Getting 'evidence' would break the system.

antiskeptic

Sarky wrote: »

Well if anyone could perform a miracle on live tv with plenty of qualified experts to ensure it wasn't faked, that'd be a start. Or God could show up in person like he did in the old days and sort out once and for all which of the however-many-there-are-now Christian denominations has it right. The stars rearranging themselves into a message in the night sky. He could just drop the requisite knowledge into everyone's brain at the same time, too. Anything verifiable. Anything at all beyond a feeling someone has. Anything that is consistently different from sheer random chance.

It's hardly asking much of an entity that allegedly managed to create a universe, is it?

I'm not sure what that would achieve tbh

Say any or all of the above occurs. And that you are now convinced that God exists. You would now also know that he created you and in knowing that, you would realise that he has made it such that you arrive in a state of being 'convinced of things' by means of 'the empirical method'. If he didn't wire you so that you would be convinced so then convinced you wouldn't be. Irrespective of the evidence.

Do you think a chair would be convinced by evidence?

Since you are ultimately reliant on his not only providing you evidence for his existence but also on his configuring you in such a way that the evidence can be considered by you as much, any way he evidences/configures you is as good as the next.

It all relies on him in the end - not on some method of evaluation you suppose is detached from him.

What this means is that God evidencing himself empirically and verifiably to you is a valid and reliable a means of God evidencing himself as is his evidencing himself to you non-empirically/verifiably.

Monty Burnz

antiskeptic wrote: »

Do you think a chair would be convinced by evidence?

Are you suggesting that this poster has the mentality of a chair?

antiskeptic wrote: »

It all relies on him in the end - not on some method of evaluation you suppose is detached from him.

And here you seem to suggest that those of us who don't believe don't do so because of God's choices - which actually makes sense. So why did he create us to punish us?

pauldla

What this means is that God evidencing himself empirically and verifiably to you is a valid and reliable a means of God evidencing himself as is his evidencing himself to you non-empirically/verifiably.

I am but a poor benighted atheist, and not accustomed to such long words. What does this sentence mean?

And here you seem to suggest that those of us who don't believe don't do so because of God's choices - which actually makes sense. So why did he create us to punish us?

It seems the odds are stacked against me, so. I suspected as much.

liveya

mrac wrote: »

Regarding your first point, many historians would claim that muhammad etc. existed so why do you dismiss these claim but hold onto the ones which reinforce your view point?

Regarding the genetic fallacy, the commandments clearly state that worshiping other gods gets you a ticket to hell, hindus worship other gods therefore the only logical conclusion you can take if you truly believe the commandments is that they are going to hell. So do you believe they go to hell? In which case is that fair and loving? OR Do you believe that they can still go to heaven? In which case are the commandments wrong? can they be ignored in some cases? how do you resolve the commandment issue?

Almost all religions have some form of "divinely inspired" text, if there is no proof than how are we supposed to distinguish which is true and which is false? You must agree that devout followers of all religions will swear that their text is true and that they have every reason to believe its true etc. in the same way you have exerted that your holy text is true.

Ironically, athiests are the worst for beleiving myths, Take the myth about people born outside the faith going to hell, for example.

It's called the anonymous Christian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_Christian

If say, a man born into the islamic faith loved truth, love, righteousness, and justice, and therefore is good, then he in fact, without knowing it, loves Christ. He is a Christian, an 'anonymous Christian'. If that man were to meet Christ, he would warm to him and recognize him. Because he loves all the things Christ is, but this means he isn't actually faithful to Muhammed at all, Muhammed told his followers to murder Christians, and those who are not muslims, so this man, in his heart, rejects Islam but is not aware of it.

This seems to make a case, it doesn't sell out Christianity as one of many options, which would make Christianity a sham, Also it talks of a just God who judges by what's in their hearts, which is fair.

God examines the heart of each man, and would never condemn a person outside the faith to hell, (unless they rejected him) when they actually loved him without realizing it. If their parents allowed the baptism as a child, he would be indeed, a disiciple of Christ, except this time, explicitly.

These debates go on forever because it's easier to conjure up excuses not to seek God, than to seek him. Contrary to popular belief that religious are weak and it's the 'opium of the people', Christians are actually strong, it takes strength to put faith in an invisible God and trust in him, it takes courage to take that leap of faith, everything the skeptical athiest doesn't have. Hence why they project their own weaknessess, which they despise, onto the believer - and sneer, as they so love to do.

Monty Burnz

liveya wrote: »

Ironically, athiests are the worst for beleiving myths, Take the myth about people born outside the faith going to hell, for example.

It's called the anonymous Christian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_Christian

If say, a man born into the islamic faith loved truth, love, righteousness, and justice, and therefore is good, then he in fact, without knowing it, loves Christ. He is a Christian, an 'anonymous Christian'. If that man were to meet Christ, he would warm to him and recognize him. Because he loves all the things Christ is, but this means he isn't actually faithful to Muhammed at all, Muhammed told his followers to murder Christians, and those who are not muslims, so this man, in his heart, rejects Islam but is not aware of it.

This seems to make a case, it doesn't sell out Christianity as one of many options, which would make Christianity a sham, Also it talks of a just God who judges by what's in their hearts, which is fair.

God examines the heart of each man, and would never condemn a person outside the faith to hell, (unless they rejected him) when they actually loved him without realizing it. If their parents allowed the baptism as a child, he would be indeed, a disiciple of Christ, except this time, explicitly.

These debates go on forever because it's easier to conjure up excuses not to seek God, than to seek him. Contrary to popular belief that religious are weak and it's the 'opium of th epeople', Christians are actually strong, it takes strength to put faith in an invisible God and trust in him, it takes courage to tale that leap of faith, everything the skeptical athiest doesn't have. Hence why they project their own weakness, which they despise onto the believer - and sneer, as they so love to do.

You are stating this as a fact of Christianity. Does this mean that all the different branches of Christianity will accept it?

fatmammycat

liveya wrote: »

Ironically, athiests are the worst for beleiving myths, Take the myth about people born outside the faith going to hell, for example.

It's called the anonymous Christian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_Christian

I'm sorry, what? Cite please.

Sonics2k

liveya wrote: »

God examines the heart of each man, and would never condemn a person outside the faith to hell, (unless they rejected him) when they actually loved him without realizing it. If their parents allowed the baptism as a child, he would be indeed, a disiciple of Christ, except this time, explicitly.

This completely contradicts the very first Commandment though, and it completely goes against the teachings of Christianity.

It really looks more like an addendum added on later by someone in the religion (any religion) when someone pointed out this flaw.

shizz

liveya wrote: »

These debates go on forever because it's easier to conjure up excuses not to seek God, than to seek him. Contrary to popular belief that religious are weak and it's the 'opium of the people', Christians are actually strong, it takes strength to put faith in an invisible God and trust in him, it takes courage to take that leap of faith, everything the skeptical athiest doesn't have. Hence why they project their own weaknessess, which they despise, onto the believer - and sneer, as they so love to do.

This statement baffles me. How choosing to believe something without any evidence is something to be proud of and commended as "strength" truly astounds me.

pauldla

liveya wrote: »

These debates go on forever because it's easier to conjure up excuses not to seek God, than to seek him. Contrary to popular belief that religious are weak and it's the 'opium of the people', Christians are actually strong, it takes strength to put faith in an invisible God and trust in him, it takes courage to take that leap of faith, everything the skeptical athiest doesn't have. Hence why they project their own weaknessess, which they despise, onto the believer - and sneer, as they so love to do.

I'm not sure if 'strength' is the word I'd use there; however...

I contend that it takes more strength to challenge and question the assumptions that have been bred into you; and it takes a huge amount of strength to take on an organized religion.

mrac

liveya wrote: »

Ironically, athiests are the worst for beleiving myths, Take the myth about people born outside the faith going to hell, for example.

It's called the anonymous Christian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_Christian

If say, a man born into the islamic faith loved truth, love, righteousness, and justice, and therefore is good, then he in fact, without knowing it, loves Christ. He is a Christian, an 'anonymous Christian'. If that man were to meet Christ, he would warm to him and recognize him. Because he loves all the things Christ is, but this means he isn't actually faithful to Muhammed at all, Muhammed told his followers to murder Christians, and those who are not muslims, so this man, in his heart, rejects Islam but is not aware of it.

So what it seems youre saying is that even though someone is born out of the faith and then accepts jesus (knowing or unknowing) they are saved. However there are problems notion. Firstly this is yet again an example where you can replace "christ" with any other mythical creature and is equally valid. A muslim scholar may assert the argument but in reverse.

Also the anonymous christian notion was put forth by the theologian Karl Rahner a human being. The commandments are (if you believe in the bible) put forth by god himself. The two ideas are contradictory and surly if you are a christian the word of god comes first no?

These debates go on forever because it's easier to conjure up excuses not to seek God, than to seek him. Contrary to popular belief that religious are weak and it's the 'opium of the people', Christians are actually strong, it takes strength to put faith in an invisible God and trust in him, it takes courage to take that leap of faith, everything the skeptical athiest doesn't have. Hence why they project their own weaknessess, which they despise, onto the believer - and sneer, as they so love to do.

It takes gullibility to believe in something you have no good reason to believe in. It takes strength to question and explore reality for yourself.

antiskeptic

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Are you suggesting that this poster has the mentality of a chair?

No. It was an example of something not configured to be convinced by evidence. If you're convinced of Gods existence (or state yourself open to being convinced empirically) then you must also be convinced that you were configured (or would be, in the case of God demonstrating himself empirically) to be convinced by empirical evidence.

And here you seem to suggest that those of us who don't believe don't do so because of God's choices - which actually makes sense. So why did he create us to punish us?

That's not what I was suggesting.

I was suggesting that any method whereby God evidences himself would be designed by God. And so the empirical is as good a method for God to use as any other he might use.

And so Sarky might as well state himself as happy to have God turn up before him unempirically as empirically. Neither method can prove God to Sarky any better than the other unless God makes it so.

Which means Sarky's preferred method wouldn't hold anymore water for him than God turning up before him unempirically

Sonics2k

I'll write up an on-topic post, but it may not be great as I'm very busy today.

I personally, am not an Atheist, rather an Agnostic. I accept the possibility of a 'higher power' of some form, but do not recognise it as a God or Gods.

I accept logic and facts, not hearsay and ancient writings as proof.
To me, the Bible (and all other Holy Books) are nothing more than texts showing a belief system used by a particular group of people, and is no more valid than the Torah, Quran, Greek Mythology, Buddhism or Aztec.
With that said, I do accept the likely existence of the man we now know as Jesus Christ, as this is documented by sources outside the Bible.

I do not accept his (or any other prophet type) miracles, as the only source for these are accounts given by the Bible, but not referenced anywhere else.

Proof of a God's existence would be something as simple as the appearance of God(s), actually impacts they can make on the world.
In the Old Testament, God likes to drop in now and then and wipe out some nice evil societies, but inexplicably does not do so now.

Religions speak of Gods love, but allows hundreds of millions of children (who are supposed to be innocent) die slow and painful deaths from disease and starvation.
Surely a loving God would not want this to happen, and would possibly send at least some rainfall to these draught stricken areas and let them grow crops.

Should Hell be real, and I end up there for the simple reason I dared question their existence with the free will they gave me, and despite living a good life, treating people equally and helping society in any way I can. Then it will only serve to prove that (whichever) God(s) is real, is actually a complete arse.

antiskeptic

pauldla wrote: »

I am but a poor benighted atheist, and not accustomed to such long words. What does this sentence mean?

What the argument in total means is the atheist* who places his uber-trust in the empirical method for evidencing God's existence is forgetting who would have created the empirical method of evidencing.


*in this instance Sarky. But lot's of atheists do the same thing. They act as if the empirical method of evaluation can place the Creator under the same microscope as the created. N'est ce pas!

Stark

So circular reasoning as "evidence" for God in short.

Sarky

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure what that would achieve tbh

Say any or all of the above occurs. And that you are now convinced that God exists. You would now also know that he created you and in knowing that, you would realise that he has made it such that you arrive in a state of being 'convinced of things' by means of 'the empirical method'. If he didn't wire you so that you would be convinced so then convinced you wouldn't be. Irrespective of the evidence.

Seriously: What the hell? You're not making any sense here. I also suspect you think "evidence" means "Me hearing god's voice in my head." I'd need something that couldn't be written off as too many drugs or a stroke. There's a nice list of things above that would certainly go a long way to convincing anyone. You know. Evidence. If God shows up and convinces me he's real, and that this is all part of some big plan, then groovy, God exists, and I'll accept that. After the "Why did you have to make it so much bloody hassle?" argument. He'll have to really show me this plan to convince me it's working though, because from down here it looks like a bloody mess. No worship unless he can really justify all the horrific stuff he allows to happen in his name. He went ballistic all the time for way less back in the Old Testament. Did having a kid mellow him out?

Do you think a chair would be convinced by evidence?

Oh hey, that's charming. Liken me to furniture, that'll endear yourself to everyone. I eagerly await your support for the notion that chairs are sentient. I mean I saw a children's show about an alien who came to Earth disguised as a chair years ago, but I imagine that doesn't count. Otherwise, that part is not a little insulting, and a complete non-starter.

Since you are ultimately reliant on his not only providing you evidence for his existence but also on his configuring you in such a way that the evidence can be considered by you as much, any way he evidences/configures you is as good as the next.

It all relies on him in the end - not on some method of evaluation you suppose is detached from him.

What this means is that God evidencing himself empirically and verifiably to you is a valid and reliable a means of God evidencing himself as is his evidencing himself to you non-empirically/verifiably.

That's a pretty convoluted way of saying "It doesn't matter because I believe god exists anyway!" That's a powerfully lame argument. You have said evidence doesn't matter to you in the past though, so I suppose it's natural to assume the same for everyone else.

Come on, was one Doubting Thomas really that much of a strain on the creator of the universe and more besides? Perhaps if he concentrated more on convincing people than all this furniture you seem to think is Christian (it's the carpenter's son link, isn't it? Any excuse, eh?), there'd be time to convince a few more people?

pauldla

antiskeptic wrote: »

What the argument in total means is the atheist* who places his uber-trust in the empirical method for evidencing God's existence is forgetting who would have created the empirical method of evidencing.

In the case of God's existence being evidenced by it.

Sorry, I cannot read that as anything but nonsensical wordplay. Excuse my bluntness, I don't know how else to put it.

Monty Burnz

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was suggesting that any method whereby God evidences himself would be designed by God. And so the empirical is as good a method for God to use as any other he might use.

So why didn't he make me in such a way that I accept a lower standard of proof, or provide that empirical evidence? It's totally in his hands - he created me, my character, and the environment I grew up in

He shouldn't feel slighted as I don't believe in many other gods for the exact same reason.

Blowfish

antiskeptic wrote: »

Since you are ultimately reliant on his not only providing you evidence for his existence but also on his configuring you in such a way that the evidence can be considered by you as much, any way he evidences/configures you is as good as the next.
...
What this means is that God evidencing himself empirically and verifiably to you is a valid and reliable a means of God evidencing himself as is his evidencing himself to you non-empirically/verifiably.

No, it doesn't. By your own logic, If God 'configured' humans to only accept/believe a subset of evidence types, then he could only ever reveal himself through that subset. If he revealed himself in any other way, then there's no human in existence that would believe in him.

In Sarky's case, it seems he only believes in empirical evidence. If God will only ever provide non empirical evidence, this leads to one obvious conclusion, either:

1. Sarky's design is flawed in that he'll never believe the evidence God presents. This means God made a mistake.

2. God is patently unfair in condemning Sarky for not believing, despite never giving poor Sarky any evidence that God know's he will accept. This means God is cruel.

Sarky

Empirical evidence has worked pretty well for me so far. I'd settle for a good logical argument, or something not-terribly-empirical but heavily supported by statistics. If everyone in the world for example suddenly believed, and broke into a hymn to one particular god, well, I'd have to seriously consider the possibility that I wasn't just after taking too much acid, wouldn't I?

As it is, his miracle rate is low enough to be lost in the background of spontaneous remission of certain diseases, and appearing on tacos in South America. Powerful stuff indeed. Your argument boils down to "Hooray for low standards!". I have a miraculous peanut that looks like Admiral Ackbar. Are you going to become a Jedi now?

liveya

Sonics2k wrote: »

This completely contradicts the very first Commandment though, and it completely goes against the teachings of Christianity.

It really looks more like an addendum added on later by someone in the religion (any religion) when someone pointed out this flaw.

Do you really think the church, and even Pope Benedict, the most experienced theologian in the Vatican would approve of it, if it broke the first commandment? Please..

I'm nearly sure the cure for athiesm is a good dose of theology, the mis understandings about teachings and general theological concepts seem to baffle and cause most problems. The so called problem of evil, hell etc all have been well explained, but this seems to be overlooked, in place of primitive outlooks on the topic as a whole.

antiskeptic

Stark wrote: »

So circular reasoning as "evidence" for God in short.

In a word or two..

pauldla

liveya wrote: »

Do you really think the church, and even Pope Benedict, the most experienced theologian in the Vatican would approve of it, if it broke the first commandment? Please..

I'm nearly sure the cure for athiesm is a good dose of theology, the mis understandings about teachings and general theological concepts seem to baffle and cause most problems. The so called problem of evil, hell etc all have been well explained, but this seems to be overlooked, in place of primitive outlooks on the topic as a whole.

Well, there is plenty of historical precedent for the Church disregarding commandments.

Monty Burnz

liveya wrote: »

Do you really think the church, and even Pope Benedict, the most experienced theologian in the Vatican would approve of it, if it broke the first commandment? Please..

I'm nearly sure the cure for athiesm is a good dose of theology, the mis understandings about teachings and general theological concepts seem to baffle and cause most problems. The so called problem of evil, hell etc all have been well explained, but this seems to be overlooked, in place of primitive outlooks on the topic as a whole.

So do you count as atheists the Christians who disagree with your 'Anonymous Christian' theory that you can be saved without even ever hearing of Jesus?

Or are you saying that these Christians don't exist?

antiskeptic

pauldla wrote: »

Sorry, I cannot read that as anything but nonsensical wordplay. Excuse my bluntness, I don't know how else to put it.

Have you considered the possibility that the problem might lie with your ability to follow an argument?

Monty Burnz

liveya wrote: »

Do you really think the church, and even Pope Benedict, the most experienced theologian in the Vatican would approve of it, if it broke the first commandment? Please..

I'm nearly sure the cure for athiesm is a good dose of theology, the mis understandings about teachings and general theological concepts seem to baffle and cause most problems. The so called problem of evil, hell etc all have been well explained, but this seems to be overlooked, in place of primitive outlooks on the topic as a whole.

So do you count as atheists the Christians who disagree with your 'Anonymous Christian' theory that you can be saved without even ever hearing of Jesus?

pauldla

antiskeptic wrote: »

Have you considered the possibility that the problem might lie with your ability to follow an argument?

It has crossed my mind, yes. Through out a few cogent ones there and let's see how I do.

Monty Burnz

antiskeptic wrote: »

Have you considered the possibility that the problem might lie with your ability to follow an argument?

To be fair, that was awful gobbledigook - perhaps not helped by a typo.

liveya

shizz wrote: »

This statement baffles me. How choosing to believe something without any evidence is something to be proud of and commended as "strength" truly astounds me.

There is good reason to have faith in Christ, as already pointed out. If it's reasonable, and it holds strong subjective value, then it's sound faith. It takes strength to maintain a faith in Christ, trust me.

shizz

liveya wrote: »

There is good reason to have faith in Christ, as already pointed out. If it's reasonable, and it holds strong subjective value, then it's sound faith. It takes strength to maintain a faith in Christ, trust me.

No it doesn't take strength, it takes ignorance. As others have pointed out, it takes strength to repeatedly question your beliefs to make sure they are actually worth believing in.

It doesn't take strength to block everything out and blindly follow a belief.

liveya

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So do you count as atheists the Christians who disagree with your 'Anonymous Christian' theory that you can be saved without even ever hearing of Jesus?

Very tricky, most athiests have read the gospels and rejected them, Which isn't a good sign. If they loved truth, and were loving, and just, they would recognize it and accept it, maybe not right away, but eventually. C.S. Lewis one of the great theologians and Christian apologetics of the 20th century was an Athiest for years, in the end he just had to accept 'God is God',

antiskeptic

Sarky wrote: »

Empirical evidence has worked pretty well for me so far. I'd settle for a good logical argument, or something not-terribly-empirical but heavily supported by statistics. If everyone in the world for example suddenly believed, and broke into a hymn to one particular god, well, I'd have to seriously consider the possibility that I wasn't just after taking too much acid, wouldn't I?

So far so good. Supposing that God has just demonstrated himself to you to your satisfaction, what the argument now asks you to ask yourself is:

"Who configured me such that I'd be convinced of His existence by empirical evidence?" (Hint: God)

"What if he hadn't configured me so?" (Hint: evidence or no, you wouldn't have been convinced of his existence)

"Doesn't that mean my having been convinced empirically relied on a system developed by God (evidence + configuring me in this way)?" (Hint: Yes)

"Doesn't that then mean that any other system he could have used could be as good as (or better than) this one - if he so decided it should be?" (Hint: Yes)

"So why did I suppose me The Decider of which method is best for God to demonstrate his existence when the whole thing depended on God from start to finish?" (Hint: read up on the Fall)

"Why doesn't this same argument stand from my current position where God hasn't actually demonstrated himself empirically to me?" (Hint: it does)

liveya

shizz wrote: »

No it doesn't take strength, it takes ignorance. As others have pointed out, it takes strength to repeatedly question your beliefs to make sure they are actually worth believing in.

It doesn't take strength to block everything out and blindly follow a belief.

Your assuming all Christians block everything out and believe anything, well you're wrong. I question everything, also, to your surprise. If you want to get serious, be honest and stop playing dumb.

This is why I have given up on many of these discussions, the ignorance and hidden implications are just embarrasing.

Monty Burnz

liveya wrote: »

Very tricky, most athiests have read the gospels and rejected them, Which isn't a good sign. If they loved truth, and were loving, and just, they would recognize it and accept it, maybe not right away, but eventually. C.S. Lewis one of the great theologians and Christian apologetics of the 20th century was an Athiest for years, in the end he just had to accept 'God is God',

Right. But you trotted out the 'anonymous Christian' stuff as a refutation of the notion that saintly people would go to hell if they had been born in the wrong place/time.

Yet many of your own faith think that the notion of the 'anonymous Christian' is ridiculous. If this is a matter of fact, then how can believers of the same religion have opposite views on the issue?

Monty Burnz

antiskeptic wrote: »

So far so good. What the argument now asks you to ask yourself is:

"Who configured me such that I'd be convinced by empirical evidence?" (Hint: God)

"What if he hadn't configured me so?" (Hint: evidence or no, you wouldn't be convinced of his existence)

"So is God is to blame for creating me like this and then not providing the evidence he knew I would need? (Hint: yes)

"So I was created solely to spend eternity in hell?" (Hint: so it would seem)

shizz

liveya wrote: »

Your assuming all Christians block everything out and believe anything, well you're wrong. I question everything, also, to your surprise. If you want to get serious, be honest and stop playing dumb.

This is why I have given up on many of these discussions, the ignorance and hidden implications are just embarrasing.

I was addressing the notion of faith being a characteristic of having "strength".
The very meaning of faith is belief in the absence of evidence.

You say you question everything, that doesn't mean you do. I very much doubt you have really questioned your belief in its entirety.

liveya

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Right. But you trotted out the 'anonymous Christian' stuff as a refutation of the notion that saintly people would go to hell if they had been born in the wrong place/time.

Yet many of your own faith think that the notion of the 'anonymous Christian' is ridiculous. If this is a matter of fact, then how can believers of the same religion have opposite views on the issue?

It's possible people diagree within the church because some hold more truth than others, I recognize the fairness of the anonymous Christian, and how it simultaneously does not reduce Christ to an option. It makes sense, so I accept it. So does the church and the pope. If a fellow Christian finds it ridiculous that God is just and Christ is the only way to the father, then what kind of a Christian are they, a Fred Phelps, that's what,

Also it was Karl Rahner who proposed the theory to the church, not me.

Sarky

Please, antiskeptic, you're not making any sense.

antiskeptic

Blowfish wrote: »

No, it doesn't. By your own logic, If God 'configured' humans to only accept/believe a subset of evidence types, then he could only ever reveal himself through that subset. If he revealed himself in any other way, then there's no human in existence that would believe in him.

True. If that's what he did.

If not then not true.

In Sarky's case, it seems he only believes in empirical evidence. If God will only ever provide non empirical evidence, this leads to one obvious conclusion, either

If God exists then Sarky is subject to God demonstrating his existence any way God choses. If God decides to convince Sarky and assigns a greater conviction quotient to a non-empirical method then Sarky will be more convinced of God's existence than he could be via the empirical one.

Point is: it makes no sense to demand God demonstrate this, that or the other way. Which is what atheists do.

Blowfish

antiskeptic wrote: »

"Doesn't that then mean that any other system he could have used could be as good as (or better than) this one - if he so decided it should be?" (Hint: Yes)

Did you skip my previous post? God could only ever use a non empirical system to reveal himself to Sarky if he has actually 'configured' Sarky to believe non empirical 'evidence'. I think it's pretty obvious that he hasn't and Sarky is only ever going to believe empirical evidence, hence as I pointed out, using your logic, God either made a mistake in his 'Sarky configuration' and/or is incredibly cruel for expecting Sarky to do the impossible and believe despite being 'configured' not to be able to.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If God exists then Sarky is subject to God demonstrating his existence any way God choses.

No, Sarky is subject to being demonstrated to in a way that God 'configured' him to accept.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If God decides to convince Sarky and assigns a greater conviction quotient to a non-empirical method then Sarky will be more convinced of God's existence than he could be via the empirical one.

God would be pretty stupid to present Sarky non-empirical evidence, given that he'll only accept empirical.

antiskeptic

Sarky wrote: »

Please, antiskeptic, you're not making any sense.

That strikes me as rather lazy. It's be better if you started at the first sentence and indicated where things break down for you. I've even given you strong hints

antiskeptic

Blowfish wrote: »

Did you skip my previous post? God could only ever use a non empirical system to reveal himself to Sarky if he has actually 'configured' Sarky to believe non empirical 'evidence'. I think it's pretty obvious that he hasn't and Sarky is only ever going to believe empirical evidence, hence as I pointed out, using your logic, God either made a mistake in his 'Sarky configuration' and/or is incredibly cruel for expecting Sarky to do the impossible and believe despite being 'configured' not to be able to.

God could configure Sarky to 'see' him unempirically in a flash. The biblical name for it is being 'born again' ( so extensive is the reach of the reconfiguration).

(It might be worth mentioning my position on that: I would hold that a person is first saved, then they receive evidence of God's existence (in the sense they now know God exists for sure))

Blowfish

antiskeptic wrote: »

God could configure Sarky to 'see' him unempirically in a flash. The biblical name for it is being 'born again' ( so extensive is the reach of the reconfiguration).

So now you are effectively saying that it's completely and utterly impossible for Sarky to believe in God until God steps in and changes how Sarky works.

Doesn't that remove any semblance of free will whatsoever? It's not Sarky's choice to have his 'configuration' changed, but God's.

Furthering that logic, every single Atheist exists solely because God created them in such a way that it's impossible for them to believe in him, and hasn't bothered to 'change' them to allow them to believe in him and be 'saved'.

Why the hell did he do that?

antiskeptic

Blowfish wrote: »

God would be pretty stupid to present Sarky non-empirical evidence, given that he'll only accept empirical.

I'm not so sure. If there is absolute good and evil (for instance). And if Sarky has been given a way to know and respond to both (via conscience), then it doesn't matter that Sarky hasn't empirical evidence, he still knows what he's doing.

And those responses can be fed into the algorithm* which decides whether God will save Sarky or not. If he does save Sarky and then reconfigures him, Sarky will see God - unempirically.

Sarky can trace his salvation (and subsequent seeing of God) back to his responses to something that couldn't empirically be proven (goodness - an aspect and attribute of God, and evil - it's opposite)




*I use the word 'algorithm' in the attempt to deflect folk from the simplistic (and utterly incorrect) notion that if Sarky is simply good enough then God will save him .. and vice versa.

antiskeptic

Blowfish wrote: »

So now you are effectively saying that it's completely and utterly impossible for Sarky to believe in God until God steps in and changes how Sarky works.

In the conscious, rational sense of knowing, as sure as night follows day, that God of the Bible exists? Yes.

The biblical term used for the un-reconfigured condition is 'blind'. (Was blind but now I see)

(Sure, man has a sense of god. He is a spiritual animal. He has a sense of an ultimate reckoning for his wrongdoing. But the sense of knowing God exists I'm talking of is the sense of being as sure as I am that this computer screen exists. That requires a reconfiguration)

Doesn't that remove any semblance of free will whatsoever? It's not Sarky's choice to have his 'configuration' changed, but God's.

The sequence suggested is:

Man queried on his position before God: surrender or remain a rebel. This query is asked of all men even though they might not be consciously aware that they are being asked

Man who surrenders is saved

Man who is saved is reconfigured as a consequence of his surrender. To the victor go the spoils afterall

Man's doesn't need to surrender. He can remain a rebel.

And so, a reconfigured man is reconfigured because of an act of his own will - surrender.

Furthering that logic, every single Atheist exists solely because God created them in such a way that it's impossible for them to believe in him, and hasn't bothered to 'change' them to allow them to believe in him and be 'saved'.

Why the hell did he do that?

Every atheist is like everyone ever born. A born rebel (hence the need to be bjorn again). The name you attach to this rebel or that rebel doesn't matter: atheist, Muslim, cultural Christian, agnostic

Re-configuration is as much an option for them as for any other rebel. Heck, I used to be a rebel myself.

Stark

Nice explanation. Do you have some sort of a source for all this or is it just another story that has to be blindly believed and not questioned?

Blowfish

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not so sure. If there is absolute good and evil (for instance). And if Sarky has been given a way to know and respond to both (via conscience), then it doesn't matter that Sarky hasn't empirical evidence, he still knows what he's doing.

And those responses can be fed into the algorithm* which decides whether God will save Sarky or not. If he does save Sarky and then reconfigures him, Sarky will see God - unempirically.

So your algorithm so far is:

<be good> + <some random stuff> = <god 'reconfigures' you so you can believe in him>.

What is the <some random stuff> bit in this algorithm?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Man queried on his position before God: surrender or remain a rebel. This query is asked of all men even though they might not be consciously aware that they are being asked

Right. So, for myself (and all 'Sarky's' of this world) who can only ever believe or act on empirical data, what exactly (in empirical terms) is being 'queried on your position before God'? How are we being queried? What 'position' are we being queried on? How is it being done 'before God' if (by your own admission) it is impossible for us to believe in him?

Sarky

antiskeptic wrote: »

That strikes me as rather lazy. It's be better if you started at the first sentence and indicated where things break down for you. I've even given you strong hints

Yes, you're telling me which way I should answer questions, instead of letting me consider them myself. Your questions are stupid, for the reasons Blowfish et al. have already outlined. I don't appreciate being evangelised at.

If your god exists, and configured me the way I am, then it's HIS responsibility for me reckoning that he's got shag-all basis in anything approaching reality. He either made a mistake, or he's a cruel jerk. Nowhere in your scenario do I have any choice in the matter. And don't even bother getting into the "how can we KNOW that monitor is in front of you?" bollocksology, you couldn't address it back in the A&A forum, and I very much doubt you're going to present it clearly here, either.


So which is it: God made a mistake with me, or he's just indulging a cruel streak?

Extra bonus question: Why should I have to lower my standards for your god?

Monty Burnz

liveya wrote: »

It's possible people diagree within the church because some hold more truth than others, I recognize the fairness of the anonymous Christian, and how it simultaneously does not reduce Christ to an option. It makes sense, so I accept it. So does the church and the pope. If a fellow Christian finds it ridiculous that God is just and Christ is the only way to the father, then what kind of a Christian are they, a Fred Phelps, that's what,

Also it was Karl Rahner who proposed the theory to the church, not me.

I think you will find that many Christians think that it is a ridiculous position, including many of the Christians who post here. It seems odd that over a matter of basic fact like this that even Christians can't agree.

Also I'm aware who proposed it, I described it as your idea as shorthand for 'this idea which you appear to subscribe to".

Monty Burnz

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not so sure. If there is absolute good and evil (for instance). And if Sarky has been given a way to know and respond to both (via conscience), then it doesn't matter that Sarky hasn't empirical evidence, he still knows what he's doing.

He knows what he's doing and he knows that it is wrong in good conscience to randomly believe stuff that he does not have evidence for.

antiskeptic

Sarky wrote: »

Yes, you're telling me which way I should answer questions, instead of letting me consider them myself.

I only gave hints. You can fill your own answers in of course. But you do need to start at the start and work from there.

And the start of the argument is you supposing God as just having evidenced himself to you empirically - as you would demand it. And working from there..