." What do you call information delivered to this rendered-by-God objective sense.

But you invented "God sense". We have no idea if it exists and obviously God has decided not to use it for things like empirical testing, so not only do we not know it exists it probably doesn't

There are only so far we can take your assumptions antiskeptic. Why don't you just say "Ok, start off assuming i'm right" :pac:

Gregor Samsa

antiskeptic wrote: »

My goal is to stump the atheist from dissing personal revelation by indicating that it's "goodness" as a means of trust-generation is determined by God (if he exists) - not by man.

Well, I trust you'll agree that you've failed in this goal, given the empirical evidence of the thread. Unless you have a personal revelation that you've stumped us all on this question that you'd like to share. But would be accept it?

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Let's try it this way antiskeptic.

Sure..

You say that empiricism doesn't matter if god has provided us another means by which we can know him: personal revelation.

I say arrival at God empirically opens the door to acceptance of other means whereby God brings us to knowledge of him. Means that are potentially as good, if not better than empirical demonstration.

Personal Revelation is one means being suggested. It is frequently being conflated with Personal Opinion - as if the two were one and the same.

Well, if god had provided us with such a means and a way to reliably tell a true divine personal revelation from the myriad of other things that can cause a similar experience then there wouldn't be a million different people all claiming to have had contradictory personal revelations.

No?

The flaw here is in your supposing a collective 'us' need be provided for. If no collective "us" is provided for in the way you suggest - rather, some are provided for (all who are saved) then there plenty of room for a myriad of 'other things' (in those not provided for/the as yet unsaved).

They would either all have exactly the same knowledge or they would know that what they had experienced wasn't a divine revelation. So if god does exist then clearly he has not provided us with this method of knowing him any more than he has provided us with the ability to fly by flapping our arms. You saying that he can is beside the point because it's quite clear that he hasn't

no?

Given the above flaw in reasoning, no.

edit: or maybe god does exist and he's giving everyone a different divine revelation to cause confusion and conflict for his personal amusement

Leaving aside personal amusement as God's motivation, you're not as far off the mark as you think. Something for another day mayhaps.