What kind of evidence would prove god ?

Mark Hamill

Sertus wrote: »

It might go someway to proving the being/spirits ability to be omnipresent, but I'm still not sure about infinite, omniscient, and omnipotent, in all times and space, past present and future.

If something is omnipresent across time, and can entirely control the universe then they are not subject to time, therefore they are infinite, omniscient and omnipotent.

Sertus wrote: »

So scientifically speaking, how best could this be independently monitored on a sufficient scale and reproduced as many times as necessary ( assuming this being/spirit was willing to co-operate) ?

I already answered this in the post you quoted.

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

Then let me clarify: I was addressing those atheists who place their faith in science.

Says the guy using the Internet to make his point.

Especially those who would worship Science to the point where they rely on it to establish the existence of it's Inventor.

In other words, most in this forum.

I assure you the primary reasons for me being an atheist have nothing to do with science.

If you believe some people have too much faith in science, address them individually. Don't just address "atheists" because it's suits you to do so while using words like "faith" and "worship".

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Then let me clarify: I was addressing those atheists who place their faith in science. Especially those who would worship Science to the point where they rely on it to establish the existence of it's Inventor.

In other words, most in this forum.

Just because you place your faith in something doesn't mean you are worshipping it. I have faith that my bike will stop when I apply the brakes, but i don't worship either the bike nor the brakes. You are conflating religious faith with general faith.

PS: Any answer to post 65?

Sertus

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

antiskeptic wrote: »

See post #19 in this thread for an indication why it's not a reasonable position in this particular regard. By all means partake in finding a way around it.

I would have thought that God would understand that an honest consistent person who requires high levels of evidence for everything else in life, in the same spirit of honesty and consistency would also require the same a free will belief in theism. Or does free will not apply in this case ?

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's important to realise that: God demonstrating his existence to you is a consequence of your already having been saved. The issue then isn't that people don't 'upper-consciously' believe in his existence (why would they if he hasn't made plain to the 'upper-conscious' that he does). Rather, the issue is their resisting (via his mechanism of salvation) being brought to the point where they can be saved. And failing that, he doesn't turn up.

So, it's not because they don't believe that they are damned, it's because they refused to be brought to the point where he would enable them to believe.

But is it not the case that Christianity teaches that, whether we know it or not, by God's grace (an unmerited gift) we have all been saved/rescued by Christ's sacrifice, and then by the free will choice of faith or no faith, you obtain or loose this salvation ? Is your Christianity one of the branches that believes in Pre-destination ?

Separate to the above, do you believe that faith is by grace alone, i.e. the unmerited gift of God, and that you have to ask God (pray) for that gift (e.g. God if you do happen to exist, please show me in some way, mind or otherwise)

Motopepe

thank god for atheism

Sertus

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I already answered this in the post you quoted.

Sort of, it was combined with Nervous wrecks post, so its not all that clear for everyone.

To avoid any confusion, and so we may say we have finally reached as consensus as to what scientific evidence would prove God, do you mind re-encapsulating / summarising it, to see if everyone else (particularly everyone with a professional science background) agrees.

swampgas

antiskeptic wrote: »

Then let me clarify: I was addressing those atheists who place their faith in science. Especially those who would worship Science to the point where they rely on it to establish the existence of it's Inventor.

In other words, most in this forum.

You are, I think, stretching the meaning of the word "faith".

I don't put my "faith" in science the way you put "faith" in God. Science is based on what we can perceive around us, what we can measure, manipulate, observe and demonstrate to others. It's very much based on the real world, here and now. Do you think the TV you watch or the PC you use to post messages only work because scientists and engineers have "faith" in the theory behind the technology?

If technology worked simply because we wanted it to, the world would be a very different place. The world doesn't care what we want, it's up to us to figure out how the world does work instead. And so far, science has been the approach that has been the most effective.

Mark Hamill

Sertus wrote: »

Sort of, it was combined with Nervous wrecks post, so its not all that clear for everyone.

To avoid any confusion, and so we may say we have finally reached as consensus as to what scientific evidence would prove God, do you mind re-encapsulating / summarising it, to see if everyone else (particularly everyone with a professional science background) agrees.

Really? Ok...: An omniscient, infinite and omnipresent being who simultaneously proves it to everyone at once by letting everyone play with every level of the universe (so omnipowerful too).

Sertus

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Really? Ok...: An omniscient, infinite and omnipresent being who simultaneously proves it to everyone at once by letting everyone play with every level of the universe (so omnipowerful too).

I really do want to keep this scientific

What do you mean by play ? As in Play God ?

So if 'God' permitted Scientists to play God, then it would be scientific evidence. Also not sure about the infinite bit, i.e. allowing these interactions a billion years ago, and then billion years in the future, would mean it had time travel abilities, but not necessarily that the being / spirit was actually infinite.

Fortyniner

antiskeptic wrote: »

Although a person may decide that these are the rules by which they will decide on the matter, God is not so constrained. His mechanism of salvation operates on it's terms and will ensure a level playing field.

Aw come on, now. You're moving the goal posts right off the pitch.

Which mechanism, as far as you know, applies to your god?

Motopepe

re: post 296

People "who place (their) faith in science... especially those who would worship Science to the point where they rely on it to establish the existence of it's Inventor", are theist.

Liamario

Motopepe wrote: »

People "who place (their) faith in science... especially those who would worship Science to the point where they rely on it to establish the existence of it's Inventor", are theist.

I'd respond, but you're coming across as a troll and this argument has been dealt with time and time again, by people more articulate than me.

Motopepe

Liamario wrote: »

I'd respond, but you're coming across as a troll and this argument has been dealt with time and time again, by people more articulate than me.

I'm no troll here.
Point me, please, to this argument being dealt with.

Motopepe

Perhaps I should have articulated further. My point was that Antiskeptic, in post 296, suggests that there are atheist people who place faith in, and worship something and rely on this faith and worship to establish some aspect of reality.
It strikes me as a very unreasoned suggestion and actually describes theistic thought.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Just because you place your faith in something doesn't mean you are worshipping it. I have faith that my bike will stop when I apply the brakes, but i don't worship either the bike nor the brakes. You are conflating religious faith with general faith.

Perhaps worship is the wrong word. There's nothing amiss with worship whereas there is something seriously amiss in utilising that which the inventor would have created in order to determine whether the Creator exists or not. To the exclusion of any other means the Creator might have at his disposal that is.

Perhaps slavish adulation would be a better term

PS: Any answer to post 65?

Apologies. I'll get to it.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Motopepe wrote: »

Perhaps I should have articulated further. My point was that Antiskeptic, in post 296, suggests that there are atheist people who place faith in, and worship something and rely on this faith and worship to establish some aspect of reality.

Specifically:

Especially those who would worship Science to the point where they rely on it to establish the existence of it's Inventor.

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Any chance you could bring an actual argument for the existence of God beyond 'he exists therefore he made everything and we will know him if he wants us too QED' you have been spouting up til now into the discussion?

Unlikely, as antiskeptic's preferred method of proof is the circular argument.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Fortyniner wrote: »

Aw come on, now. You're moving the goal posts right off the pitch. Which mechanism, as far as you know, applies to your god?

Hardly, since what you quote represents an aside comment and is not a part of the argument made since post 19 in this thread. I've not budged the goalposts an inch in that regard.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

swampgas wrote: »

You are, I think, stretching the meaning of the word "faith".

I don't put my "faith" in science the way you put "faith" in God. Science is based on what we can perceive around us, what we can measure, manipulate, observe and demonstrate to others. It's very much based on the real world, here and now. Do you think the TV you watch or the PC you use to post messages only work because scientists and engineers have "faith" in the theory behind the technology?

If technology worked simply because we wanted it to, the world would be a very different place. The world doesn't care what we want, it's up to us to figure out how the world does work instead. And so far, science has been the approach that has been the most effective.

Bear in mind the on-topic context of what I said. I've no problem with science - it's when science is utilised as a prop for a naturalistic philosphy that a disservice is done it.

Especially those who would worship Science to the point where they rely on it to establish the existence of it's Inventor.

Motopepe

What do you mean, specifically, by "to establish the existence of it's Inventor."?

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Sertus wrote: »

I would have thought that God would understand that an honest consistent person who requires high levels of evidence for everything else in life, in the same spirit of honesty and consistency would also require the same a free will belief in theism. Or does free will not apply in this case ?

Free will is permitted. What's not honest or consistent is the demand that God evidence himself empirically to the exclusion of whatever other means he might have at his disposal.

I would have thought it honest and consistent that a person demand they be satisfied by God and once that's done, however God decides it be done, the person can stand content.

To make demands you have no cause to make (says post 19) strike me as an unreasonable approach to take.

But is it not the case that Christianity teaches that, whether we know it or not, by God's grace (an unmerited gift) we have all been saved/rescued by Christ's sacrifice, and then by the free will choice of faith or no faith, you obtain or loose this salvation ? Is your Christianity one of the branches that believes in Pre-destination ?

I've not heard of a branch of Christianity that supposes all saved from the get go. Broadly speaking, Roman Catholicism would suppose all Catholix saved ... with the opportunity to lose that salvation by means of a mortaler. The bulk of the rest suppose folk born lost with the opportunity to be saved .. more or less irrevocably.

I don't believe in Calvinisms predestination (in the sense that God foreordains that some will be lost (no matter what) and some will be found (no matter what). It strikes me as quite bonkers in fact.

Separate to the above, do you believe that faith is by grace alone, i.e. the unmerited gift of God, and that you have to ask God (pray) for that gift (e.g. God if you do happen to exist, please show me in some way, mind or otherwise)

I believe that salvation is by God's grace alone. In the sense that we can't claim to contribute in any positive fashion. In that God is the one who is doing all the work in trying to bring about a situation where our sinful (better said: sin-desiring) will will recognise itself for what it is and having being brought to that ugly truth, will accept God's solution to that problem.

You don't have to do anything to gain or earn or bring about salvation as such, all you can do is refuse being brought to it. Compare:

- a prayer prayed can be considered to be something you've done to contribute to your salvation (if God saves you on account of it).

- a prayer pressed out of you by circumstances that God has utilised in order to press it out of you can be considered a work of God.

Consider the second option above put another way: a rubber duck squeaks after being run over by a truck. What brought about the squeak: was it an act of will of the duck or an act of will of the truck?

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Motopepe wrote: »

What do you mean, specifically, by "to establish the existence of it's Inventor."?

There's an argument in post 19 that might enlighten. That's the discussion your hopping into

Motopepe

antiskeptic wrote: »

There's an argument in post 19 that might enlighten. That's the discussion your hopping into

I've been around since post 1 and I've jumped back to 19 and more a few times but my question was ...
What do you mean, specifically, by "to establish the existence of it's Inventor."?

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Motopepe wrote: »

I've been around since post 1 and I've jumped back to 19 and more a few times but my question was ...
What do you mean, specifically, by "to establish the existence of it's Inventor."?

One conclusion from the argument at post 19:

- it's not for us establish the existence of our Creator (should there be such a being). Rather, it is for the Creator to establish his existence for us.

Whether he does this empirically or by any other means he choses isn't the issue. The issue that it's for him to do it by any means at his disposal.

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

There's nothing amiss with worship whereas there is something seriously amiss in utilising that which the inventor would have created in order to determine whether the Creator exists or not. To the exclusion of any other means the Creator might have at his disposal that is.

You can keep you fingers in your ears all you like (and ignore my responses) antiskeptic, but it doesn't change the fact that religion doesn't need science to render it unbelievable.

Somebody posted a Christopher Hitchens quote recently I thought was nice and concise:

Hitchens wrote:

Let’s say the consensus is that our species, Homo-sapiens has been on the planet for at least 100,000 years. In order to be Christian you have to believe that for 98,000 years, our species suffered and died, most of its children dying in childbirth, most other people having a life expectancy of about twenty five, dying of their teeth, famine, struggle, war, bitterness, suffering, misery. All of that for about 98,000 years, heaven watches it with complete indifference, and then 2000 years ago thinks that’s enough of that, it’s time to intervene. The best way to do this would be by condemning someone to a human sacrifice somewhere in the less literate parts of the Middle East. Don’t let’s appear to the Chinese where people can read and study evidence and have a civilization, let’s go to the desert and have another revelation. This is nonsense. It can’t be believed by a thinking person.

In short, science is both indispensable and fascinating, but religion manages to seem like utter bollocks all its own.

Sertus

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Free will is permitted. What's not honest or consistent is the demand that God evidence himself empirically to the exclusion of whatever other means he might have at his disposal.

As with all things in life, some people require a higher standard of 'evidence' than others. Surely if God created a particular person to be of the type that accepts only a higher standard of evidence than a feeling of belief, then this would be taken into account by God ?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I would have thought it honest and consistent that a person demand they be satisfied by God and once that's done, however God decides it be done, the person can stand content.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've not heard of a branch of Christianity that supposes all saved from the get go. Broadly speaking, Roman Catholicism would suppose all Catholix saved ... with the opportunity to lose that salvation by means of a mortaler. The bulk of the rest suppose folk born lost with the opportunity to be saved .. more or less irrevocably.

Was all mankind not rescued by Christ's sacrifice, but only those who accept Christs invitation will

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't believe in Calvinisms predestination (in the sense that God foreordains that some will be lost (no matter what) and some will be found (no matter what). It strikes me as quite bonkers in fact.

and yet the following sounds like a form of predestination to me . . . .

antiskeptic wrote: »

I believe that salvation is by God's grace alone. In the sense that we can't claim to contribute in any positive fashion. In that God is the one who is doing all the work in trying to bring about a situation where our sinful (better said: sin-desiring) will will recognise itself for what it is and having being brought to that ugly truth, will accept God's solution to that problem.

You don't have to do anything to gain or earn or bring about salvation as such, all you can do is refuse being brought to it. Compare:

- a prayer prayed can be considered to be something you've done to contribute to your salvation (if God saves you on account of it).

- a prayer pressed out of you by circumstances that God has utilised in order to press it out of you can be considered a work of God.

Consider the second option above put another way: a rubber duck squeaks after being run over by a truck. What brought about the squeak: was it an act of will of the duck or an act of will of the truck?

So God chooses to run over certain ducks and make them quack ? and yet drives past others ? Again sounds like a version of predestination to me.

As far as faith is concerned, what ever happened to seek and ye shall find, knock and the door shall be opened, ask and ye shall receive ?

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Dades wrote: »

You can keep you fingers in your ears all you like (and ignore my responses)

I don't actually recall your addressing the argument at post 19 (from which many of my comments - on topic comments - derive). Maybe you're missing the context?

Somebody posted a Christopher Hitchens quote recently I thought was nice and concise:

I'm sure there are eloquent, well-thought out arguments contra religion. Christopher Hitchens isn't one who I'd be giving much time to in that regard however. I can't remember who it was who coined the phrase 'theologically illiterate' in describing Dawkins attempts during The God Delusion but the same could be applied to Hitchens. Woefully infantile presentations of the oppositions position rendered his views comic book. IMO.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Sertus wrote: »

As with all things in life, some people require a higher standard of 'evidence' than others. Surely if God created a particular person to be of the type that accepts only a higher standard of evidence than a feeling of belief, then this would be taken into account by God ?

Perhaps it's time for you to read the original argument made at the start of this thread? Post 19?

Then come back with the basis of your higher standard of evidence...

Was all mankind not rescued by Christ's sacrifice, but only those who accept Christs invitation will

six of one, half a dozen of the other..seems to me. Core point is: something has to happen to ensure you be saved finally, And the crux is whether it rests on your effort and action. Or on God's (with your will being able to refuse to be brought to salvation)

So God chooses to run over certain ducks and make them quack ? and yet drives past others ? Again sounds like a version of predestination to me.

God's driving the truck attempting to run over all. The ones who resist (to bitter end) being run over won't be.

Put another way: salvation (being run over) is through the skill and effort of God. Damnation (not being run over) is through the effort and work of man. If you really don't want what God stands for then he won't insist on it - damnation is yours.

As far as faith is concerned, what ever happened to seek and ye shall find, knock and the door shall be opened, ask and ye shall receive ?

In context: that passage is addressed at the saved. Being saved (in the sense for example of my being saved 10 years ago) isn't the end of the road. It's only the start of a new life.

Although it would do an injustice to sum up the route to salvation in a sentence, it does seem that there is a desparation-edged searching involved. Very often this seems to involve finding solutions in the wrong things which brings about a desparation which may well cause a drained, exhausted duck to quit in his efforts.

Witness the New Testament: one after another and by every means known to man, we find the desparate, the at-the-end-of-their-thether arriving at Christ: the prostitutes, the thief on a cross, the sick, lame, rejected...

Non-moving ducks are easy to run over.

Dades

I really don't get why you keep bring up post 19. It sounds completely circular.

If you believe in god for whatever reason, that reason is convincing? It sounds like something John Waters would write. Heavy on words but vague without anything to actually grasp onto.

Or put differently, a futile attempt to describe how the creator of the entire universe and time itself has failed to manifest itself in anything other than burning bushes, a carpenter and the minds of people raised by other people who were also told to believe it's true.

Regarding Hitchens' woefully infantile presentation, sometimes it takes a child to point out the absurdity of the things adults hold dear. Strip Christianity of the pomp and obsfucation, and down to its bare bones and you're left with an emabarrassingly daft concept in the light of the last two millennia.

Sertus

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

Ok, taking the skimpy and infamous post 19 :

antiskeptic wrote: »

Any means which leads to your being satisfied God exists is as good as any other means.

Good, that means nothing wrong with a scientific means then

antiskeptic wrote: »

As soon as God demonstrates his existence to you (by whichever means satisfies you: empiricism, reasoning, revelation), you'll realise that those means were designed by God.

Good, because empiricism, in the scientific sense, would satisfy me

antiskeptic wrote: »

You'll also realise that because they were designed by God, the confidience-giving quotient attached to each means is for God to determine - not us.

And as God made humans all slightly different, and taking into account individual personal differences, God must know that some people just by honest nature require more evidence than others to have confidence.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Dades wrote: »

I really don't get why you keep bring up post 19. It sounds completely circular.

Let's see the analysis:

If you believe in god for whatever reason, that reason is convincing?

Do you mind if I pass on this effort and wait around for Zombrex? If you're not going to lift a finger then neither me..

aidan24326

I'm sure there are eloquent, well-thought out arguments contra religion. Christopher Hitchens isn't one who I'd be giving much time to in that regard however. I can't remember who it was who coined the phrase 'theologically illiterate' in describing Dawkins attempts during The God Delusion but the same could be applied to Hitchens. Woefully infantile presentations of the oppositions position rendered his views comic book. IMO.

Kinda sums up most of what he was attempting to debunk actually, however good or bad a job he may have made of it.

Mark Hamill

Sertus wrote: »

I really do want to keep this scientific

What do you mean by play ? As in Play God ?

So if 'God' permitted Scientists to play God, then it would be scientific evidence.

Play, as in do whatever they want, at any level (space, time, energy, matter etc.) of this or any other universe. And it wouldn't be scientific simply because scientists did it, it would be scientific because it would be reproducible and independently tested (by everyone else in existence).

Sertus wrote: »

Also not sure about the infinite bit, i.e. allowing these interactions a billion years ago, and then billion years in the future, would mean it had time travel abilities, but not necessarily that the being / spirit was actually infinite.

As I said before: If something is omnipresent across time, and can entirely control the universe then they are not subject to time, therefore they are infinite.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Sertus wrote: »

Ok, taking the skimpy and infamous post 19 :

By all means...

Good, that means nothing wrong with a scientific means then

Not at all. Other than that there's a degree of tentitivity attached.

Good, because empiricism, in the scientific sense, would satisfy me

The same validity applies to revelation. Or any other means decided upon by God. (for some reason, the 'by God' bit seems to be overlooked by most)

And as God made humans all slightly different, and taking into account individual personal differences, God must know that some people just by honest nature require more evidence than others to have confidence.

The evidence only has value because God attaches a sense of confidence to it. What happens if he uses Revelation on you and attaches more confidence to that than to empirical means at his disposal.

..was the conclusion you didn't meantion

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Perhaps worship is the wrong word. There's nothing amiss with worship whereas there is something seriously amiss in utilising that which the inventor would have created in order to determine whether the Creator exists or not. To the exclusion of any other means the Creator might have at his disposal that is.

Perhaps slavish adulation would be a better term

We don't have, at our disposal, the means the creator has at his. So we use the most efficient and reliable means we have.

Even with the term slavish adulation, your previous post conflates religious faith with general faith.

This post also implies that you don't use one means to the exclusion of any other means to determine your creator exists. Meaning, if you want to be consistent, you can't argue that personal revelation is good enough by itself to prove god's existence. So what other means do you have for proving gods existence?

Sertus

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

As I said before: If something is omnipresent across time, and can entirely control the universe then they are not subject to time, therefore they are infinite.

Hmmm not sure about that, that would only demonstrate current control of this universe and ability to time travel within it, and not infinity. There may be multiple other universes out there as Stephen Hawkins and others postulate.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Mark Hamill wrote: »

We don't have, at our disposal, the means the creator has at his. So we use the most efficient and reliable means we have.

We have? They're all his. Reminds the argument at post 19

Even with the term slavish adulation, your previous post conflates religious faith with general faith.

Not when general faith forgets who invented Science and thinks it's relying on Science to reveal the Creator rather than on the Creator who created Science to reveal himself (bearing in mind the context of the thread)

Sarky

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

Do you even realise how daft your posts are getting, antiskeptic?

Mark Hamill

Sertus wrote: »

Hmmm not sure about that, that would only demonstrate current control of this universe and ability to time travel within it, and not infinity. There may be multiple other universes out there as Stephen Hawkins and others postulate.

I already said that the being could interact with our universe on such a level that it could access, and fully interact with, any other universe. Also, a being that is omnipresent across time and can fully interact with any matter or energy (including its own) will never age or die. It is infinite.

Motopepe

antiskeptic wrote: »

One conclusion from the argument at post 19:

- it's not for us establish the existence of our Creator (should there be such a being). Rather, it is for the Creator to establish his existence for us.

Whether he does this empirically or by any other means he choses isn't the issue. The issue that it's for him to do it by any means at his disposal.

You are incorrect to speak of 'conclusions' from post 19. All that exists there is argument and opinion synopsized thusly...
If you are convinced that God exists then the OPs question is moot (i.e. no longer practically applicable).

Therefore, this thread is asking a question that is outside the parameters permitted by your argument.
Thats a conclusion!

Sertus

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Clause 19

Any means which leads to your being satisfied God exists is as good as any other means. Consider:

As soon as God demonstrates his existence to you (by whichever means  satisfies you: empiricism, reasoning, revelation), you'll realise that those means were designed by God.

Which contradicts this :

antiskeptic wrote: »

The evidence only has value because God attaches a sense of confidence to it. What happens if he uses Revelation on you and attaches more confidence to that than to empirical means at his disposal.

..was the conclusion you didn't meantion

and I don't buy that, surely you have to tailor the message for your intended audience, its not one size fits all, hence four different styles of Gospel. Some women get romance, some men don't, some women get cars, some women don't. And yet to date God has conveniently completely excluded anyone who prefers scientific evidence ? If you want to get your message across, you don't broadcast on LW and refuse to broadcast to anyone who is only equipped for FM.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

We have? They're all his. Reminds the argument at post 19

So when you said "any other means the Creator might have at his disposal" you weren't talking about gods omniscience? Omniscience is a means at gods disposal, is it not?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not when general faith forgets who invented Science and thinks it's relying on Science to reveal the Creator rather than on the Creator who created Science to reveal himself (bearing in mind the context of the thread)

You are still conflating religious faith with general faith. Religious faith actively requires no evidence, and the faith is used as an expression of worship. General faith is the result of evidence and is not used as anything. General faith doesn't just apply to science, it applies to anything that you have seen working (evidence) and assume will continue to work in the same way (faith). I have faith in my brakes, but I don't worship my bike.

I added a paragraph to my last post, which you may have missed because you responded so quickly. I'll repeat it here:
This post also implies that you don't use one means to the exclusion of any other means to determine your creator exists. Meaning, if you want to be consistent, you can't argue that personal revelation is good enough by itself to prove god's existence. So what other means do you have for proving gods existence?

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Motopepe wrote: »

If you are convinced that God exists then the OPs question is moot (i.e. no longer practically applicable).

The OP's question is applicable alright (since I'm not denying God can manifest himself empirically). It's just that God can manifest himself anyway he likes.

Therefore, this thread is asking a question that is outside the parameters permitted by your argument.
Thats a conclusion!

The OP is being challenged on why he limits God to turning up empirically - when it doesn't necessarily matter which way God turns up to him. Should God give the OP confident conviction of His existence by whatever means then confidently convinced the OP shall be.

No?

Sertus

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

a being that is omnipresent across time and can fully interact with any matter or energy (including its own) will never age or die. It is infinite.

Not sure I understand the science behind this claim, perhaps its only present everywhere for a certain duration ? So how do you establish it is infinite ?

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Sertus wrote: »

Which contradicts this :

True. It was clarifed much earlier in the discusson but I can't edit it. No matter. Point is: God is the one who decides confidence levels. Mean revelation could be God-designed to provide more confidence

The argument is really about the demand that God turn up empirically. And about the denigration of revelation - when the atheist should realise that would be a matter for God to decide. Should he exist.

and I don't buy that, surely you have to tailor the message for your intended audience, its not one size fits all, hence four different styles of Gospel. Some women get romance, some men don't, some women get cars, some women don't. And yet to date God has conveniently completely excluded anyone who prefers scientific evidence ? If you want to get your message across, you don't broadcast on LW and refuse to broadcast to anyone who is only equipped for FM.

There is good theologica reason to suppose that all those who believe (in the sense of being saved) believe through revelation. But that aside ..

The argument is merely about what God decides be the case. You can love empiricism all you like but if God revealed through revelation and attached more confidence to that means than empiricism then you wouldn't be complaining and demanding that because you this, that or the other type.

Your type would have been altered. By that very revelation.

No?

Sertus

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

antiskeptic wrote: »

The OP is being challenged on why he limits God to turning up empirically - when it doesn't necessarily matter which way God turns up to him. Should God give the OP confident conviction of His existence by whatever means then confidently convinced the OP shall be.

So why would God choose not to ?, as again this smacks of Predestination / Pre-selection.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So when you said "any other means the Creator might have at his disposal" you weren't talking about gods omniscience? Omniscience is a means at gods disposal, is it not?

I was referring to means God has at his disposal for giving us confidence as to his existence. Empirical means, appeals to reason and direct revelation are three that spring to mind.

Empricism vs. Revelation are what it's boiled down to in this thread.

You are still conflating religious faith with general faith. Religious faith actively requires no evidence,

It requires evidence alright - in so far that faith needs something to bring about confidence. And since God is assigning the confidence quotient to all means (empiricism / reasoning / revelation) it doesn't really matter what the medium for confidence giving is.

General faith is the result of evidence and is not used as anything. General faith doesn't just apply to science, it applies to anything that you have seen working (evidence) and assume will continue to work in the same way (faith). I have faith in my brakes, but I don't worship my bike.

Note, I'm talking specifically in the context of the argument at post 19. And so:

Faith in Science to determine the existence of the Creator is necesarily faith in the Creator of Science. When this is forgotten, Science becomes a god.

This post also implies that you don't use one means to the exclusion of any other means to determine your creator exists. Meaning, if you want to be consistent, you can't argue that personal revelation is good enough by itself to prove god's existence. So what other means do you have for proving gods existence?

I didn't imply more than one means was always necessary. It might be if you were relying on empiricism since that only provides tentitive answers (or to put it another way: God has assigned "less-than-fully-certain" to that means of revealing things, him included.)

But if God has a means at his disposal wherby he provides 100% confidence then no other means would be required.

Mark Hamill

Sertus wrote: »

Not sure I understand the science behind this claim, perhaps its only present everywhere for a certain duration ? So how do you establish it is infinite ?

By it making you infinite.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Sertus wrote: »

So why would God choose not to ?, as again this smacks of Predestination / Pre-selection.

I'd plump for the OP a ducking and diving duck, avoiding those oncoming wheels.

Nothing predestination about it - it's mere act of will. Perhaps he'll be run over one day.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Night awl...