Faith necessarily irrational and unjustified?

Penny 4 Thoughts

antiskeptic wrote: »

The question of force applies to why God convicts a person rather than which method he uses. He can as easily convict non-empirically as he can empirically (where the word convict means 'overcome each and every objection that can be raised so as to ensure belief follows').

If we accept the initial criteria that God acts based on logic, no square circles for example. And we accept that God will not force a person to believe in her existence by altering their mind. I don't think I can accept then the idea that she can just as easily convict non-empirically as she can empirically. If the person observing the demonstration requires empirical evidence in order to believe then it seems an illogical statement to say God can over come this objection non-empirically. For myself I would require evidence that rules out a number of more probably scenarios that would also be local to myself, such as a hallucination. I don't know how God would overcome this in a manner that doesn't introduce verification by third parties that the experience I have had is not local to myself.

Penny

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Let's take the Christian God which sees the world as we know it as a stage of sorts, where each person is given the opportunity (even though they don't believe God exists) to decide whether it is the things of God or the things contra_God which they ultimately want. Their wish shall be granted either way with that decision being an eternal one. The forum for a persons answer is their response to good and evil, both within and without. They answer Gods inquiry into their hearts desire (even though they don't believe he exists) by their thoughts, words and deeds. All day long, all life long. This because they have a God-given conscience which shadows and informs them (irrespective of race, culture, creed) If a point comes where the answer to God's query is (or rather, is translated from their unconscious reply to his inquiry) "I want the things of God" then his criteria for turning up is satisfied and turns up he does in convincing fashion. The free will the person has was played out in their responding to God's inquiry, whether in the positive (he turns up) or negative (he doesn't turn up). Once their will has been established, what follows is but consequence. No force is involved.

Do you really believe this (unctuous, pointless) waffle? Like, really (believe it)?

Piliger

Mark Hamill wrote: »

In the lack of any presentable evidence to prove that your "reveal" was genuine, you don't know anything. Your certainty comes, via circular logic, from the a priori assumption that god does exists and that comes, via arrogant circular logic, from the a priori assumption that you can't be mistaken or fooled in your interpretation of that reveal.


This is some painfully bad strawmanning that doesn't even remotely come close to what I wrote. Please try again:
"A guess that is right is still a guess. Even IF god exists AND he reveals himself, your (or my) own surety of that reveal is not a measure of its validity, as you (or I) have no way of knowing if that surety is genuine or not. Different people are equally sure of the existence of contradictory gods, so it is clearly possible for people to achieve absolute surety of non-existent gods "


It is monumentally stupid to say that if you accept one form of evidence that you must accept any. It was monumentally stupid the first time you claimed this and it's still monumentally stupid now (if not more so, given how many people have explained why it is so wrong).


Me ducking out? You claimed that we are all blind and that only you can see because you are equipped for it and we are not. And it was you who immediately cowered away from obvious implication of that circular claim (that it is god who makes us blind, and punishes us for being blind).
So, any time that you would address this clear issue, on behalf of your god who was nice enough to deign you with the sight necessary to see him while sentencing the rest of us to hell, that would nice.

I was planning to snip some of this, to just support one or two sentences, but as I read it I felt that it the whole post is so comprehensively excellent, I had to quote it all.

mickrock

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Do you now accept that I am God, or do you need further evidence?

You are God who happens to be playing the character of Michael Nugent, as well as all the other parts in the divine drama.

Actors sometimes lose themselves so totally in their roles that they forget their true nature.

We are all God in disguise playing hide-and-seek with itself.

pauldla

mickrock wrote: »

You are God who happens to be playing the character of Michael Nugent, as well as all the other parts in the divine drama.

Actors sometimes lose themselves so totally in their roles that they forget their true nature.

We are all God in disguise playing hide-and-seek with itself.

This raises many troubling questions about the true nature of human sexual intercourse. :eek:

gaynorvader

antiskeptic wrote: »

{...}

Would you accept that God, (if he existed and was Creator) would be in a position to demonstrate his existence to you personally in such a way as to leave you in no doubt as to his existence, but without that personal demonstration being something that could be shared with equal effect with another person?

Yes

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you did accept that possibility, then would you not also have to accept that belief based on such an event would be both rational and justified.

No, because it could equally be a delusion. The only way of rationally and justifiably demonstrating the veracity of something is to gauge it against collective experience. To a child, a monster under their bed is real. It's not rational for the child to believe the monster really exists, the opposite is the case.
There's no way of knowing for sure if "God" beamed knowledge of His existence into your head or if you are just suffering from a delusion, so to take any belief away from it is as irrational as the man on the street claiming to be Jesus.

Brian Shanahan

pauldla wrote: »

This raises many troubling questions about the true nature of human sexual intercourse. :eek:

Well because god is supposed to be the ultimate, he must also be the ultimate narcissist (a clear subset of all the personalities needed to be the ultimate), therefore having sex with himself will not only be desirable but necessary.

pauldla

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Well because god is supposed to be the ultimate, he must also be the ultimate narcissist (a clear subset of all the personalities needed to be the ultimate), therefore having sex with himself will not only be desirable but necessary.

Indeed. It would also mean that, ultimately, there is no difference between straight sex, gay sex, and masturbation. It's all deity on deity.

Michael Nugent

pauldla wrote: »

Indeed. It would also mean that, ultimately, there is no difference between straight sex, gay sex, and masturbation. It's all deity on deity.

And, with the Trinitarian God, it would also be group sex.

pauldla

Michael Nugent wrote: »

And, with the Trinitarian God, it would also be group sex.

The mind boggles!

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

At nozzferrahhtoo's request

To correct a little bit of historical revisionism from antis here, for the record I "requested" no such thing. I suggested the user stop derailing another thread and he could go and start another thread of his own if he wanted to bring up the subject.

antiskeptic wrote: »

his thinking belief irrational and unjustified.

To repeat, if there is no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to support a belief, then I do find it irrational to subscribe to that belief. I have yet to be shown, much less by you, a reason to think otherwise.

The rest of your post is Whatiffery, and I do not play at whatiffery. Especially if having had such an experience one is going to accept it on face value without evaluation or even the suggestion of a methodology for evaluation. But not surprising from someone with a username that precludes being skeptical of such an experience in the first place. Bias firmly on sleeve there.

oldrnwisr

antiskeptic wrote: »

Would you accept that God, (if he existed and was Creator) would be in a position to demonstrate his existence to you personally in such a way as to leave you in no doubt as to his existence, but without that personal demonstration being something that could be shared with equal effect with another person?

If you did accept that possibility, then would you not also have to accept that belief based on such an event would be both rational and justified.

OK. This is not the first time you have raised this point round these parts but it must be said that it is certainly a clearer statement than last time. I'm going to make my points as simple as possible so that there is no ambiguity.

The parameters of the thought experiment involve the assumption that a) some god exists and that b) this god is the creator of the universe. However, there is a condition missing here from your original post in the Christianity forum, namely that the god in question is the Christian god.

Are you still using the Christian god for the purposes of this argument?

If so, then the answer to the first question in your argument must be no.

The Christian god is described in several places as being perfect (e.g. Psalms 18:30, Matthew 5:48). A perfect being would, by definition, have no flaws and all of its actions would similarly be perfect. Revelation as described in the OP is an inefficient method of communication and thus imperfect.

Now, if the God were not the Christian God, then the requirement for perfection could be discarded. In the case of a generic deity, it is possible for a god to communicate in such a way.

However, the real problem is the second part of your argument:

"If you did accept that possibility, then would you not also have to accept that belief based on such an event would be both rational and justified."

Well, frankly no. For several reasons.

Firstly, when you refer to you (highlighted above), who do you mean? Do you mean the person who experiences the revelation or somebody else? Even if I accept the possibility that God (assuming he exists) could have communicated with you in such a way, what proof does your experience offer me? Why should I have to accept that it is rational and justified. I only have your anecdotal testimony.
Long story short, the person who experiences the vision can consider their belief rational and justified. They can consider it to be whatever the hell they want. However, no one else according to the parameters of the OP would be required to find such a revelation rational.

Secondly, in terms of the core of the OP, how exactly, do you convince yourself that God spoke to you? After all one of the core teachings in the Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments is humility.

"He leads the humble in what is right, and teaches the humble his way."
Psalms 25:9

"Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”

1 Peter 5:5

A true Christian would attempt to be humble about the experience and presume that God did not reveal himself to them and that there could be an alternate explanation.

To quote House M.D.:

"Now someone with true humility would consider the possibility that God hadn't chosen him for that kind of honor. Well, he'd consider the possibility that... he just... had an illness."

I mean its not as if there aren't a plethora of naturalistic explanations to account for such an experience. Take this for example:

The role of the limbic system in experiential phenomena of temporal lobe epilepsy

Religion and Art: Cultural Ramifications of Temporal Lobe Epilepsy

Temporal lobe epilepsy is a disease which has, for some time, been suggested as the cause of religious visions and hallucinations. In the case of a disease such as this capable of producing such symptoms, how do you differentiate between a naturalistic explanation and a divine revelation?


In summary, to answer the OP, could a god communicate with someone as described in the OP?
Possibly.

Could the Christian God?

No chance.

Even if we grant the first part as a possibility, does this make the belief rational and justified?

No.

antiskeptic

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK. This is not the first time you have raised this point round these parts but it must be said that it is certainly a clearer statement than last time. I'm going to make my points as simple as possible so that there is no ambiguity.

Sorry for not responding this this oldrnwisr. A two year old limits time at times.

The parameters of the thought experiment involve the assumption that a) some god exists and that b) this god is the creator of the universe. However, there is a condition missing here from your original post in the Christianity forum, namely that the god in question is the Christian god.

Are you still using the Christian god for the purposes of this argument?

Yes I am.

If so, then the answer to the first question in your argument must be no.

The Christian god is described in several places as being perfect (e.g. Psalms 18:30, Matthew 5:48). A perfect being would, by definition, have no flaws and all of its actions would similarly be perfect. Revelation as described in the OP is an inefficient method of communication and thus imperfect.

I'm not sure what's inefficient about it. Perhaps you could elaborate in what way you think it inefficient.

It's worth noting that even if inefficient in one regard, it may achieve another end not otherwise achievable. Even God is constrained by logic.

However, the real problem is the second part of your argument:

"If you did accept that possibility, then would you not also have to accept that belief based on such an event would be both rational and justified."

Well, frankly no. For several reasons.

Firstly, when you refer to you (highlighted above), who do you mean? Do you mean the person who experiences the revelation or somebody else?

I mean you as in you, the atheist who considers positions based on rational argument and who hasn't had any revelation of any sort in the matter God.

Even if I accept the possibility that God (assuming he exists) could have communicated with you in such a way, what proof does your experience offer me? Why should I have to accept that it is rational and justified. I only have your anecdotal testimony.

That's fair enough. The argument isn't aimed getting folk to accept second hand news as true.

Long story short, the person who experiences the vision can consider their belief rational and justified. They can consider it to be whatever the hell they want. However, no one else according to the parameters of the OP would be required to find such a revelation rational.

But they can't find it irrational either. Once accepting that God, if he exists, could demonstrate himself to another by revelation and that the person's subsequent belief in His existence arising from that revelation is both rational and justified, leave agnosticism on your part is the only option.

Agnosticism would be silent on the matter. It wouldn't make the positive declarations as to religious irrationality which litter this forum.

Secondly, in terms of the core of the OP, how exactly, do you convince yourself that God spoke to you?

There is no reliance on the person in the OP. The OP lays the onus on God to convict and supposes nothing able to stand in his way in achieving that should he so chose. "How do I.." is a null question in that situation. "I" cannot doubt because of act of God.

After all one of the core teachings in the Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments is humility.

"He leads the humble in what is right, and teaches the humble his way."
Psalms 25:9

"Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”

1 Peter 5:5

A true Christian would attempt to be humble about the experience and presume that God did not reveal himself to them and that there could be an alternate explanation.

I'm at a loss as to how God turning up to a person makes them arrogant. It would be God's decision, not theirs.

A true Christian, by the way and to put it perhaps over-simply, is one to whom God turns up. This, to distinguish Christianity from cultural Christianity.

Obliq

antiskeptic wrote: »

Even God is constrained by logic.

Awesome. I take it you have this directly from this god of your's? I love how your god is so logical that you are having to obfuscate wildly to atheists in two different threads when asked for the evidence of said logical god.

antiskeptic

Obliq wrote: »

Awesome. I take it you have this directly from this god of your's? I love how your god is so logical that you are having to obfuscate wildly to atheists in two different threads when asked for the evidence of said logical god.

God is assumed constrained by logic for the purposes of discussion. Part of robindch's dialectic don't you know.

There are any number of arguments that can be profitable which don't go near evidencing God's existence.One of these is this threads OP - which aims not to evidence God but to silence atheists who claim Christian belief necessarily irrational.

That's where I chose to operate. I note that inconvenient to you and others but no matter to me. My aim isn't to evidence God but to silence this claim of atheism

Obliq

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's where I chose to operate. I note that inconvenient to you and others but no matter to me. My aim isn't to evidence God but to silence this claim of atheism

Oh dear. You cannot silence this claim of atheism. You have proven yourself unable to do so. In fact, the longer you keep obfuscating, the more it strengthens the only claim atheism makes: There is no god.

Edit: You would somewhat weaken the claim by providing evidence for a god. Hint. Big hint.

antiskeptic

Obliq wrote: »

Oh dear. You cannot silence this claim of atheism.

That remains to be seen, this thread is in process.

the only claim atheism makes: There is no god.

Atheism professes a lack of belief in God. It doesn't make a positive claim since it has no way of establishing that claim. And since no way, it would be professing a belief. Which would make atheism a religion. Oh dear..

Ask your pals

Obliq

antiskeptic wrote: »

Atheism professes a lack of belief in God. It doesn't make a positive claim since it has no way of establishing that claim. And since no way, it would be professing a belief. Which would make atheism a religion. Oh dear..

Ask your pals

True, fair enough. How would you go about silencing a lack of belief then? Although don't let me hold you up in answering all the other unanswered questions you've been generating :rolleyes:

antiskeptic

Obliq wrote: »

True, fair enough. How would you go about silencing a lack of belief then? Although don't let me hold you up in answering all the other unanswered questions you've been generating :rolleyes:

The topic is the topic, don't worry about off topic

Brian Shanahan

Obliq wrote: »

Awesome. I take it you have this directly from this god of your's? I love how your god is so logical that you are having to obfuscate wildly to atheists in two different threads when asked for the evidence of said logical god.

Of course the funniest thing about the whole "god is contstrained by logic" thing, is that it doesn't stop antiskeptic and his ilk from arguing that god is omnipotent, despite the constraint destroying any putative pretension to omnipotence (as well as existence, as to be honest a being such as YHWH defies logic anyways).

antiskeptic

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Of course the funniest thing about the whole "god is contstrained by logic" thing, is that it doesn't stop antiskeptic and his ilk from arguing that god is omnipotent, despite the constraint destroying any putative pretension to omnipotence (as well as existence, as to be honest a being such as YHWH defies logic anyways).

Brian, one of the benefits of blasting your time away on a site like this is that you get the chance to look up words you otherwise wouldn't have reason to know much about.

In that vein, you might want to check out the myriad of possible facets of word omnipotence. Best to make it a reputable source like Wikipedia or The Sun or something. Avoid atheist websites in any case

Penny 4 Thoughts

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is no reliance on the person in the OP. The OP lays the onus on God to convict and supposes nothing able to stand in his way in achieving that should he so chose. "How do I.." is a null question in that situation. "I" cannot doubt because of act of God.

Hi Antiskeptic.

We seem to be back to the issue of God forcing one to believe in her revelation.

If God is not going to do this then "I" most certainly can doubt that it was an act of God unless she demonstrates herself to me in a manner that leaves no doubt in my mind, but that demonstration would have to match the criteria I set for over coming said doubt. My doubt is my own, so it to speak.

If I for example say I need a demonstrate that cannot be confused for merely a trick of the mind or mental illness, then God must either provide such a demonstrate to remove my doubt, or she must forcibly alter my mind so that I no longer hold to that requirement in the first place.

Since you seemed earlier to rule out forcible action on the part of God, I'm afraid by logic we are left with the only other conclusion, God must demonstrate her existence to the standard set by the observer, not by the standard set by God or the believer. In reality there is no real different then between a claim made by a third party and a claim made by our own mind. I would example a notion I arrived at ("God has revealed herself to me") in the same manner I would example the claim if you had made it.

You should then be able to see the issue, you do not expect such a claim to be all that convincing coming from a third party, so equally you should understand why such a claim would not be that convincing coming from my own mind. It would require the same examination if I wished to remove, as much as possible/necessary, my own doubt.

As they say ""True science teaches, above all, to doubt and to be ignorant."

antiskeptic

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

Hi Antiskeptic.

We seem to be back to the issue of God forcing one to believe in her revelation.

We need to be careful here so before moving onwards I'll define what I mean.

I've said there is no onus laid on the person in their being convinced by God of his existence. No check they have to carry out, no consideration they have to do. God is the one doing the convicting and so long as he choses to make that conviction overwhelming then overwhelmingly convinced of his existence the person will be.

This is not to say that the person doesn't have a part to play in God deciding to take that step. I hold a) that they very much do b) that they need have no belief in God in the process of their playing that part.

So: two distinct things

1) God overwhelmingly convincing without any part played by the person in establishing the depth of that conviction

2) The person being the trigger puller on God deciding to release overwhelming conviction in the direction of the person.

If God is not going to do this then "I" most certainly can doubt that it was an act of God unless she demonstrates herself to me in a manner that leaves no doubt in my mind, but that demonstration would have to match the criteria I set for over coming said doubt. My doubt is my own, so it to speak.

I cannot see how your criteria necessarily matter. The Christian God brings alive a part of you which was formerly dead - the head of your personhood's throne as it where. And to that he appears (his existence and the logic and reasonableness and explanatory fitness of same trickling down to lower orders such as your reason and emotions)

And so..

If I for example say I need a demonstrate that cannot be confused for merely a trick of the mind or mental illness, then God must either provide such a demonstrate to remove my doubt, or she must forcibly alter my mind so that I no longer hold to that requirement in the first place.

Alteration by addition of a previously dead tier. The upper tier. The spirit. Not at all divorced from you - rather complimentary in fact.

Since you seemed earlier to rule out forcible action on the part of God, I'm afraid by logic we are left with the only other conclusion, God must demonstrate her existence to the standard set by the observer, not by the standard set by God or the believer.

Is this resolved for you now?

In reality there is no real different then between a claim made by a third party and a claim made by our own mind. I would example a notion I arrived at ("God has revealed herself to me") in the same manner I would example the claim if you had made it. You should then be able to see the issue, you do not expect such a claim to be all that convincing coming from a third party, so equally I can understand why such a claim would not be that convincing coming from my own mind. It would require the same examination if I wished to remove, as much as possible/necessary, my own doubt.

It might help to consider all this examination a black box. You on one side, a claim on the other and the box in between through which the claim must pass (and pass muster) before you would accept it.

If God exists and made you then he designed the black box and it's contents. And so you would be as reliant on him to demonstrate his existence to you via your traditional black box as you would his directly revealing himself to you.

You can't, in other words, place the onus on anyone but God in concluding that God exists. There is no independent-from-him way of arriving at that conclusion. Any sense of you independently evaluating would be an illusion of sorts, ultimately.

Penny 4 Thoughts

antiskeptic wrote: »

I cannot see how your criteria necessarily matter.

They have to matter if we are talking about God convincing me of her existence without forcing me to believe in her existence. In such a case my criteria would be the only thing that matters, would it not.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The Christian God brings alive a part of you which was formerly dead - the head of your personhood's throne as it where. And to that he appears (his existence and the logic and reasonableness and explanatory fitness of same trickling down to lower orders such as your reason and emotions)

Well leaving the head of your personhood alone for the moment, I'm explaining that such a demonstration would have to fit a set of criteria that would allow me to to at least initially distinguish that demonstration from a host of other phenomena, and that God cannot do that in the manner you are describing where I cannot assess this demonstration based on basic principles of critical thinking

That is just a logical conclusion, and you seem to accept that God must act logically and be bound by logic. It is no different than saying that if I will only accept the existence of God if she appears as a talking raven to me, then logically God can only convince me of her existence by appearing as a talking raven. God must either do that, or she must change the initial criteria for my acceptance.

God can certainly waken my spirit but I cannot rationally conclude what has happened to me any more than I could know I've been drugged by Russian spies simply because I start to feel dizzy walking down the street. Feeling is entirely separate to rationally understanding the source or cause of said feeling.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It might help to consider all this examination a black box. You on one side, a claim on the other and the box in between through which the claim must pass (and pass muster) before you would accept it.

If God exists and made you then he designed the black box and it's contents. And so you would be as reliant on him to demonstrate his existence to you via your traditional black box as you would his directly revealing himself to you.

You can't, in other words, place the onus on anyone but God in concluding that God exists.

That would be true if God can alter my reasoning ability as she goes, altering the "black box" so to speak on spec. And if that is true, if God can make me lower my critical thinking to the point that I no longer critically examine my experience and simply accept that it was God, then yes I agree entirely.

But again I was under the impression that we had agreed that this is not what you are claiming, that God has set us up, so to speak, in a particular state and is not constantly raising and lowering our critical thinking as she goes in order to make us believe in this or that. To use your terminology, we are independent from God in the sense that we have the ability to rationally think for ourselves.

If that is not the initial assumption then we are simply back to the not entirely illuminating theory that an all powerful God can do what she wants when she wants and she can make me believe in her by simply altering my thinking so that I do.

Penny 4 Thoughts

Hi Antiskeptic,

Maybe I can sum up my issue in simpler terms. Would you accept that if I set a particular criteria for what I find convincing or not convincing, then God must either meet that criteria or she must alter me so that it is no longer my criteria in the first place? That those are the only two logical options?

antiskeptic

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

They have to matter if we are talking about God convincing me of her existence without forcing me to believe in her existence. In such a case my criteria would be the only thing that matters, would it not.

Referring to the top of my previous post to you. Substitute the word overwhelm with the word force. To sum up then: once the trigger is pulled by you, God forces you to believe in his existence.

Well leaving the head of your personhood alone for the moment, I'm explaining that such a demonstration would have to fit a set of criteria that would allow me to to at least initially distinguish that demonstration from a host of other phenomena, and that God cannot do that in the manner you are describing where I cannot assess this demonstration based on basic principles of critical thinking

That is just a logical conclusion, and you seem to accept that God must act logically and be bound by logic. It is no different than saying that if I will only accept the existence of God if she appears as a talking raven to me, then logically God can only convince me of her existence by appearing as a talking raven. God must either do that, or she must change the initial criteria for my acceptance.

That he does. And the way he does so is by awakening a previously slumbering (or dead) part of you. Whereas before the empirical was everything (because the empirical was all you could sense) it is no longer the prime measure because you now have another sensory level to inform you. The spiritual doesn't confound the what you detect empirically - it's that the empirical is evaluated through a new lens.

God can certainly waken my spirit but I cannot rationally conclude what has happened to me any more than I could know I've been drugged by Russian spies simply because I start to feel dizzy walking down the street. Feeling is entirely separate to rationally understanding the source or cause of said feeling.

Who said it's feeling?

All that need happen is that spirit be assigned prime place by God. If that's how he's constituted you then there's little point in trying to insist rationality be the prime standard by which all else is measured and evaluated.

To put it another way. Once spirit set as prime, you would be more certain concluding something because your spirit confirmed so than that your rationality confirmed so.

That would be true if God can alter my reasoning ability as she goes, altering the "black box" so to speak on spec. And if that is true, if God can make me lower my critical thinking to the point that I no longer critically examine my experience and simply accept that it was God, then yes I agree entirely.

It's not lowering your critical thinking, it's installing a new OS for your critical thinking to work under.

Whether you believe it or not isn't the issue but Christianity sees every person as operating under a paradigm/influence: either the darkness/spirit is dead paradigm or the light/spirit is alive paradigm. A person is born in darkness and can be transferred on being 'saved' to the light.

Their rational thinking isn't the prime player, the paradigm they operate under is. And that paradigm influences and confines the direction of the thinking and the conclusions that can be drawn.

(It's an interesting aspect of the environment of 'heaven' that there will be no darkness possible. And so, whilst able to critically think, the person will be incapable of arriving at dark conclusion. That paradigm won't exist in order to be able to critically think in that direction.)

But again I was under the impression that we had agreed that this is not what you are claiming, that God has set us up, so to speak, in a particular state and is not constantly raising and lowering our critical thinking as she goes in order to make us believe in this or that. To use your terminology, we are independent from God in the sense that we have the ability to rationally think for ourselves.

Indeed - but not so much so as to establish the nature of the very framework we are confined to operate in. We are not God.

If that is not the initial assumption then we are simply back to the not entirely illuminating theory that an all powerful God can do what she wants when she wants and she can make me believe in her by simply altering my thinking so that I do.

Hopefully the above illuminates to some degree. Let me know if not.

gaynorvader

antiskeptic wrote: »

{...}Even God is constrained by logic.{...}

Seriously? How can the Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth be constrained by anything? He's supposed to be the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-singing, all-dancing ...God of Everything. Where do you even get the notion that the Christian God would be so constrained? Considering that logic is a human idea, I'd find it strange that God would be a slave to its laws. Particularly as humans are not constrained by logic. Not to mention that it is illogical for a God of love to cause suffering amongst His children (i.e Egyptian plagues).

antiskeptic

gaynorvader wrote: »

Seriously? How can the Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth be constrained by anything? He's supposed to be the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-singing, all-dancing ...God of Everything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence

The mod's might sticky the above link.

Considering that logic is a human idea,

I think it's more an observation than an idea.

Not to mention that it is illogical for a God of love to cause suffering amongst His children (i.e Egyptian plagues).

a) not all are God's children. Although everyone is given the opportunity to become one.

b) Loving parents regularly have their children suffer in order to achieve a greater good in their regard.

Penny 4 Thoughts

antiskeptic wrote: »

Referring to the top of my previous post to you. Substitute the word overwhelm with the word force. To sum up then: once the trigger is pulled by you, God forces you to believe in his existence.

Hi Antiskeptic.

You seem to be saying that God will awaking an previously unknown sensory perception in my body, and I will thus "see" God's existence through this sensory perception and know she is real.

God may awaken such a sensory perception, but we are still back to square one. God would have to lower my critical thinking because I wouldn't put sole trust in my sensory level to inform me of her existence. I wouldn't be doing that with 25 senses any more than I would be doing it with 5 senses. So God awakening senses in me isn't going to change that.

You seem to be just taking it as, well, gospel that everyone would, that if we could just "see" what you have seen then we would all believe. But the seeing part isn't the issue. It is no more rational to trust sensory perception X, than it is to solely trust our eyes or our ears.

Even if I had an over whelming sense in my body that God was real, I wouldn't trust that sense without empirical evidence. God could of course change that, but she can't change that without lowering or removing my critical thinking, which you seem to insist she isn't going to do.

Pherekydes

antiskeptic wrote: »

a) not all are God's children. Although everyone is given the opportunity to become one.

This is baffling to me. Presumably, they can only reach god through Jesus? What about all those millions that predeceased Jesus? What about those millions who would never have heard of Jesus or god by dint of geography? I mean, why didn't god send down his son before millions had been cast into eternal darkness by simply never hearing about god?

P.S. For the sake of this post, I'm only talking about the Christian god of the bible.

gaynorvader

antiskeptic wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence

The mod's might sticky the above link.

wikipedia wrote:

The word "Omnipotence" derives from the Latin term "Omni Potens", meaning "All-Powerful" instead of "Infinite Power" implied by its English counterpart.

What exactly was your point?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think it's more an observation than an idea.

Why? Why are humans not bound by those laws if they are divine in origin?

antiskeptic wrote: »

a) not all are God's children. Although everyone is given the opportunity to become one.

b) Loving parents regularly have their children suffer in order to achieve a greater good in their regard.

His creation then. I think the intensity of the suffering may differ somewhat. :rolleyes:

antiskeptic

gaynorvader wrote: »

What exactly was your point?

Did you read the various possible meanings of the word. Say meaning 2 ... then reread what you said earlier.

Why? Why are humans not bound by those laws if they are divine in origin?

I think humans are bound by logic. A human can no more build a square circle than can God.

Could you give an example of what you mean by humans not being bound?

His creation then. I think the intensity of the suffering may differ somewhat. :rolleyes:

So might what is being achieved. God's purpose wrt us are more than a child's trip to the dentist.

antiskeptic

Pherekydes wrote: »

This is baffling to me. Presumably, they can only reach god through Jesus?

Through what Jesus achieved. Through the mechanism he made possible by his sacrifice.

What about all those millions that predeceased Jesus? What about those millions who would never have heard of Jesus or god by dint of geography? I mean, why didn't god send down his son before millions had been cast into eternal darkness by simply never hearing about god?

P.S. For the sake of this post, I'm only talking about the Christian god of the bible.

I'm not of the opinion that salvation through Jesus means a person has to have heard of him or "accept him into their heart" or believe in God of the Bible. Rather, the solution made available by Jesus can be applied by God to a person and thus are they saved.

antiskeptic

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

You seem to be saying that God will awaking an previously unknown sensory perception in my body, and I will thus "see" God's existence through this sensory perception and know she is real.

It's a bit more than a sensory perception. I mean, a sensory perception would probably rank far lower in importance to your personhood than your ability to rationally think.

So, rather than thinking of the spiritual tier as being a lower order thing (wrt rational thinking) think of it as a higher order thing. A whole tier added to your being (like rational thinking is a tier of your being) but a higher one (in the sense of importance) than rational thinking.

God may awaken such a sensory perception, but we are still back to square one. God would have to lower my critical thinking because I wouldn't put sole trust in my sensory level to inform me of her existence. I wouldn't be doing that with 25 senses any more than I would be doing it with 5 senses. So God awakening senses in me isn't going to change that.

The above will hopefully help. Your persist in supposing rational conclusions the ultimate way to conclude things. But if rational thinking ( an acceptable way for you to conclude God exists, presumably) is trumped by an even higher ability to conclude then thus is it.

You don't have to experience or be able to imagine it in order to accept the logical possibility of it.

Even if I had an over whelming sense in my body that God was real, I wouldn't trust that sense without empirical evidence. God could of course change that, but she can't change that without lowering or removing my critical thinking, which you seem to insist she isn't going to do.

Beside the above point (which places the spiritual tier above rational thinking and far above a mere sense) the following:

You haven't understood the dilemma already described for you - which is this.

Any value you place on God demonstrating himself empirically to you derives it's value by God having assigned empiricism the level of value it has for you.

If he chooses to assign another means of revelation a higher value for you than empiricism has then that means will have greater value to you.

In other words: you are subject to the value God assigns his means of revelation, you don't get to decide that for yourself. So, if he assigns spiritual revelation a higher confidence giving value than he does empirical demonstration then you will find yourself more convinced by spiritual revelation than you would empirical revelation.

Penny 4 Thoughts

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your persist in supposing rational conclusions the ultimate way to conclude things. But if rational thinking ( an acceptable way for you to conclude God exists, presumably) is trumped by an even higher ability to conclude then thus is it.

You don't have to experience or be able to imagine it in order to accept the logical possibility of it.

It is logically possible in the way that anything is logically possible if you are prepared to entertain the notion of unknown infinitely higher levels of thinking or logic where anything we originally thought was false is considered true again.

Illogical statements themselves become logical then if you simply suppose the existence of a higher logical plane where those statements are true again. Can God make a square circle? I might say no, but a counter would be that you merely have to propose the existence of a higher logical system humans are not capable of understanding where she can make a square circle. In which case it merely becomes a fault in our thinking, rather than a logical impossibility. Can God both exist and not exist at the same time. Its possible. Can God be both good and evil at the same time. Its possible.

So you are basically demonstrating the rationality of your statement in the original post by simply proposing the possible existence of a set of logic where it holds true no matter what and is thus rational.

Which is fine but also some what pointless, since such a proposition means anything is rational and logical if you propose the possible existence of a plane of thinking where it is. I'm not sure what that gets us. Everything you yourself have proposed could equally turn out to be completely untrue if we simply move up to a level unto a higher level of rationality and logic.

I hope that clarifies my position. There is only so many levels of "ah but what what if" one can entertain before the discussion ventures into the realm of nonsense and irrelevance.

(sorry "nonsense" sounded rude, I merely mean things we cannot make sense of)

mickrock

Atheists have the strange belief that nature itself and the evolutionary process are unintelligent.

Maintaining this belief must require a lot of faith and cause some cognitive dissonance when the obvious conclusion is that intelligence must be inherent in the natural world.

robindch

mickrock wrote: »

Atheists have the strange belief that nature itself and the evolutionary process are unintelligent. Maintaining this belief must require a lot of faith and cause some cognitive dissonance when the obvious conclusion is that intelligence must be inherent in the natural world.

Mick, the creationism thread is here and any further creationist nonsense will be moved there.

gaynorvader

antiskeptic wrote: »

Did you read the various possible meanings of the word. Say meaning 2 ... then reread what you said earlier.

wiki wrote:

2. A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie).

Yes, what is your point?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think humans are bound by logic. A human can no more build a square circle than can God.

Could you give an example of what you mean by humans not being bound?

Humans never act illogically? Just yesterday I spent 15 minutes trying to manipulate the tv remote with my foot rather than spend 5 seconds bending down to pick it up to change the volume.
A square circle is an impossibility of maths and physics moreso than logic (and I'm not actually even sure of that, I'm sure some quantum engineer will laugh at my understanding). Is God bound by the laws of physics? Which physics? Our physics?

antiskeptic wrote: »

So might what is being achieved. God's purpose wrt us are more than a child's trip to the dentist.

"God works in mysterious ways.", "The ends will justify the means.", "God has a plan, but we can't understand it."? Did God enhance those Eqyptians' lives then, when he drowned them in the Red Sea and condemned them to hell for not following Him?

antiskeptic

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

It is logically possible in the way that anything is logically possible if you are prepared to entertain the notion of unknown infinitely higher levels of thinking or logic where anything we originally thought was false is considered true again.

Something thought false now considered true in the light of new insight happens all the time in everyday life. There's nothing particularly confounding in that notion I wouldn't have thought.

Note that I've not made any reference to either thinking or logic being involved in this higher tier*. Nor have I said that God demonstrating himself by spiritual revelation necessitates the destruction of the manner of rational thinking. Nor does it turn logic on it's head.

*It is the case, at least I've found it so, that one's rationality examines the new scenario / information obtained and has no problem adjusting it views to accommodate.

Illogical statements themselves become logical then if you simply suppose the existence of a higher logical plane where those statements are true again. Can God make a square circle? I might say no, but a counter would be that you merely have to propose the existence of a higher logical system humans are not capable of understanding where she can make a square circle. In which case it merely becomes a fault in our thinking, rather than a logical impossibility. Can God both exist and not exist at the same time. Its possible. Can God be both good and evil at the same time. Its possible.

I'm not suggesting anything so head spinning. All I've said is involved is access to a higher tier.

So you are basically demonstrating the rationality of your statement in the original post by simply proposing the possible existence of a set of logic where it holds true no matter what and is thus rational.

I don't think I've referred to anything in particular that requires a reworking of any logic. I'm going to skip the rest of your post as it seems to be built on the same erroneous idea that I've implied rational thought and logic need be jettisoned. I've not made nor have I intended to make that claim.

Brian Shanahan

gaynorvader wrote: »

Humans never act illogically? Just yesterday I spent 15 minutes trying to manipulate the tv remote with my foot rather than spend 5 seconds bending down to pick it up to change the volume.

Hey another chance to plug a book I like. Risk by Canadian journalist Dan Gardner opens with a story of him going deeper and deeper into the slum areas of a city in Nigeria (I haven't read the book in a while so I forget which city), all because he freaked out over losing a photo of his kids after he was pickpocketed while covering a story there. The whole book describes how humans irrationally evaluate risk, and what a person can do to minimize that irrationality.

If that's not an example of a human acting irrationally then I don't know what is.

antiskeptic

gaynorvader wrote: »

Yes, what is your point?

You said of an omnipotent God

"Seriously? How can the Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth be constrained by anything?"

The wikipedia article says of omnipotence (one version):

"thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie"

You say he can't be constrained, wikipedia say he can be (in this case by logic)

Humans never act illogically? Just yesterday I spent 15 minutes trying to manipulate the tv remote with my foot rather than spend 5 seconds bending down to pick it up to change the volume.

That's not illogical. It might be irrational.

"God works in mysterious ways.", "The ends will justify the means.", "God has a plan, but we can't understand it."? Did God enhance those Eqyptians' lives then, when he drowned them in the Red Sea and condemned them to hell for not following Him?

I've no idea which, if any, of those Egyptians went to Hell. God kills everyone eventually: the righteous and the unrighteous alike.

I'm not sure God's chief goal is life enhancement (which sounds very much like the product of the consumerist age). Salvation of mankind is one goal (and if pain can be utilised in pursuit of that goal so be it). Justice and punishment of unrighteousness another (and if pain can be...)


I don't see a problem with punishment for unrighteousness myself. With pain, by definition, being involved. So perhaps all those Egyptians are in hell now.. what of it?

oscarBravo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Salvation of mankind...

...from what?

Pherekydes

antiskeptic wrote: »

You say he can't be constrained, wikipedia say he can be (in this case by logic)

Wikipedia trumps god!

Penny 4 Thoughts

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not suggesting anything so head spinning. All I've said is involved is access to a higher tier.

A higher tier that "trumps" current human reasoning and logic and thus allows me to no longer require empirical evidence while still remaining rational.

One cannot be rational while ignoring logical conclusions. My conclusion about requiring empirical evidence is a logical conclusion. We cannot escape that, and I am required to work within logic in order to remain rational. For something to "trump" it that would require a new system of logic where what was logically true no longer is logically true, just like say that 2 + 2 != 4 would require a new system of mathematics.

So if you are not proposing the possible existence of a new system of reasoning or logic then what you are supposing cannot solve the problem of me requiring this evidence in order to be rational.

antiskeptic

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

A higher tier that "trumps" current human reasoning and logic and thus allows me to no longer require empirical evidence while still remaining rational.

Rational: 1.
based on or in accordance with reason or logic.


Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, for establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information

I'm don't see how you've demonstrated empirical evidence a necessary element in reasoning / rationality. Nor is empirical evidence required for you to operate logically.

-

By trumping I'm not saying reason and logic are left at the door. They have access to the information revealed to spirit (since the spirit is part of the total personhood). But they are overwhelmed in the sense of having no place to begin to raise a question, doubt or objection - such is the sheer extent, quality and depth of "the new information".

That reason finds itself unable to raise an objection is neither unreasonable nor irrational. On the contrary, the reasonableness is so total and so far reaching, the mind realizes itself at a final destination. There's plenty to reason out once you step out and begin to explore the territory of God, but no longer the need to reason whether it is God or not.

I know this last notion is anathema to atheists - the idea of arriving at a final, fixed and immutable conclusion - but there you have it.

One cannot be rational while ignoring logical conclusions. My conclusion about requiring empirical evidence is a logical conclusion.

You would have to explain that one to me. I don't think logic can be used in that way.

For something to "trump" it that would require a new system of logic where what was logically true no longer is logically true, just like say that 2 + 2 != 4 would require a new system of mathematics.

Again, as asked before, you would have to posit something logical that is being confounded by invocation of a higher tier. I've not suggested anything, and apart from supposing empirical evidence necessarily necessary, neither have you (that I can recall)

-

I'd be interested in your response to the particular dilemma posed you earlier. I don't recall you addressing it. I've edited it lightly to improve the flow of the point.


-

Regarding your insistence on empirical evidence as prime in the sense of being a requirement if God is to evidence himself to you I pointed out that:

The (significant) value you place on God demonstrating himself to you empirically, obtains that value by God having assigned empiricism that level of value. You value it because he's designed you and it to have that value for you.

If he chooses to assign another means of revelation a still higher value than he has empiricism, then that means of His self-demonstration would have greater value to you - in the case you are exposed to it.

In other words: you are subject to the value God assigns his means of revelation, you don't get to decide that value for yourself. And so, IF he assigns spiritual revelation a higher confidence-giving value than he does empirical demonstration THEN you will find yourself more convinced by spiritual revelation than you would be by empirical revelation.

Penny 4 Thoughts

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm don't see how you've demonstrated empirical evidence a necessary element in reasoning / rationality. Nor is empirical evidence required for you to operate logically.

Hi Antiskeptic

I do not think empirical evidence is required for one to operate logically, take for example mathematics, but logically empirical evidence is required to distinguish between an event that has happened and a trick of the mind or delusion. I said a few posts ago - "If they didn't then I would be stuck unable to determine if the image was "real" or simply something I was imagining."

Poster King Mob made a similar point - "How can you tell the difference between those non-empirical means and total fiction or delusion?". You do not require empirical evidence to act logically but if you are acting logically you require empirical evidence when trying to work out experienced you have experienced.

antiskeptic wrote: »

But they are overwhelmed in the sense of having no place to begin to raise a question, doubt or objection - such is the sheer extent, quality and depth of "the new information".

Being over whelmed the experience is will mean little towards the conclusions I would arrive at, neither would a feeling of certainty that I cannot logically justify. To give you an example of what that wouldn't be logical, some people are over whelmed with a feeling of dread and fear when they leave their house. They may feel certain that something terrible is going to happen to them, but that is not a logical conclusion based on the evidence, one would not conclude from that that it is likely something bad will happen to them. They could instead be suffering from the terrible mental disease of agoraphobia. It would be illogical for me to conclude that they face harm when we have not determined which is more likely, real harm or agoraphobia.

- That is a logical conclusion to the problem, and it requires empiricism to solve it.

Without that you are stuck with just the feeling, even if the feeling is of overwhelming certainty. How overwhelming the feeling of dread is to the person themselves cannot inform our assessment, even if you are that person. We can only tell that the person is overwhelmed, not draw any conclusions from that fact as to why they are overwhelmed. To do so would be to be acting illogically. This is the logical conclusion, the only way to negate that would be to change logic itself, which is possible in the sense that anything at a fundamental level is possible. But thus enters us into the realm of nonsense.

When you say that when this happens to you you are overwhelmed with a sense of certainty about this you might be satisfied by that, but unless I can logically distinguish the various different possibilities I wouldn't be, and I don't think anyone can claim they would be while still acting rationally.

I hope that finally clears up what I mean by saying I could not accept God by this alone and still be acting logically are rationally

Penny

antiskeptic

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

I do not think empirical evidence is required for one to operate logically, take for example mathematics, but logically empirical evidence is required to distinguish between an event that has happened and a trick of the mind or delusion.

Philosophically perhaps but not logically.

The swiftest way to see this would be to answer the conundrum presented you - the one which asks you where your confidence brought about by empirical evidence would be coming from (in the case of God's existence)

antiskeptic

oscarBravo wrote: »

...from what?

From the God-delivered consequences of your sin (where sin is better considered an umbrella term for the produce of a life lived in rebellion against God than simply a list of bold things you've done)

Penny 4 Thoughts

antiskeptic wrote: »

Philosophically perhaps but not logically.

very much so logically

antiskeptic wrote: »

The swiftest way to see this would be to answer the conundrum presented you - the one which asks you where your confidence brought about by empirical evidence would be coming from (in the case of God's existence)

Is it not clear at this stage that it comes from logical reasoning? This is why I said we would require different logic to "trump" this, a logical conclusion won't be changed without changing the logic system it is based upon - if God is real then logic comes from her and she could replace the logic with different logic if she wished. that I'm not disputing. Which is why I assumed that is what you were talking about with this discussion on spiritual awakening.

if it does not involve a shift to a higher system of logic then this spiritual awakening doesn't do anything to change the logical conclusion of requiring empirical evidence

antiskeptic

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

Is it not clear at this stage that it comes from logical reasoning?

Not at all since you don't go on to describe where your ability to reason logically would be coming from or how it is you are equipped to experience the empirical world in a way that produces in you a satisfaction that truth has been arrived at via the empirical method combined with reasoning.

The source of it all would be God in the case of his existence. Had God constructed you another way then you would place no value/less value on empirical evidence+reasoning.

And because you would be relying on God at all points even if he were to evidence himself empirically, you have no basis for not relying on him should he choose to reveal himself by alternate means.

This is why I said we would require different logic to "trump" this, a logical conclusion won't be changed without changing the logic system it is based upon

The only "logic system" I hear you say needs changing is in fact the logical conclusion (your logical conclusion that is) that empirical evidence is necessary. The above point will hopefully show you what, in fact you are relying on.

There are other ways to dismantle this logical conclusion (not system) of yours but perhaps the above will suffice.