Justifying Your WorldView to an Impartial Onlooker.

antiskeptic

Fourier wrote: »

I don't think there is such a thing as an impartial onlooker within a strictly scientific viewpoint, for largely technical reasons.

I don't think there's such a thing as an impartial onlooker within a strictly Christian viewpoint. The technical reason being spiritual blindness.

Hence the introduction, by the OP, of the hypothetical impartial onlooker (HIO). Which is beset by problems

However you still haven't really said anything. Even within the thread's purview can you just state what your position is directly?

If only it were so simple.


The OP asks to justify worldviews. Justification involves both the issuer of the argument and the recipient of the argument. Clearly if the recipient had empiricist leanings, they would evaluate the justification according to the norms of empirical evaluation: when the gospels were written, the history of religion, a technical analysis of the scriptures .. and would conclude the probability of the Christian message being true, as low.

The point of the HIO was to circumvent this obvious problem. The HIO wouldn't be an empiricist or a theist (the two worldviews chosen to highlight the problem). They wouldn't have a worldview to tint their spectacles.


The problem is the (unacknowledged by the OP) attributes of this HIO. Clearly any evaluator must have a sufficient degree of "eyes to see" in order to get to grips with any particular justification. A person who had no experience of the empirical world, for instance (earlier exampled as "deaf/dumb and lying in a coma in a hospital bed from birth) couldn't begin to get to grips with the empiricists justification.

Once you start adding necessary attributes, you bog down in problems. Simply backtracking and saying "it's hypothetical, it doesn't need to be possible" and ignoring the necessity for attributes, well ... you're gone with the wind.

Folk initially attempted to impartialize the HIO by assigning it attributes. They would have all the attributes a normal person has except they've been brought up in an environment which doesn't preform a worldview in them

In doing this, those folk have acknowledged the need for certain attributes (empirical experience but no empiricist worldview, so as to be able to impartially assess empiricism). They are at sixes and sevens when it comes to the problem of equipping the HIO with attributes suitable to assessing the Christian message though.

Then the language reverts to "it's a hypothetical". They can't be specific anymore.

A simple request for clarity was instead inverted back at me for me to offer a solution. You've been talking for several pages, maybe you can just clearly state your thesis with regard to the thread title and no meta-discussions about the course of the thread.

The "simple request for clarity" merely sidesteps the problem presented by the OP. Remember where I said:

antiskeptic wrote:

This is evidenced by the way in which folk want to skip past the empirical (and not so impartial) onlooker and 'get on with it'

You seem to want to just "get on with it"

If the thread had been entitled: "Justify the Christian worldview before an audience of partial onlookers" I wouldn't have bothered partaking. Been there, done that.

Fourier

antiskeptic wrote: »

The "simple request for clarity" merely sidesteps the problem presented by the OP. Remember where I said:

You seem to want to just "get on with it"

If the thread had been entitled: "Justify the Christian worldview before an audience of partial onlookers" I wouldn't have bothered partaking. Been there, done that.

This is unrelated to what I'm asking.

As I said "in relation to the thread title" what is your position, i.e. can you state clearly your contentions with having an impartial observer or given that there isn't what issues does this cause.

This is simple enough to answer. I want to "get on with it" in the sense that you've never clearly stated your thesis regarding the non-existence of an impartial observer or exactly what an empirically minded observer might be missing or how they might overcome this (if they can).

antiskeptic

Fourier wrote: »

This is unrelated to what I'm asking.

As I said "in relation to the thread title" what is your position, i.e. can you state clearly your contentions with having an impartial observer or given that there isn't what issues does this cause.

My issue with an impartial observer is that one can't exist. Not in actuality, not hypothetically.

The issue arising from that is that the thread (under the direction set by the OP) can't take off (since it relies on the potential for an impartial onlooker)

The issue arising from not having an impartial onlooker is that if presenting a case, I would be presenting it to partial onlookers. Partial see things through a particular lens and wouldn't see the case presented.

Why present a case folk can't see? I don't see the point.

This is simple enough to answer. I want to "get on with it" in the sense that you've never clearly stated your thesis regarding the non-existence of an impartial observer or exactly what an empirically minded observer might be missing or how they might overcome this (if they can).

I have stated my "thesis regarding the non-possibility of the existence of an impartial onlooker in part. In my last post to you. The onlooker requires characteristics which allow him to appreciate each case made. A simple example of this is that he speak English (if the presenter presents in English).

Straightforward enough in the case of the empiricist presenting his case. It wouldn't be too difficult to produce someone (in reality or hypothetically) with experience and appreciation of the empirical world. They might not be an empiricist but their eyes are open to the empirical so as to understand the argument the empiricist makes.

They could conceivably be impartial.

The Christian worldview divides folk into two camps: lost vs found / blind vs can see. The former, if posited as an impartial onlooker, might even be theistic, but if they are lost they won't and don't have an appreciation or experience of the territory of God. They have no eyes to understand what the Christian is talking about, being as blind as the empiricist is, for all their theism

And if a person does have eyes to see, they can't be impartial - since what eyes that see see, is God.

-

What is missing is sight. There is only one way to overcome this kind of sightlessness and that is see. There aren't any workarounds (that I could conceive of)

Fourier

antiskeptic wrote: »

I have stated my "thesis regarding the non-possibility of the existence of an impartial onlooker in part. In my last post to you. The onlooker requires characteristics which allow him to appreciate each case made. A simple example of this is that he speak English (if the presenter presents in English).

The former post wasn't really a thesis it just stated an aspect of your viewpoint. You said an impartial observer was impossible, but didn't really build to that or explain coherently why it was the case or explicate how all are constrained in their views. Though the rest of the post you just made comes closer.

So in essence there are those who are "blind" as it were, that prevents them from "seeing" the truth. A Christian case cannot even get off the ground because they lack the mental or spiritual faculties to appreciate the points being made or to view facts in the correct light. Is this correct?

Secondly what is the intended meaning of empiricist? One who only considers facts registered via the bodily senses or extensions of them in the form of experimental equipment tied together via mental models?

antiskeptic

Fourier wrote: »

So in essence there are those who are "blind" as it were, that prevents them from "seeing" the truth.

The "truth" is a bit of a loaded word. It implies that those who are equipped to see*, only see truth.

What they see, in fact, is equivalent to what someone sees through their physical eyes: an environment that has to be navigated, investigated and understood. One in which observational error and wrong connections can be made. Realising personal error is possible, see-ers develop the equivalent of scientific theories (theologies) which are more rigorous than each going it alone. Those theologies are tested as to whether they fit the overall scriptures and the better they do so, the more established they become. But just as scientific theories, they aren't considered "true", just closest approaches to truth at this time. And subject to being thrown overboard if necessary.


This is one of reasons why there are so many viewpoints regarding the environment of God: you have these larger theories, you have people like me who agree with central elements of these theories but who navigate around in the detail. And you have folk who do solo runs altogether, combining a complete mish mash which doesn't appear to hold up to any examination at all.


But for all the navigating and erroneous conclusions made about the God-environment, those that see, do see God. They now know he exists, like we know the environment around us we can see with our physical eyes, exists. It's just that that environment is very big, bigger than the physical environment - and so navigational error to be expected.



* 'see' is defined as the sight obtained through the process of being 'born again' of God (i.e. God instigated action). Whether the seeing person is a Christian or a Muslim or anything else is irrelevant. Not all people who identify as Christians are born again, they remain blind until such time as they are born again, if that is ever to occur to them

A Christian case cannot even get off the ground because they lack the mental or spiritual faculties to appreciate the points being made or to view facts in the correct light. Is this correct?

Spiritual faculties primarily and not so much about facts.

A person can read the verse Jonathan Edwards was reading, whereupon his conversion, until they are blue in the face. They can intellectually understand what the verse is saying and, if non-seeing theists, might intellectually hold the verse to be stating facts (eternal, immortal, etc).

But they (probably) won't experience this:

“The first instance that I remember of that sort of inward, sweet delight in God and divine things that I have lived much in since, was on reading those words,

“Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever, Amen.” (1 Timothy 1:17)

“As I read the words, there came into my soul, and was as it were diffused through it, a sense of the glory of the Divine Being; a new sense, quite different from any thing I ever experienced before.

That Jonathan was the son of a preacher man and was conversant with the gospel is neither here nor there. Prior to conversion he was lost and blind. Then the light went on.


That said: blindness does appear to affect the intellect also ("blinded the minds of those who don't believe" as the bible puts it). Richard Dawkins, for example, can't be said to be unintelligent. Yet his understanding of the mechanism of the gospel (which can be described in mechanical terms, the various parts open to view so as to see how the whole works) is so ludicrously infantile as to beggar belief. It's as if his intellect cannot sit on it's "God-hating" hands long enough to consider the whole.

Secondly what is the intended meaning of empiricist? One who only considers facts registered via the bodily senses or extensions of them in the form of experimental equipment tied together via mental models?

It's a loose term, since folk are unlikely to be purist and likely to be a mix of all sorts. Empiricism, rationalism, logic and any other philosophical -ism or the-ism that might contribute to a persons worldview.

Everything, bar born again, of God, seeing.

But here in A&A more empiricism and rationalism than anything else. Oh, and a fair dose of emotion

Fourier

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's a loose term, since folk are unlikely to be purist and likely to be a mix of all sorts. Empiricism, rationalism, logic and any other philosophical -ism or the-ism that might contribute to a persons worldview.

Everything, bar born again, of God, seeing.

But here in A&A more empiricism and rationalism than anything else. Oh, and a fair dose of emotion

Empiricism and rationalism aren't the same though so lumping them together is ripe for confusion. In fact certain extreme forms of rationalism are opposed to empiricism. Best to use Non-Born Again or similar.

Considering it is possible for others to lack this sight and considering your Buddhist friend how do you know it isn't the case that you lack the sight from the Buddha nature to see the truth he is speaking.

antiskeptic

Fourier wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's a loose term, since folk are unlikely to be purist and likely to be a mix of all sorts. Empiricism, rationalism, logic and any other philosophical -ism or the-ism that might contribute to a persons worldview.

Everything, bar born again, of God, seeing.

But here in A&A more empiricism and rationalism than anything else. Oh, and a fair dose of emotion

Empiricism and rationalism aren't the same though so lumping them together is ripe for confusion. In fact certain extreme forms of rationalism are opposed to empiricism. Best to use Non-Born Again or similar.

Considering it is possible for others to lack this sight and considering your Buddhist friend how do you know it isn't the case that you lack the sight from the Buddha nature to see the truth he is speaking.

I'm not saying they are the same. Folk, as I say, seem to mingle philosophies. Suffice to say that when the demand for justification for my position commences with 'where is the empirical evidence' and appears closed to discussion that doesn't revolve about it, then I figure I'm dealing with that part of a person which aligns with empiricism.

That they may also pick and choose from the menu of Rationalism (not necessarily understanding the conflict that the philosophers recognize) isn't really my problem.

Plenty of born again Christians hold to a "loving, peaceful God (Jesus)" whilst holding also to a "God of War (Old Testament Jehovah)". They don't necessarily wonder how the same God can display such contradicting characteristics. Rigour needn't be a believers strong suit, whatever their hue.

Regarding your other question? See post 242 in this thread.

It's not that Buddhism or other -isms don't contain truth. That truth may, from the Christian perspective, be an -ism seeing through a glass darkly, darkly enough to miss that it's God's truth in fact. Or there may be something more sinister involved: a good lie, as we all know, is one that sticks as closely as possible to the truth. A good example the fact that how you behave a.k.a. morality, has a central role in "born again" Christianity. The lie takes that central role and says that how you behave determines whether you are saved/go to heaven/are blessed by God, etc). This slightest of shifts see adherents of major religions attempt to work their way to salvation.

As I conclude: an evaluation, leading to a conclusion, of all the information at a persons disposal is something judged upon, ultimately, by the person themselves.

Which, if there is indeed a God, is how it ought to be. It shouldn't be that a person can offload their destiny (should it turn out to be a negative one) onto someone else. The heavenly courts wouldn't get through that legal quaqmire even if it had an eternity ☺

Fourier

antiskeptic wrote: »

not necessarily understanding the conflict that the philosophers recognize

What contradiction?

I suspect you'll point to my previous post so I would be interested to hear exactly what the contradiction is.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's not that Buddhism or other -isms don't contain truth. That truth may, from the Christian perspective, be an -ism seeing through a glass darkly, darkly enough to miss that it's God's truth in fact

The point is this can be inverted. How do you know that you lack a probably awakened mind and that your Christian truths are just Buddhist ones grasped dimly by an unenlightened mind?

antiskeptic

Fourier wrote: »

What contradiction?

I didn't say contradiction. I said conflict. I'm not familiar enough with the details anymore than the average atheist on here is familiar with the intricacies of the Calvinism vs Arminian debate, yet he knows there is conflict. (Indeed, he is wont to build enormous house-of-card like edifices on that not-quite-as-important-as-he-thinks fact.

The point is this can be inverted. How do you know that you lack a probably awakened mind and that your Christian truths are just Buddhist ones grasped dimly by an unenlightened mind?

This is a reframing of the same question you asked me the last time - whereupon I pointed you to post 242 in this thread. I couldn't link it on my phone but now I'm on a PC, here you go.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110423872&postcount=242


I'd ask you to glance at post 245 just below the one above. The aim is to establish whether or not the OP's hypothetical is a nonsense or not - given mod ability to pull the thread in a hearbeat for the reasons of waffle, in his view.

If you want to steer down a "how we know track" it might be prudent to get a mod-nod first.

antiskeptic

Cabaal wrote: »

I feel pitty for you so,
The world is not black and white or "digital" as you are putting it. There are many other variables.

For you it seems somebody must agree with your specific brand of Christianity and anyone else just doesn't get it, that shows a very closed mind.

The black and white, digital relates to born again or not. Within born again there can be a wide variety of view: You can have Calvinist, evangelicals, Catholics, Muslims. Buddhist and, I dare say, even atheists who are born again (the latter defined as someone without a belief in a god).

It's very analogue in the born again digital world

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

You use the term a God, that should be a god. The former is a proper noun, the latter isn't.

It was a typo.

The confusion between God, i.e. your God or the singular god referred to in monotheistic traditions, and a god, i.e. any god from any tradition, works in favour of suggesting your God is the only god.

If God is the only God and all the other gods are false gods, would God be the right term to use? Just asking.

I don't see the problem in suggesting my (and yours as it happens) God is the only God.

So for example another post here linked a paper that showed a significant number of atheists stopped being atheists after using psychedelic drugs. The paper then went on to ask "Can psychedelic drugs occasion genuine God encounter experiences?"

I could have thought of more mundane reasons why a person stops being an atheist after taking psychedelic drugs. That paper appears to be making the same leap of logic that "does prayer work?" experiments take.

I went through a phase of taking mushrooms (although I didn't have a God/god experience that I can recall). You do get a sense that our undrugged perceptions, whilst taken as the the "standard" guide to the limits of reality, are potentially limited.

Perhaps, that realisation of potential limitation opens a space for god (or God).

and later talked about "sudden religious conversion experiences that are well-described in the psychology of religion literature, with Paul’s experience of encountering Jesus on the road to Damascus as the prototype". The data however shows that those who stopped being atheist declared that they did not believe in any traditional monotheistic god, and a large proportion of previous monotheists also stopped believing in any traditional monotheistic god

You have the problem here (regarding previous monotheists) of whether these monotheists ever experienced God (assuming for a moment God exists and can be experienced. If they didn't then they were in the same boat (and somewhat predictably) reacting in the same way and for the same reasons, as atheists.

A repeat of the same error of logic that besets the aforementioned "does prayer work?" experiments

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So why can't you do that here, with a hypothetical person who may be blind but isn't approaching your argument from an inherently empirical worldview?

A blind person isn't just blind. They are, as I have said, antagonistic towards God, whether they are an empiricist or not. An empiricist is a blind person who has developed something to fill the God-gap (where did we come from (pond slime) where are we going (into the ground, period). The non-empiricist ( or someone who like me, who before they were converted, didn't give such questions a moments notice) is still antagonistic towards God.

The antagonism will out. In an empiricist, it will be a formalised and rigorous expression of the antagonism (within the confines of their belief system, and without necessarily being outwardly antagonistic). In the one who hasn't formed a rigorous worldview, the antagonism will be a hotchpotch: there will be a bit of empiricism (citing Evolution but not understanding it really), "all the things the Catholic church has done" or in the case of my buddhist friend, who has a whole range of desirable attributes to add to, but still not make possible, your impartial onlooker, a straight shutting down of the conversation when it gets to sticky ground

Its not like I've not been around the block, like I say.


.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

An end to what though? Why do say this as if it is a good thing? Stalemates literally get discussions nowhere.

When you encounter an environment where folk assume they hold the high ground and you the low ground (empiricism rules okay), a stalemate achieves the state of nobody holding the high ground. It levels the playing field.

Which is, for the person assumed to hold the low ground by people who assume they occupy the high ground, something of a result.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But this is a blatant strawman, the onlooker specifically doesn't have an empirical worldview. How many times do I have to tell you to get your own goalposts if you want to move some

He hasn't got an empirical worldview. But he has to have empirical experience.

Since it isn't possible to equip him with a worldview capable of understanding the Christian argument (without making him partial to the Christian worldview) he must remain unequipped to understand the Christian argument

Leaving him with just empirical experience. I'm not saying he has an empirical worldview. I'm saying that with only empiricial experience he can't be impartial.


.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why do you believe that reality should align to what satisfies you the most?

I'm not saying reality should align with what satisfies me most. I am not, for instance, satisfied that I am a brain in a jar prodded by an alien. But the reality could be that that's precisely what I am. Reality doesn't align with me. Reality is whatever it is.

What I am saying is: personal satisfaction that what I perceive is reality is the highest court in the land. I can look nowhere else to get more satisfaction.

I am also saying that this is true for everyone.

I do not believe in empiricism because it most self-satisfactory to me. It is, in part, because of the opposite - I do not believe that my satisfaction has any bearing on reality. Things are how they are regardless of whether I like them that way or not.

By satisfaction, I don't mean things I like. I also mean things I might not like. I am satisfied that I can be very arrogant, for example. If someone else tells me I am arrogant, it will only matter if I am satisfied that they are right.

I remain the highest court.

Empiricism is just the best way we have to explain things as it primarily tries to removes the ego when looking at why things are.

You appear satisfied that it is appropriate to remove the ego. You, the highest court. I'd drop the "we" bit since the value of "we" as opposed to "me" is something decided in your courtroom. It might be appropriate to do it at times. But it is you who is satisfied when it's appropriate.

I am not disagreeing with you, where you are satisfied it's appropriate to remove it. If you were not satisfied that empiricism was the best way to explain the reality you perceive, what would you do then?

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why can you only answer the hypothetical if you know if the onlooker is a 1 or 0? If it's a case that you are afraid that a 0 answer won't work for a 1, and vice versa, can you give us both answers?

The 0 (lets call them the Christian) doesn't need the answer. He knows it himself already.

The 1 (lets call them the blind) won't understand the answer. He's blind.

Its the same words, there is no different answer.

(You might have read that Jonathan Edwards quote I posted to Fourier. If not scroll up a few posts). Same words on a page. Completely different result.

Fourier

antiskeptic wrote: »

I didn't say contradiction. I said conflict.

What conflict? Usually when ideas conflict they contradict, so this doesn't really change anything. What's the conflict?

antiskeptic wrote: »

This is a reframing of the same question you asked me the last time - whereupon I pointed you to post 242 in this thread. I couldn't link it on my phone but now I'm on a PC, here you go.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110423872&postcount=242

I was aware of this. However it seems to basically reduce to you have an essentially magical non-externally confirmable insight that allows you to follow deductions those lacking the insight cannot.

Debate is impossible under such a claim, so why engage in it?

For example, I am the chosen of Garesh, god of the outer gates of the sky. It's not possible to perceive this stark truth using empirical means. In fact your non-chosen nature means you may never perceive the intricate web of truth tying what appear to be disparate empirical facts with spiritual ones to point to this clear conclusion.

Taking what I am saying there seriously, this view is completely "closed". By it's nature it isn't really something compatible with discussion.

To demonstrate this, do you accept the Big Bang model of cosmology, just in the sense that the universe is at least 13.7 billion years old and is expanding (not that the universe came from an explosion which isn't part of the Big Bang model).

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'd ask you to glance at post 245 just below the one above. The aim is to establish whether or not the OP's hypothetical is a nonsense or not - given mod ability to pull the thread in a hearbeat for the reasons of waffle, in his view.

If you want to steer down a "how we know track" it might be prudent to get a mod-nod first.

Mod: Her view- having struggled through the proceeding waffle before I even finished my first cup of coffee - is that it's hard to imagine how more waffle can be avoided and it would be refreshing to see some form of waffle-lite "how we know" in hope that there may be an actual answer to something found along that track.

antiskeptic

Fourier wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

I didn't say contradiction. I said conflict.

What conflict? Usually when ideas conflict they contradict, so this doesn't really change anything. What's the conflict?

Two imperialists figthting to control a resource have no conflict of idea. They both think exactly the same thing. But conflict all the same.

Are you denying there is conflict between these ideas? If not and you just want to set me googling so as to improve on my basic understanding you might spare me and cut to the point you want to make.

I was aware of this. However it seems to basically reduce to you have an essentially magical non-externally confirmable insight that allows you to follow deductions those lacking the insight cannot.

My dads mathematical modelling of an engineering invention my 18 yr old self was attempting to add to my long suffering motorcycle appeared magical to me. He saw me struggling to figure out 3d workings with a full scale 2d drawing sketched out on back of a roll of wallpaper. So magical did his maths modelling appear to me that I went to college to become a mechancal engineer. I learned that although maths is 'magical', it's not magical.

Just because something appears magical to those who can't see (whether God or maths) it doesn't mean its actually magical.

As for external confirmation? You'll have read the piece I wrote on where external verification turns out, ultimately, to rest in internal satisfaction.

Not that I stand alone (in the event you are swayed by weight of numbers). Plenty of people see what I see. Millions of them it would appear.

Debate is impossible under such a claim, so why engage in it?[/

Debate is possible - I just find it tedious in the area where an attempt is made to prove God (or raise his standard to the top of a pile of unprovables.

I've pointed out the beneficial, from my perspective, of stalemating positions, for obvious and less obvious reasons. You can read back if you like.

For example, I am the chosen of Garesh, god of the outer gates of the sky. It's not possible to perceive this stark truth using empirical means. In fact your non-chosen nature means you may never perceive the intricate web of truth tying what appear to be disparate empirical facts with spiritual ones to point to this clear conclusion.

My poor dad did his uttermost best to coach me in maths when I was a failing (occasional) schoolgoer.

"Let's say a is equal 2 and b is equal to 3" ( I can still see us now at the kitchen table.)

This would result in a blank look and protests from me " but a is a as in a,b,c" I can remember the fog that would overtake my mind as soon as maths came up at that kitchen table. Impenetrable fog

When you're blind, what you can't see appears as ridiculous and as utterly fog filled as maths did to me or Son of Garesh appears to you.

You might one day become a seeker - when you find all your current ways don't give you answers to the questions (more likely problems) you have.

When you have a great need, you tend to be more open - as I was with my motorbike invention. Need prepared the way. My father opened my eyes to maths. I was born again mathemathically. And came to see. After becoming an A grade maths student in Uni I was distraught to find out there was to be no maths in my final year. I had come to understand it as the language of the universe, full of beauty and truth.

Blind / see are poles apart.

Taking what I am saying there seriously, this view is completely "closed". By it's nature it isn't really something compatible with discussion.

Yet we are discussing. You are attempting to paint one picture: edging things towards "if there is no externally verifiable proof then we are necessarily in flying teapot territory".

I, on the other hand, am attempting to pull things back down to earth (e.g. with my blind to maths example)

We will stalemate. But are debating our way there.

To demonstrate this, do you accept the Big Bang model of cosmology, just in the sense that the universe is at least 13.7 billion years old and is expanding (not that the universe came from an explosion which isn't part of the Big Bang model).

I see no problem with that model. I trust that 'eyes that can better assess the information than me' are assembling the evidence in the best manner possible. And that currently, that is the conclusion they come to.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

It was a typo.

If God is the only God and all the other gods are false gods, would God be the right term to use? Just asking.

Which god though, your 'God', some other Christian's idea of their 'God'

I don't see the problem in suggesting my (and yours as it happens) God is the only God.

No problem in suggesting it, but you need to back it up somehow with something other than your personally held faith. You're trying to sell your 'God' here but it is a busy old marketplace, where other gods are also being touted to me by their believers as being the one true god, and even a few oddballs suggesting it is all about the spacemen. Thing is, I'm an atheist, I've already looked at these dubious claims and rejected them.

I'm here for the pizza, not the waffle.

antiskeptic

You gotta admit it though: 'skeptics theological waffle is so waffely versatile.

Later.

antiskeptic

Bannasidhe wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'd ask you to glance at post 245 just below the one above. The aim is to establish whether or not the OP's hypothetical is a nonsense or not - given mod ability to pull the thread in a hearbeat for the reasons of waffle, in his view.

If you want to steer down a "how we know track" it might be prudent to get a mod-nod first.

Mod: Her view- having struggled through the proceeding waffle before I even finished my first cup of coffee - is that it's hard to imagine how more waffle can be avoided and it would be refreshing to see some form of waffle-lite "how we know" in hope that there may be an actual answer to something found along that track.

I have already spoke of how we know. To little response. I await rebuttal with interest.

But thanks for the veiled permission to continue.

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

I have already spoke of how we know. To little response. I await rebuttal with interest.

But thanks for the veiled permission to continue.

I could have just said "go ahead" but that wouldn't have been keeping in the wordy waffle spirit of the thread.

Fourier

antiskeptic wrote:

Are you denying there is conflict between these ideas? If not and you just want to set me googling so as to improve on my basic understanding you might spare me and cut to the point you want to make.

I'm not making a point, you are. You said they are in conflict. I'm asking what is the conflict.

I mean this is a bit odd, you make a claim, I ask what you mean then you ask me to "cut to the point". I can't cut to your point.

I've pointed out the beneficial, from my perspective, of stalemating positions, for obvious and less obvious reasons. You can read back if you like.

So your point is that since external verification ultimately just reduces to personal satisfaction in some form, all we are left with is a stalemate where all views are of equal inter-subjective weight?

Although this is "true" it's only "true" I think in the most vague Philosophy 101 sense. Maybe the duck in front of me is a bird, maybe it's an extra-dimensional being planning to annihilate the Earth. Ultimately I cannot prove either view wrong only fall back on my satisfaction with empirical observations. If this is the stalemate you envision, well it is a stalemate I suppose.

You've spent 9 pages saying "Like how do you actually know man?"

For a religious example you speak about "The Fall" plenty. Can you say why the Hebrew Rabbis, Temple Priests at Jerusalem and several early Christians don't discuss this philosophy?

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

You gotta admit it though: 'skeptics theological waffle is so waffely versatile.

Later.

Not so much. All I've read are expressions of your subjective faith. Plenty of volume but all the same waffle on close inspection. Not seeing any meat to put on my pizza here and I'm more of a pepperoni than pineapple kind of guy.

Bannasidhe

smacl wrote: »

Not so much. All I've read are expressions of your subjective faith. Plenty of volume but all the same waffle on close inspection. Not seeing any meat to put on my pizza here and I'm more of a pepperoni than pineapple kind of guy.

I had a waffle in Barcelona one time so drowned in rich chocolate sauce it nearly put me in a diabetic coma (I am a diabetic anyway so it's not that hard to be fair) but I'd do it again as it was a most excellent waffle.

I like neither pepperoni or pineapple on my pizza - I like black olives and anchovies.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

You gotta admit it though: 'skeptics theological waffle is so waffely versatile.

Later.

Not so much. All I've read are expressions of your subjective faith. Plenty of volume but all the same waffle on close inspection. Not seeing any meat to put on my pizza here and I'm more of a pepperoni than pineapple kind of guy.

But all our faiths are subjective. You can suppose yours objective because the method which gives it legs says its objective (or more objective)

But its you deciding that the method provides objectivity. An 'objective' built in a subjective is a subjective.

It's a bit like multiplying an impressively big number by zero. It's not the impressive number being multiplied by zero that should draw our attention. No matter how elaborate the formula which priduces the number, no matter how elegant the dance of those who are pointing to it with awestruck faces.

It's the zero that counts. That inconvenient little truth to which your belief, like mine, is beholden.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

A blind person isn't just blind. They are, as I have said, antagonistic towards God, whether they are an empiricist or not. An empiricist is a blind person who has developed something to fill the God-gap (where did we come from (pond slime) where are we going (into the ground, period). The non-empiricist ( or someone who like me, who before they were converted, didn't give such questions a moments notice) is still antagonistic towards God.

The antagonism will out. In an empiricist, it will be a formalised and rigorous expression of the antagonism (within the confines of their belief system, and without necessarily being outwardly antagonistic). In the one who hasn't formed a rigorous worldview, the antagonism will be a hotchpotch: there will be a bit of empiricism (citing Evolution but not understanding it really), "all the things the Catholic church has done" or in the case of my buddhist friend, who has a whole range of desirable attributes to add to, but still not make possible, your impartial onlooker, a straight shutting down of the conversation when it gets to sticky ground

Its not like I've not been around the block, like I say.


.

And yet none of that stops you from explaining your worldview in other threads, so to repeat my question, why can't you do that here?

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

When you encounter an environment where folk assume they hold the high ground and you the low ground (empiricism rules okay), a stalemate achieves the state of nobody holding the high ground. It levels the playing field.

Which is, for the person assumed to hold the low ground by people who assume they occupy the high ground, something of a result.

But if you don't engage with people who think they have the high ground then your stalemate just leaves them having thinking they have the high ground. If anything, it will only make them feel more secure as you flee from point raised after point raised. You are not so much levelling the playing field as digging a trench.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

He hasn't got an empirical worldview. But he has to have empirical experience.

Since it isn't possible to equip him with a worldview capable of understanding the Christian argument (without making him partial to the Christian worldview) he must remain unequipped to understand the Christian argument

Leaving him with just empirical experience. I'm not saying he has an empirical worldview. I'm saying that with only empiricial experience he can't be impartial.

He has no evidence or argument or anything until you present him with some. Present some non-empirical evidence. I am asking you to justify your worldview to him, equipping him with a worldview capable of understanding the Christian argument and therefore making him partial to the christian worldview, is your aim.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not saying reality should align with what satisfies me most.

[SNIP]

personal satisfaction that what I perceive is reality is the highest court in the land.

Yeah, those two sentences amount to the same thing. You accept claims about reality based on what personally satisfies you above all else. Why do you think your personal satisfaction is unassailable?

antiskeptic wrote: »

By satisfaction, I don't mean things I like. I also mean things I might not like. I am satisfied that I can be very arrogant, for example. If someone else tells me I am arrogant, it will only matter if I am satisfied that they are right.

So, by satisfaction you just mean acceptance. So when you said that your worldview "satisfies me the most" then you just mean that your worldview is what you accept the most? So you were saying nothing?

antiskeptic wrote: »

You appear satisfied that it is appropriate to remove the ego. You, the highest court. I'd drop the "we" bit since the value of "we" as opposed to "me" is something decided in your courtroom. It might be appropriate to do it at times. But it is you who is satisfied when it's appropriate.

Again, as reality as a whole clearly doesn't align with what makes anyone (perfectly and permanently) happy, someone's subjective satisfaction is not a measure of reality. Reality clearly doesn't care about what satisfies anyone.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I am not disagreeing with you, where you are satisfied it's appropriate to remove it. If you were not satisfied that empiricism was the best way to explain the reality you perceive, what would you do then?

Find another way.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

The 0 (lets call them the Christian) doesn't need the answer. He knows it himself already.

The 1 (lets call them the blind) won't understand the answer. He's blind.

Its the same words, there is no different answer.

(You might have read that Jonathan Edwards quote I posted to Fourier. If not scroll up a few posts). Same words on a page. Completely different result.

Which just brings us back to the same points you've failed to address before:
1) You are saying that you can't believe in god without already believing in god
2) You are not still not explaining why you believe you are right to believe in your god when there are people who are equally confident in believing in contradictory gods.
To every onlooker, you and the other equally confident (but contradictory) believers look fundamentally the same. And before you can label away these onlookers as "1"s or "0"s, to say it doesn't matter because they are "blind" you need to answer the question of why your belief is right (to justify "blindness" being a thing), otherwise you are starting with the conclusion that your are right in order to conclude that you are right.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote:

But if you don't engage with people who think they have the high ground then your stalemate just leaves them having thinking they have the high ground.

But I am engaging with people who think they hold the high ground. I'm just not engaging by charging up their imaginary hill.

it will only make them feel more secure as you flee from point raised after point raised.

The only point I could be said to flee from is engaging with partial onlookers. 'Flee' would be an unusual take, given the thread title. Indeed the shift to imploring me to abandon the thread title and engage partial onlookers instead is a precise defintion of flight, carried out by those doing the imploring. Including yourself ironically.

I haven't fled from establishing the impossibility of an impartial onlooker. They need to be born again .. with empiricial experience?? Or they need to be empirically sighted but spiritually blind?? I think we can conclude not all hypotheticals make sense. The bald insistence that they all nonetheless do .. is also an example of flight.



I haven't fled from the ultimate nature of knowledge. Little response to that.

What other little flight of mine had you in mind?

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

But I am engaging with people who think they hold the high ground. I'm just not engaging by charging up their imaginary hill.

Engaging doesn't just mean saying anything to a question, it means attempting to answer the question. You specifically have not done that. You have prided yourself on not doing that.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The only point I could be said to flee from is engaging with partial onlookers. 'Flee' would be an unusual take, given the thread title. Indeed the shift to imploring me to abandon the thread title and engage partial onlookers instead is a precise defintion of flight, carried out by those doing the imploring. Including yourself ironically.

I haven't fled from establishing the impossibility of an impartial onlooker. They need to be born again .. with empiricial experience?? Or they need to be empirically sighted but spiritually blind?? I think we can conclude not all hypotheticals make sense. The bald insistence that they all nonetheless do .. is also an example of flight.

You can't have it both ways. You cant on the one hand say that you are engaging but then say that you are stalemating on purpose. You can't say that you aren't fleeing from points while at the same time making up strawmen and fallacies to pretend the question is unanswerable, even though another theists managed to answer it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I haven't fled from the ultimate nature of knowledge. Little response to that.

What's this now?

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote:

Engaging doesn't just mean saying anything to a question,

So name them. Give 4 specific, succintly worded significant questions that you take issue with. Forget justification to partial onlookers - this is not a thread for that. Eg

1. How do you know your god is the true god?

You can't have it both ways. You cant on the one hand say that you are engaging but then say that you are stalemating on purpose.

Stalemating merely highlights deficiency in the ability of either argument obtaining the higher ground.

Whether I do it deliberately or not matters not a jot. If the opposing argument can't rise above stalemate then that is the opposing arguments problem.

By engage I mean consider others arguments and construct my own counters in a logical, reasoned manner (such that weaknesses in them can be identified and things progress)

I'm not engaging with a view to having my mind changed. My mind is made up and I have my own agenda. As I am entitled to have.

You can't say that you aren't fleeing from points while at the same time making up strawmen and fallacies to pretend the question is unanswerable, even though another theists managed to answer it.

Again you have to be specific. I couldn't give a fig what other theists say. It's your argument vs my argument.


I would add another item I haven't fled from. The notion of societies "onwards and upwards" trajectory out of which so much is made. Progress. Human Rights. "We have moved on"

Global climate catastrophe looming, global ecoside, credit card amounts of plastic consumed by each of us each week, our food denuded of nutrients and contaminated by chemicals, 70,000,000 refugees - the highest number ever recorded, perma-war ("conflicts aren't resolved anymore" the UN Commissioner of Refugees on why there are 70 million (and climbing) refugees currently wandering the globe), rape of the planets resources on a never before seen scale, potential for nuclear annihilation, 2 then-thirteen year olds convicted of rape and murder with hardcore porn and photo's of their murder kit dressing a mannequin (wonder which progressive stone they 3 clicked their way to those ideas from), Italy passing laws to make it illegal to rescue migrants in the med.

Oh, and we're extending old age. Your 80's will become the new 50' ). Three cheers from the bulk of world who can't afford the luxury of advanced old age


What wonderful progress can begin to compete with this unmitigated disaster.

(Ripe for a stalemate this onwards and upwards one. One mans progress and all. Still, I'd love to hear some the wonderful things we've progressed with which hasn't got an obvious downside. If only the planet wasn't giving us unmistakable signs regarding the cost that all this progress comes at)

antiskeptic

1) You are saying that you can't believe in god without already believing in god

Although I'm not saying that, it is self evident. I can't be Irish without already being Irish. To be Irish means you must be Irish.

???

I said there is no possibility of there being an impartial onlooker, hypo or otherwise (from the Christian perspective).

I've explained why and your attempt to say what I'm saying falls miles from the mark

2) You are not still not explaining why you believe you are right to believe in your god when there are people who are equally confident in believing in contradictory gods.

I haven't explained (in the sense of laying out all the bits which led to my knowing God exists). There wouldn't be any point - you're blind and antagonistic so would just argue this way and that. I couldn't begin to see that.point in going down that track. Who needs the headache?

Instead, I just cut to 'I know' pointing out that statement can't be beaten by anyone elses contra-knowledge. It can only be stalemated.

Its a choice: try to get a blind man to see what he can't see. Or obtain a stalemate.

(No insult with the use of the world blind. I mean it in the technical rather than personal sense)

To every onlooker,

Partial onlooker you meant to say.

you and the other equally confident (but contradictory) believers look fundamentally the same.

At this point you need to do what you persistently forget to do: include your own belief system in the mix.

When you do, you'll find that all the beliefs look funfamentally the same to you except for yours. What a surprise.

News for you. All beliefs, bar 'born again' believers look fundamentally the same to me.

And before you can label away these onlookers as "1"s or "0"s, to say it doesn't matter because they are "blind" you need to answer the question of why your belief is right (to justify "blindness" being a thing), otherwise you are starting with the conclusion that your are right in order to conclude that you are right.

Self satisfaction, to which you too are subject for your knowledge, has no external reference. Only you can conclude you are right. There is no other to refer to. If you do refer to something external, it's becauses it increases your self-satisfaction to do so. It all terminates with the self. Everyman is an island, afterall

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not engaging with a view to having my mind changed.

A+A is a discussion forum where each poster should, at the very least, entertain the possibility, however remote, that they might change their mind.

A poster who says their mind can never be changed is a poster who remains as closed to discussion as they are open to sermonizing and A+A - above all places - is not a forum where sermonizing one's fellow-posters will neither be enjoyed, nor tolerated by your friendly forum mods.

Fourier

As I thought, you're basically just referring to old well known problems/paradoxes in epistemology.

You're literally stating that you don't care about debate and only about "forcing" a well known philosophical conversation stopper.

I don't know what you gain by this. It would be like showing up to a site for discussing music and simply forcing the "It's all subjective anyway man" view or heading to a science forum and talking about "Yeah it matches evidence, but how do you know that isn't just a coincidence?"

My only comment would be for others that there is nothing interesting here. Antiskeptic believes himself to be on a different plane of thought and all attempts to disprove it are just alternate subjective viewpoints with no additional merit. Except that they lack the awakened truth he possesses. There is nothing of worth for anybody who doesn't think "Yeah well it looks like a duck, but how do you know it's a duck? Uh?" is a deep statement.

EDIT: Crossed with robindch

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

A+A is a discussion forum where each poster should, at the very least, entertain the possibility, however remote, that they might change their mind.

Is that last bit in the charter. Because if it's not, I'll be led by the definition of the word 'discussion' thanks.

A poster who says their mind can never be changed is a poster who remains as closed to discussion as they are open to sermonizing and A+A - above all places - is not a forum where sermonizing one's fellow-posters will neither be enjoyed, nor tolerated by your friendly forum mods.

Non sequitur. Just because my mind isn't open to change on the matter of my knowing God exists doesn't mean what I write is sermonising.

Smacl cites wonderful progress, I'll cite not so wonderful progress. Someone says how do you know, I'll remind them how it is we all know.

Point for point. It's always going.to end in stalemate - but thats the nature of the things. And not my fault per se.

antiskeptic

Fourier wrote: »

As I thought, you're basically just referring to old well known problems/paradoxes in epistemology.

You're literally stating that you don't care about debate and only about "forcing" a well known philosophical conversation stopper.

You appear to be presuming a debate can continue perpetually and never reach an end (it can, of course, if you go around in circles. But I don't mean that. I mean go on progressing and expanding indefinitely but never reach a conclusion.)

Or, if it does reach a conclusion, one or other side must prevail?

If reason leads you to conclude that the conversation must stalemate then why is there a problem? Is stalemate an invalid conclusion?

I don't know what you gain by this. It would be like showing up to a site for discussing music and simply forcing the "It's all subjective anyway man" view or heading to a science forum and talking about "Yeah it matches evidence, but how do you know that isn't just a coincidence?"

The counter for, for example, the oft repeated belief that mankind is on an onwards and upwards progressive trajectory has been detailed more comprehensively by me than your caricature suggests.

I recall very little by way of response to the impossibility of the hypothetical onlooker - other than to insist sticking the word 'hypothetical' onto nonsense renders it other than nonsense.

Do you think an impartial onlooker ought be equipped to appreciate what he is being asked to assess?

Antiskeptic believes himself to be on a different plane of thought

Not so thought. The thought processes are the same, the sight enhanced leading to additional information to compute.

To sneer that 'I believe' turns out to rest on the somewhat underwhelming argument that... you don't believe.

Why not? Is it because you haven't evidence of the type you believe is the best route to assess truth/reality? Does that belief rest on yet more beliefs? Is it beliefs all the way down. Until conversation stopper?


Its not so much that I drive to this stalemate. Stalemate follows as soon as someone figures to query and question the beliefs you are convinced are true.


God forbid anyone could operate on a different plane. But if they did actually and you didn't, wouldn't you expect yourself to be blind.

Except that they lack the awakened truth he possesses.

What they lack is something other than their own bootstraps to hold their beliefs up.

Tell me, was the paradox of mans knowledge resting in himself ever resolved?

I'm guessing the solution is to keep calm, sweep it under the carpet and forget the bootstraps. How is one to get on with the business of keeping God firmly out of the way otherwise?

My conversation stopper turns out to be your conversation stopper!

Fourier

antiskeptic wrote: »

You appear to be presuming a debate can continue perpetually and never reach an end (it can, of course, if you go around in circles. But I don't mean that. I mean go on progressing and expanding indefinitely but never reach a conclusion.)

Or, if it does reach a conclusion, one or other side must prevail?

If reason leads you to conclude that the conversation must stalemate then why is there a problem? Is stalemate an invalid conclusion?

I'm not assuming debate must play out in a certain fashion, I'm saying you're invoking an old argument that halts discussion at a trivial level.

For example two biologists might argue over how the stomach of an animal functions. Given current observational evidence a stalemate might be the only possible resolution to their debate. However this is a very different sort of stalemate to somebody saying "Yeah, but how can you even know anything. Maybe it doesn't even have a stomach and it's all a hallucination man".

One is an interesting stalemate. The other is "Hey, I just read epistomology 101".

The counter for, for example, the oft repeated belief that mankind is on an onwards and upwards progressive trajectory has been detailed more comprehensively by me than your caricature suggests.

I wasn't referring to your discussion with smacl.

Tell me, was the paradox of mans knowledge resting in himself ever resolved?

What paradox is this? There might be a problem in the grounding of epistemology, but I'm not aware of a paradox.

How is one to get on with the business of keeping God firmly out of the way otherwise?

Issues with the grounding of epistomology imply the Christian conception of God? How is that?

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Although I'm not saying that, it is self evident. I can't be Irish without already being Irish. To be Irish means you must be Irish.

Your entire argument is limited to a single similar tautology. God exists therefore your believe in him. However, that God exists is no more than your belief.

(No insult with the use of the world blind. I mean it in the technical rather than personal sense)

That is not technically what it means to be blind, it is a religious metaphor. Metaphorically, your belief has blinded you to any meaningful discussion that your belief is simply a belief. This is evidenced by your refusal to accept, even at a totally hypothetical level, that your belief might be ill-founded while asking others, who clearly think your belief is baloney, to share that belief.

That isn't meaningful discussion.

Seanachai

antiskeptic wrote: »

You appear to be presuming a debate can continue perpetually and never reach an end (it can, of course, if you go around in circles. But I don't mean that. I mean go on progressing and expanding indefinitely but never reach a conclusion.)

Or, if it does reach a conclusion, one or other side must prevail?

If reason leads you to conclude that the conversation must stalemate then why is there a problem? Is stalemate an invalid conclusion?





The counter for, for example, the oft repeated belief that mankind is on an onwards and upwards progressive trajectory has been detailed more comprehensively by me than your caricature suggests.

I recall very little by way of response to the impossibility of the hypothetical onlooker - other than to insist sticking the word 'hypothetical' onto nonsense renders it other than nonsense.

Do you think an impartial onlooker ought be equipped to appreciate what he is being asked to assess?



Not so thought. The thought processes are the same, the sight enhanced leading to additional information to compute.

To sneer that 'I believe' turns out to rest on the somewhat underwhelming argument that... you don't believe.

Why not? Is it because you haven't evidence of the type you believe is the best route to assess truth/reality? Does that belief rest on yet more beliefs? Is it beliefs all the way down. Until conversation stopper?


Its not so much that I drive to this stalemate. Stalemate follows as soon as someone figures to query and question the beliefs you are convinced are true.


God forbid anyone could operate on a different plane. But if they did actually and you didn't, wouldn't you expect yourself to be blind.



What they lack is something other than their own bootstraps to hold their beliefs up.

Tell me, was the paradox of mans knowledge resting in himself ever resolved?

I'm guessing the solution is to keep calm, sweep it under the carpet and forget the bootstraps. How is one to get on with the business of keeping God firmly out of the way otherwise?

My conversation stopper turns out to be your conversation stopper!

Do you believe in the fall? As in the battle in heaven and Lucifer etc?

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not engaging with a view to having my mind changed.

Why are you engaging then?

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

So name them. Give 4 specific, succintly worded significant questions that you take issue with. Forget justification to partial onlookers - this is not a thread for that. Eg

1. How do you know your god is the true god?

What does this even mean?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Stalemating merely highlights deficiency in the ability of either argument obtaining the higher ground.

But that doesn't work because any argument can be stalemated if you simple will not respond to it. But putting your fingers in your eyes and saying "la la la I'm not listening" doesn't somehow put your argument on the same level as someone who is actually willing to engage and answer questions.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Again you have to be specific. I couldn't give a fig what other theists say. It's your argument vs my argument.

Again with the strawmanning to flee from a point. It's not my argument vs yours, it's everyone's arguments vs yours. So the fact that another theist can answer the question is very relevant.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I would add another item I haven't fled from. The notion of societies "onwards and upwards" trajectory out of which so much is made.

[SNIP]

Ripe for a stalemate this onwards and upwards one. One mans progress and all.

You can't see the irony in claiming that you haven't fled from arguments for societies "onwards and upwards" trajectory while at the same time being proud that you will stalemate the hell out of it?

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Although I'm not saying that, it is self evident. I can't be Irish without already being Irish. To be Irish means you must be Irish.

You can become Irish by applying for Irish citizenship. Can you not believe in god by becoming convinced of it?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I haven't explained (in the sense of laying out all the bits which led to my knowing God exists). There wouldn't be any point - you're blind and antagonistic so would just argue this way and that. I couldn't begin to see that.point in going down that track. Who needs the headache?

Instead, I just cut to 'I know' pointing out that statement can't be beaten by anyone elses contra-knowledge. It can only be stalemated.

But how do you know that I'm blind and antagonistic to your god and not that we are blind and antagonistic to someone else's god? It's a very crass way to pretend that your argument is above reproach, by just claiming that everyone who disagrees is inherently ill-equipped to understand. How can anyone distinguish between two people claiming it about contradictory beliefs?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Partial onlooker you meant to say.

Are you asking me to strawman myself?

antiskeptic wrote: »

At this point you need to do what you persistently forget to do: include your own belief system in the mix.

But I am comparing your beliefs to others who also stalemate the question. You don't look fundamentally the same to me or the likes of realitykeeper, who earlier gave an answer to the questions I posed, as we can give our reasoning and distinguish ourselves from each other and you on some level.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Self satisfaction, to which you too are subject for your knowledge, has no external reference. Only you can conclude you are right. There is no other to refer to. If you do refer to something external, it's becauses it increases your self-satisfaction to do so. It all terminates with the self. Everyman is an island, afterall

And we are back to "self satisfaction", which I question you on here but you seemed to have missed and not responded to, so would you like to respond now?

Bannasidhe

smacl wrote: »

Your entire argument is limited to a single similar tautology. God exists therefore your believe in him. However, that God exists is no more than your belief.

My hypothesis is that antiskeptic at some point experienced a "road to Damascus" moment where his/her eyes were "opened" (i.e. no longer blind) and s/he was "born again" into knowledge of God. S/He cannot explain this knowledge as it came to him/her in a flash of divine inspiration as it were.
Of course, such a divine inspiration would be highly personal and subjective and as such impossible to explain in any objective, rational, way.

Now, I admit this is not a perfect hypothesis as antiskeptic's own words throw a few spanners in the works.
He/she said when his/her (I'm going with male pronouns from now on as I can't be asked typing fe/male ones all the time) mother became born again he was hostile - was he blind then? Did he have knowledge of god? If no - why was he hostile? Surely he was ripe for "awakening"...
If he was blind and had no knowledge of god then doesn't that contradict some of his statements here and make his awakening impossible as they are prerequisites?

Hotblack Desiato

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why are you engaging then?

Like they said, stalemating and proselytising.

Seanachai wrote: »

Do you believe in the fall?

Yes, of course I do!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InXwZc4RS7M

smacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If he was blind and had no knowledge of god then doesn't that contradict some of his statement's here and make his awakening impossible as they are prerequisites?

The implication I take from this is that you can be 'born again' and see God but having done so there is no going back. Of course we in the A&A forum regularly see people who claim the reverse journey, but then I'm guessing that they wouldn't be considered 'real Christians' by Antiskeptic.

Either way, in my opinion it remains a tautological position that brooks no argument.

joe40

I'm not qualified for in depth discussion on this debate, but was it nicely summed up by Augustine (I think)

For those who believe proof is not necessary , for those who don't believe proof is not possible.