Empiricism uber alles?

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

Unless you can show that knowledge was magically beamed into your head, personal revelation and personal opinion are indistinguishable.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

Unless you can show that knowledge was magically beamed into your head, personal revelation and personal opinion are indistinguishable.

I don't need to show knowledge was beamed anywhere. You're off the topic of the OP.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Exactly, same holds for personal revelation.

True. Limitations can apply to empiricism. Limitations can apply to any other method of revelation.

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

How did you figure that? I don't mean by conflating personal opinion and personal revelation btw.

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

You've just conflated personal revelation with personal opinion.

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.

Again, an unwarranted assumption. If God decides to provide different levels of trust to different people then that is his perogative: whether his way of doing that is using different methods of trust delivery, or cranking the volume up/down on a single method of delivery.

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.

Bar the error of conflation, you have made no case for this.

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.

Er.. the OP points out that that's the very conclusion our ex-atheist must first arrive at. God creating empiricism means God is the one who decides what trust level is to be derived from it.

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.

Maybe, Maybe not. Your job is to exclude the possibilities of the OP. Not to paper over them with others.

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

Perhaps he's got other means in the pipeline. Consider it being rigorously open in the face of possibilities. A bit like the OP has demanded of our ex-atheist.

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

It's a possibility that opens up to our ex-atheist friend - there is no claim that it's actually the case and I apologise if I gave that impression. Now that that's clarified perhaps you could rework the objection circumvented by it?

iUseVi

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't need to show knowledge was beamed anywhere. You're off the topic of the OP.

This is your excuse for everything. I think its pretty tightly connected to the topic, LOL.

antiskeptic

iUseVi wrote: »

This is your excuse for everything. I think its pretty tightly connected to the topic, LOL.

It's less excuse and more observation. One which can be applied to you too. You clearly haven't read the OP.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

Unless you can show that knowledge was magically beamed into your head, personal revelation and personal opinion are indistinguishable.

Reconsidering:

Unless I can show you that knowledge was beamed into my head, personal revelation and personal opinion are indistinguishable - to you*

But the issue isn't whether I can show you. The issue is whether God can show me. And our atheist friend in the OP sees that this is as easy for God as showing him by empirical means was. What's to prevent God acting so?

Nothing at all..

iUseVi

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's less excuse and more observation. One which can be applied to you too. You clearly haven't read the OP.

I have. But you can't restrict people to only giving the answer you like. Why come on here if you don't want a discussion. So far you've just been saying "No. No. That's wrong. Nope. No.", and some of the comments are absolutely relevant to the topic, but you just don't agree with them.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

How did you figure that?

You told me to, you said lets assume God exists.

Personal assessment doesn't suddenly improve because we introduce God.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You've just conflated personal revelation with personal opinion.

I have

antiskeptic wrote: »

If God decides to provide different levels of trust to different people then that is his perogative: whether his way of doing that is using different methods of trust delivery, or cranking the volume up/down on a single method of delivery.

Yes but again he has already done it. Unless you think your brain is fundamentally different to the rest of us because God made an exception for you.

God has provided his "level of trust"

antiskeptic wrote: »

Bar the error of conflation, you have made no case for this.

I did you are just ignoring it.

Simply saying personal revelation isn't the same as personal opinion is some what pointless when clearly it is and clearly God made it that way.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Er.. the OP points out that that's the very conclusion our ex-atheist must first arrive at. God creating empiricism means God is the one who decides what trust level is to be derived from it.

Exactly.

So why are you saying we can trust personal revelation when God is saying we can't (otherwise what is the point of empiricism and why is personal opinion so bad at everything but God revelations?)

antiskeptic wrote: »

Maybe, Maybe not.

No maybe not.

God is defined as being intelligent and consistent. You now want us to assume he isn't simply because you don't like the conclusion.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Perhaps he's got other means in the pipeline.

Why?

That is the logic you are failing to grasp. You are supposing God isn't going to use the way he already created to communicate with us.

There is no logical reason to assume that, and it contradicts the nature of God.

It is like saying Perhaps God is going to save people a different way that through Jesus. It contradicts the basis of what God is

Or to put it more simply, God doesn't faff around

The only reason I can see for assuming that is if you don't like the conclusion.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's a possibility that opens up to our ex-atheist friend - there is no claim that it's actually the case and I apologise if I gave that impression. Now that that's clarified perhaps you could rework the objection circumvented by it?

The objection remains, it is inconsistent with what God has already done.

Imagining that God would create us with all these senses, and a brain, and give us empirical observation as the best known way to get accurate information into this brain, but then produce an undetectable "god sense" which he then prefers to communicate with us through, is illogical and inconsistent.

You are producing a concept of a God which is inconsistent and contradictory to his own actions.

Which isn't God.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Reconsidering:

Unless I can show you that knowledge was beamed into my head, personal revelation and personal opinion are indistinguishable - to you*

But the issue isn't whether I can show you. The issue is whether God can show me.

It is indistinguishable to you as well.

From your point of view God communicating with you through your 6th sense and you imagining this will appear exactly the same.

antiskeptic wrote: »

And our atheist friend in the OP sees that this is as easy for God as showing him by empirical means was. What's to prevent God acting so?

God is. Seriously, what part of that are you not getting?

God is consistent. If he created empirical testing to be different to personal observation he can't then change his mind, which is what is required for personal revelation.

God created empirical observation that it is more distinguishable between individual opinions.

You are now saying that is wrong.

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't need to show knowledge was beamed anywhere.

Well that's pretty much what revelation is.
It's not you figuring out something as then it would be personal opinion as would be making stuff up.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're off the topic of the OP.

The topic is on empiricism and personal opinion, being able to prove your opinion is an important part of empiricism. It's on topic.

Or is this just your excuse to avoid anything you can't answer?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Reconsidering:

Unless I can show you that knowledge was beamed into my head, personal revelation and personal opinion are indistinguishable - to you*

So how do you internally distinguish between what your opinion is and what was revelation?

antiskeptic wrote: »

But the issue isn't whether I can show you. The issue is whether God can show me.
And our atheist friend in the OP sees that this is as easy for God as showing him by empirical means was. What's to prevent God acting so?

That is exactly the issue.
It God was proved empirical you could demonstrate that proof beyond question.
You cannot do this with personal opinion/revelation.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Nothing at all..

So why doesn't he prove himself empirically?
What's to prevent God acting so?

Zombrex

King Mob wrote: »

So how do you internally distinguish between what your opinion is and what was revelation?

+1

That is what I've been trying to get at but couldn't find the way to say it. Good post.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

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.

I think we're getting our wires crossed here. If I had already arrived at god empirically (or by some other reliable method) then I would no longer require anything at all in order to believe anything he said or did. I would have had god demonstrated to me so by the christian definition of god everything he did would be inherently right, good and perfect. I could compare this to meeting a new person. If I had just met someone I would be somewhat wary of them. I wouldn't trust them with my deepest secrets or take a big risk that depends on them in some way (e.g. lend them a large amount of money). Before I lent someone I had just met money I would require them to demonstrate to me that they were going to pay it back, the way banks do before giving loans. But if a close friend asked for money I would have no hesitation in giving it to them, I wouldn't demand they prove they were going to pay it back because I would trust them enough.

So, once god has demonstrated his existence he no longer has to demonstrate anything else because he is inherently trustworthy and always right, all methods he could use are equally perfect be it empiricism, personal revelation or an image of the virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich

What point do you think is demonstrated exactly by pointing out that once you believe in god you believe what god says?

antiskeptic wrote: »

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).

So what you're saying is that if you ignore all of the people that don't fit into your theory then your theory works. That's called confirmation bias mate and is the lifeblood of pseudo-scientists, cultists and quacks worldwide

Herbal Deity

antiskeptic:

What you're saying is fine, but I don't understand why God would reveal himself individually to only certain people.

The implications of this aren't exactly huge or groundbreaking. You're basically saying, given God exists, God can manipulate people's minds to make them believe in him. I really don't see what's so fascinating or mind blowing about this.

There could also exist a different God/gods to the one you believe in who has fabricated the Bible, and manipulated people into believing that they will go to Heaven when they die provided they believe in a another, false God, by lying to them through personal revelation.

antiskeptic

Herbal Deity wrote: »

antiskeptic: What you're saying is fine, but I don't understand why God would reveal himself individually to only certain people.

If you were to visualize God's holiness as intense light. And imagine mans sinful-self as intense darkness then you might begin to appreciate what would occur were it that God simply showed up to all. Anyone who wasn't shielded in some way would disappear in an instant (light destroys darkness).

The hypothesis in the OP (which supposes God empirically evidenced to all) doesn't need to take account of this 'reality' because the conclusions that can be drawn about a real situation (the clamour of atheists regarding the lack of empirical evidence of God) can be drawn without the hypothetical empirical revealing actually taking place (and destroying any unprotected people).

The implications of this aren't exactly huge or groundbreaking. You're basically saying, given God exists, God can manipulate people's minds to make them believe in him. I really don't see what's so fascinating or mind blowing about this.

If you read the conclusions of the OP (which I've expanded a little on) then you might think differently (about the soundness of the aforementioned clamour)

There could also exist a different God/gods to the one you believe in who has fabricated the Bible, and manipulated people into believing that they will go to Heaven when they die provided they believe in a another, false God, by lying to them through personal revelation.

Indeed. I could also be a brain-in-a-jar with my thought being the result of some scientists button pushing. Which is why the OP excludes gods/aliens/scientists behind God.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

The topic is on empiricism and personal opinion, being able to prove your opinion is an important part of empiricism. It's on topic.

You don't sound like you've read the OP. Or if you have you've skimmed it and are taking no account of it

So how do you internally distinguish between what your opinion is and what was revelation?

Are you asking me that from the perspective of an atheist. Or are you asking me that from the perspective of a hypothethical atheist to whom God has revealed himself empirically. The former position is off topic. The latter on.

You make up your mind which it's to be and I'll answer you then.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

+1

That is what I've been trying to get at but couldn't find the way to say it. Good post.

Then my reply to that poster applies to you too. Figure out which perspective you're asking the question from (because many responses don't seem to have figured that out) then come back to me...

antiskeptic

iUseVi wrote: »

I have. But you can't restrict people to only giving the answer you like.

I can restrict people to answering from a single perspective (the perspective in question being that of an atheist whose just had God demonstrate himself empirically to that atheists satisfaction)

If you don't want to answer from that perspective then this discussion isn't for you.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Are you asking me that from the perspective of an atheist. Or are you asking me that from the perspective of a hypothethical atheist to whom God has revealed himself empirically. The former position is off topic. The latter on.

Look, antiskeptic, you're only a tiny little bit short of saying "Assume I'm right. Now, am I right?"

Let us assume that god has demonstrated his existence in a reliable way. This leads us to the conclusion that communication with god through both empiricism and personal revelation are equally valid - and equally perfect - because they are both methods used by god and are therefore perfect by definition

What is your point? god's existence has not been demonstrated. Personal revelation has not been shown to be a reliable way of communicating with anyone and in fact the exact opposite has been shown. Using an assumption that can only be shown to be valid once god's existence has been demonstrated in order to say that god's existence has been demonstrated to you creates a circular argument so again, what is your point?

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

You don't sound like you've read the OP. Or if you have you've skimmed it and are taking no account of it

And again any point you wish to avoid, you can just say this.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Are you asking me that from the perspective of an atheist. Or are you asking me that from the perspective of a hypothethical atheist to whom God has revealed himself empirically. The former position is off topic. The latter on.

You make up your mind which it's to be and I'll answer you then.

I am asking how anyone can distinguish between personal opinion and personal revelation.
You claimed that they weren't the same thing, so you must have some way of telling them apart.
And since you claim that personal revelation (as distinct from opinion) is as valid as empirical evidence, the question is on topic.

So stop dodging the question and answer it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Indeed. I could also be a brain-in-a-jar with my thought being the result of some scientists button pushing. Which is why the OP excludes gods/aliens/scientists behind God.

So then we're back to the fact that David Copperfield can fly.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Then my reply to that poster applies to you too. Figure out which perspective you're asking the question from (because many responses don't seem to have figured that out) then come back to me...

I think we are asking from the point of view of a human, created by God.

Whether you are an atheist or not is irrelevant as atheist have the same brains as everyone else, nor is it relevant that God has revealed himself empirically.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

You told me to, you said lets assume God exists. Personal assessment doesn't suddenly improve because we introduce God.

What's assuming God exists (as Creator) have to do with my asking you how you support this claim:

Wicknight wrote:

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

I specifically asked you to support this claim without conflating personal opinion and personal revelation (from God).

I have

I can either thank you for acknowledging the conflation or I can wonder have you missed out on a question mark. If the latter you might edit before the Mad Hatter comes along to correct your punctuation.

Yes but again he has already done it. Unless you think your brain is fundamentally different to the rest of us because God made an exception for you.

God has provided his "level of trust"

Why do insist (it seems) that this isn't a dynamic thing. That God can't choose to apply knowledge of himself (by whatever means) at anytime he likes? Or generate new ways of revealing himself as it suits him?

Simply saying personal revelation isn't the same as personal opinion is some what pointless when clearly it is and clearly God made it that way.

I asked for a case for this assertion. "Clearly is" isn't a case, it's another assertion.

1) Personal revelation indicates something arising in man solely because of an action of God.

2) Empirical revelation indicates something arising in man solely because of the action of God

3) Personal opinion indicates something arising in man to a large/total degree because of the internal workings of man.


This is not as much as could be said. It is however, an example of what I mean by a case based on the assumptions of the OP: God exists and demonstrates himself empirically to a man. I'm not concerning myself with extra-thread argumentation

So why are you saying we can trust personal revelation when God is saying we can't (otherwise what is the point of empiricism and why is personal opinion so bad at everything but God revelations?)

Your twofold inferences answered in turn:

- whatever the point it need not exclude personal revelation.
- conflation issue outstanding.

No maybe not. God is defined as being intelligent and consistent. You now want us to assume he isn't simply because you don't like the conclusion.

Given that I can assert intelligence/consistance for the maybe option - without a shred of concrete reasoning (so as to follow in the footsteps you've just laid), I don't have to assume anything of the sort.

..

I'll leave at this for now. If you glance back at this response and the few posts from which it derives you'll begin to see a pattern. The "difficulty" with your position is that you have to deal with a very narrow set of possibilities about the nature of God's dealing with man. The challenge/fun for you is that these narrow set of possibilities are eminently possible and need to be faced head on. The general tack you are taking however, involves introducing all sorts of other possibilities - which is not a way of dealing with the set of possibilities you've been dealt by the OP.

The OP and the possibilities contained within. That is the question. For you. And for those similarily inclined.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I specifically asked you to support this claim without conflating personal opinion and personal revelation (from God).

I'll wait until you clarify how you tell the difference, since from why I'm sitting they are, by definition, exactly the same.

I suspect you don't actually have a proper answer, but it would be rude not to give you the benefit of the doubt.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Why do insist (it seems) that this isn't a dynamic thing. That God can't choose to apply knowledge of himself (by whatever means) at anytime he likes? Or generate new ways of revealing himself as it suits him?

Because that isn't God as defined by your religion, which is the god you have asked us to imagine exists.

God is consistent and perfect.

God is perfect, he wouldn't choose to do something half heartily.

Otherwise you could say well how do we know God isn't going to just chuck everyone out of heaven cause he feels like it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I asked for a case for this assertion. "Clearly is" isn't a case, it's another assertion.

Because there is no answer to King Mob's question. You logically can't tell the difference.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Personal revelation indicates something arising in man solely because of an action of God. Personal opinion indicates something arising in man to a large degree because of the internal workings of man.

That is irrelevant because your personal opinion cannot tell the difference between a personal opinion or a personal revelation.

You require a personal opinion to assess if you actually had a personal revelation or not.

Thus it all comes back to a personal opinion. A personal revelation is as irrelevant as God appears as a tree that looks exactly like every other tree.

And more to the point God made it that way in the first place

For God to ignore that, and try and communicate with you through personal revelation, would be contradicting how he set things up in the first place.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Given that I can assert intelligence/consistance for the maybe option - without a shred of concrete reasoning (so as to follow in the footsteps you've just laid), I don't have to assume anything of the sort.

No you can't because it requires God to act in away (by giving you personal revelation) that is contradictory to how he created the universe (by making personal opinion totally flawed and making humans to require empirical evaluation to figure anything out properly)

God acts against his nature by doing this so it isn't an option.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The "difficulty" with your position is that you have to deal with a very narrow set of possibilities about the nature of God's dealing with man.

That isn't a difficulty, it is just reality. Personal opinion and judgement is deeply flawed, as demonstrated by a zillion and one examples.

Empirical evaluation far far far less so.

God made it this way, it is the state of reality.

Personal revelation cannot be divorced from personal opinion (unless you come up with a very good answer for King Mob's question which I suspect you won't)

Therefore personal revelation is as flawed as personal opinion, as God declared when he made us.

God would not use a system he himself designed to be weak and flawed to communicate with us, in the same way God is not going to tell you to go off and commit sin. That is illogical and thus against his nature.

These are the conclusions of your assumptions.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

And again any point you wish to avoid, you can just say this.

But when I try not to avoid it and ask a simple question so as to ensure we are singing from the same hymnsheet:

Are you asking me that from the perspective of an atheist. Or are you asking me that from the perspective of a hypothethical atheist to whom God has revealed himself empirically. The former position is off topic. The latter on.

..you don't answer. You just insist you'll have it your way.

But's it's my OP. And I don't have to shift from it just because you prefer not to deal with it.

Herbal Deity

antiskeptic wrote: »

Indeed. I could also be a brain-in-a-jar with my thought being the result of some scientists button pushing. Which is why the OP excludes gods/aliens/scientists behind God.

Well, to that I say, the fact that you exclude these options renders your conclusions invalid.

God being able to manipulate me into believing in him, is essentially one specific brain-in-a-jar scenario - i.e. some kind of intelligent entity is able to control my thoughts by "pushing buttons". You can't just exclude all other brain-in-a-jar-esque scenarios and claim your specific one has all sorts of consequences as a result.

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

But when I try not to avoid it and ask a simple question so as to ensure we are singing from the same hymnsheet:



..you don't answer. You just insist you'll have it your way.

But's it's my OP. And I don't have to shift from it just because you prefer not to deal with it.

So then you're going to stick to dodging the question?

Fair enough.

I think we've all been able to guess that you cannot distinguish between opinion and revelation.
Most because there is no difference between the two.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Because that isn't God as defined by your religion, which is the god you have asked us to imagine exists.

God is consistent and perfect.

God is perfect, he wouldn't choose to do something half heartily.

What's inconsistant about different tools for different types of goals? What's half hearted about applying different tools to different situations as they arise?

Otherwise you could say well how do we know God isn't going to just chuck everyone out of heaven cause he feels like it.

Perhaps he will. It doesn't concern the OP

Because there is no answer to King Mob's question. You logically can't tell the difference.

You need to unpack what was said. It's not up to me to "tell the difference" when God is the one who is soley responsible for all aspects of the position I find myself in (when it concerns personal revelation or empirical revelation)

And more to the point God made it that way in the first place

Possilbe but extraneous to OP possibility. Thus not dealing with the OP's possibility.

For God to ignore that, and try and communicate with you through personal revelation, would be contradicting how he set things up in the first place.

Connected to, and based on above extraneous possibility.

No you can't because it requires God to act in away (by giving you personal revelation) that is contradictory to how he created the universe (by making personal opinion totally flawed and making humans to require empirical evaluation to figure anything out properly)

Conflation issue. See above. You continue in this vein so perhaps the best thing to do is concentrate on the central tenet of our position. I've already given you the case for the difference between personal revelation / opinion.

Fire away/

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

So then you're going to stick to dodging the question?

Just as your going to stick to dodging the OP. And the OP is first - so it's you whose left holding the dodging baby.

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

Just as your going to stick to dodging the OP. And the OP is first - so it's you whose left holding the dodging baby.

Dude you were the one who brought up personal revelation as distinct from opinion.
You have refused to define that difference or how to tell the difference.

You are claiming that personal revelation is as valid as empiricism, but have admitted that it's only as valid as opinion because you can't prove it to another person.

But if you want to pretend I'm dodging questions......

antiskeptic

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Well, to that I say, the fact that you exclude these options renders your conclusions invalid.

God being able to manipulate me into believing in him, is essentially one specific brain-in-a-jar scenario - i.e. some kind of intelligent entity is able to control my thoughts by "pushing buttons". You can't just exclude all other brain-in-a-jar-esque scenarios and claim your specific one has all sorts of consequences as a result.

The reason we exclude aliens and scientists pushing buttons permits us to examine a specific situation. That situation (God exists and equips us with a way(s) to arrive at knowledge of him) doesn't mean God pushes all buttons (it can be that we somehow push the button marked "I want God to reveal himself to me") and because we do, he does.

We can, by all means, permit all sorts of other button pushers - including some whereby we play no part at all (ie: there is no "we") A brain-in-a-jar is the name of such a one. But what's the point of being able to say "you're wrong - it could be an alien pretending to be God"? We might as well start swinging handbags at each other

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've already given you the case for the difference between personal revelation / opinion.

No you haven't.