Faith: the evidence of things not seen

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

The problem with that is that over here (points in that direction) are a lot of Christians screaming that you do have to do something. You have to believe in Jesus (the conscious type of believing, not simply agreeing unconsciously)

I suppose I'd see believing in Jesus consciously in much the same way as I see believing in God's existance consciously. It's a post-salvation occurance in both cases. A consequence of having been saved - not a cause of being saved in the first place.

So it wouldn't be incorrect to say you have to believe in Jesus. You do - in the sense of it being a marker (or identifying label) .. of the saved.

Therefore being an atheist seems the best course of action. :pac:

Not a problem for God's mechanism of salvation either.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I suppose I'd see believing in Jesus consciously in much the same way as I see believing in God's existance consciously. It's a post-salvation occurance in both cases. A consequence of having been saved - not a cause of being saved in the first place.

So it wouldn't be incorrect to say you have to believe in Jesus. You do - in the sense of it being a marker (or identifying label) .. of the saved.

That though would seem not to be a particularly common Christian interpretation of the Bible.

The difficulty for a non-believer is determining which of you is right, if any of you are.

Simply telling me you are because you believe you are is some what pointless, since that is what everyone else says as well.

If I believe you I obviously don't need to do anything, I just sit back and wait to see if God decides to save me.

But then doing that means I don't do what the others are telling me to do, and if they are correct I end up in a lake of fire for eternity (and under some interpretations so do you).

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

You smell a stench of rotteness eminating from the core of your being? Your words don't really bring out the full sense of that .. to be honest.

No I don't sense a stench of rottenness emanating from the core of my being, I try to do good whenever I can but I acknowledge that human beings are weak and so don't do good all the time. We’re not absolutely good but neither are we absolutely bad.

And to be honest the idea of a god who would create living beings with a stench of rottenness emanating from the core of their being just to see if they notice so he can punish the ones who don't doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm saying the conviction that there is something seriously wrong dawns on a man who is fulfilling God's criterion. Where the man goes with this isn't the issue. He might consider his rotten acts the result of a psychological problem. He might consider it the result of an addiction. He need not conclude God.


Indeed. But there's one striking difference in Christianity...

I not telling you that you need to pay heed. I'm merely answering your questions on the mechanics of Gods salvation. You don't need to do a thing as such - for unbeknownst to you, God is currently active with his mechanism of salvation in your individual case. Clearly, things haven't reached the kind of climax being described in these last posts regarding your good self. Perhaps they never will with you (we can talk about how one evades salvation too if you like). But active in the attempt to save, God is...whether you like this or not, whether you're aware of this or not.

Salvation is from God, Sam. You don't need to do a thing. And whatever you do do by way of playing a part will be the result of his machinations, his actions, his prodding, his stimulus. For example (and assuming what I say is true for the moment): you have just read about the workings of the gospel of God from a representitive of God tasked with telling you. In reading so, you've have been exposed to a description about your objective state. Truth about you and your position before God is now wending itself around in your (un)consciousness. And Gods statement about the effect of truth is that it tends towards setting people free (from a lie)

Consider it a worm. A truth worm. Burying away in there somewhere. Hopefully contributing towards setting you free one day. Do let me know if ever.. okay?

What you've told me so far is that humans are flawed beings, which when you boil it right down means that we feel compelled to do things that hurt others even though on another level we don't want to. You won't get any argument from me on that point, the evidence is all around us and plain to see, humans are flawed and weak. You believe that we're creations of a perfect being but I think that our bodies and minds are the product of a billion years of blind and unintelligent evolution, a heartless process that strips away the weak and leaves only those who survived the best. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that we aren't at each other's throats 24 hours a day is, for want of a better word, a miracle. According to you this acknowledgement of inherent and unavoidable imperfection should be enough for god to reveal himself to me but I'm still waiting. Do I have to think that we're more flawed than I currently do?

I'm also very aware of the fact that there are millions of people and organisations in the world who prey on people by making them feel worthless and claiming that they have the solution and to be honest what you’re saying sounds exactly the same as the mantra of every cult that has ever brainwashed someone. You seem to be suggesting that when you're at your lowest, when you feel totally worthless, when you feel as if there's a smell of rottenness emanating from your core and this has you panicked and desperate, that this is the time when god reveals himself to you but history would seem to suggest that this is not the case. Far from enabling you to see the truth clearly, this panicked and desperate state makes people search for answers anywhere they can find them and this is evidenced by the fact that people find their answers in all manner of different ideologies, cults and religions and are not drawn to any one particular branch of one particular faith as would be expected if one were true. This is why one of the main tactics of cults is to bring you to this state, it makes you far more succeptible to their influence than you otherwise would be. What you're telling me is that in order to have the truth revealed to me I have to arrive at a state where I'm inclined to believe anything anyone tells me.

Many of these organizations have been able to convince millions, even billions of people that they are the ones who have the truth so it is quite clear that human beings aren’t nearly as good at determining truth as they think they are. You say that there is one striking difference with Christianity but that doesn’t appear to be the case other than it’s the particular one that convinced you. Millions have felt what they thought was the “truth worm” but which actually wasn’t so in a world where the vast majority of people in the world believe in a false god with the same strength that you believe in your god, how can I possibly know that what I think is the “truth worm” is actually the truth worm and not the false truth worm that all those others felt? Really the thing stopping me from picking the “true” religion is not arrogance or pride or a refusal to acknowledge my flawed nature, it’s that I acknowledge that I am too flawed to possibly be able to reliably determine the difference between a true religion and a false one, which is why I defer to externally verifiable evidence. You talk as if the way to salvation is through total humility but it seems to me that I have to decide that I'm able to determine truth where billions of others have failed before I can be saved.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

That though would seem not to be a particularly common Christian interpretation of the Bible.

I dunno. When it comes to the detail of salvation mechanics then there isn't really a common view - that I can see.

You've the Calvinist version - where God simply picks this one and not that one - without any criterion involving the individual informing his choice. Clearly, believing in Christ would be as I suggest it is in that case - a consequence not cause of salvation. That said, the Calvinist view stumbles over all the assumptions it has to make along the way .. and collapses mechanically as a result.

Another view is the Arminian view which says that salvation is indeed by grace alone - but then has man choosing for God by a convoluted form of 'prevenient grace' which renders mans choice for God not mans choice for God. I haven't gotten my head around that one tbh.

The most common form you'll hear on forums like this appears to require the unbeliever to make a leap of blind faith which stumbles over the obvious objection of "why this one and not the 1001 others".

The difficulty for a non-believer is determining which of you is right, if any of you are.

Simply telling me you are because you believe you are is some what pointless, since that is what everyone else says as well.

This isn't something I'd do.

As I've probably mentioned a few times, I'm not of the opinion that anyone can be convinced by arguments presented. Rather, I see argumentation as a way of delivering the gospel message (in Trojan Horse fashion) to the lost in the context of a forum which centres around "intellectual discussion".

If I believe you I obviously don't need to do anything, I just sit back and wait to see if God decides to save me.

Don't think you won't be intimately involved in the process. It's God's job to attempt to convince you. You however, are in a position to express your will in the single direction it's able to express itself in: rejection and refusal to be brought to the point of being convinced. This too can be achieved without believing in God.

Thus:

If saved God gets the credit (for you were saved by his grace alone). He did all the work,

If lost you get all the credit. It was your refusal that prevented arrival at the one thing that could save you. Conviction about your rotten state before God.

But then doing that means I don't do what the others are telling me to do, and if they are correct I end up in a lake of fire for eternity (and under some interpretations so do you).

Well, it appears that the other systems can be logically dispensed with before a fair (as per general view on fairness). You could hardly expect a fair God to expect you to believe in something so wild and for which the evidence was other than compelling.

Leaving you with mine. Which is fair on you.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

This isn't something I'd do.

As I've probably mentioned a few times, I'm not of the opinion that anyone can be convinced by arguments presented. Rather, I see argumentation as a way of delivering the gospel message (in Trojan Horse fashion) to the lost in the context of a forum which centres around "intellectual discussion".

But what purpose does that provide if it doesn't matter if I believe in God or don't choose to be saved?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Don't think you won't be intimately involved in the process. It's God's job to attempt to convince you.

Convince me how?

Weren't you saying earlier that God simply rearranges my brain?

Back to the original question, how do I know it is God trying to convince me, as opposed to sin or Satan.

My conscience tells me something, it seems the only way to tell if it is God's voice or Satan's voice is comparing it with the Bible.

Which becomes some what circular since how do we know the Bible is trust worthy?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Well, it appears that the other systems can be logically dispensed with before a fair (as per general view on fairness). You could hardly expect a fair God to expect you to believe in something so wild and for which the evidence was other than compelling.

That is judging God and assuming to know better though. Who is to say God wouldn't expect me to believe in something so wild and for which the evidence was other than compelling.

If that was the case I would say your version of God doesn't exist either.

And we know how I get into trouble when I start saying things like that.

Zombrex

I notice you said in the other thread (which I didn't want to derail) that atheit beliefs sustain unbelief.

How does that tie in with all this.

Surely I'm not sustaining my unbelief? God has simply not converted me yet?

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

But what purpose does that provide if it doesn't matter if I believe in God or don't choose to be saved?

As mentioned, your sinful-will-when-active can operate in only one direction and that direction is contra-God. So, if you consider God's influence in attempting to draw you to him as a his magnet to your iron, then the only thing preventing your arrival at him finally, is the effort your will expends in resisting his attractive force.

Expend enough effort for long enough and you'll succeed in escaping him. All you need is to activate your will long enough and hard enough. Which is wilful - which means the destination chosen is chosen for.


It might help to summarise by saying: "all people will be saved except those who exercise their will sufficiently to achieve escape"


Whilst not needing to believe in God to reach salvation, you do need to be brought to the resting place of believing God (consider that occurance as you being finally stuck to his magnet ). Which is where the gospel comes in. Consider it as part of magnetic mechanism (which isn't attempting to operate through intellectualism - even though the Trojan Horse for it's delivery happens to be intellectual discussion. Trojan Horses for courses ).

Convince me how?

Weren't you saying earlier that God simply rearranges my brain?

Consider the ingredients (which involves maintaining belief for the sake of discussion):

1) God exists and is working towards saving you if you'll have that.

2) Objective Truth is placed in your head (by reading eg: me). "You are a sinner and this means you smell objectively rotten". That truth is gone in and that can't be helped. That you don't believe it's objective at the moment doesn't alter it being so.

3) You have sin aplenty on your account. Sin is objectively rotten - but you can't smell it because you have a sinful nature which works to suppress and deny wrong doing. Thus is avoided your having to face the full extent of the smell eminating from your thoughts/actions/motivations. You'd probably admit to being a little bit 'past your best-before-date' in some areas of activity - you'd accept you do things you shouldn't at times, in other words. But you'd deny that you stink to high heaven.

That's suppression (which you don't fully consciously realise your doing. It's not necessary that you do fully realise it)

4) On suppression. Suppression is a word that conjures up the idea of applying a force to subdue. For instance, we need to apply a force to a childs football in order to keep it below the surface of the water in a swimming pool. We suppress the balls 'desire' to float in other words. Similarily, God's light works on sin to bring it to the surface and we apply suppressive effort to prevent that happening. We do evil deeds in (literal) darkness in order to prevent them being exposed by the (literal) light

It is important to realise that the suppressive force required to keep our sin out of our (and everyone elses) sight is constant and permanent. Once we sin and decide to suppress that sin then, like a childs football in a swimming pool, we need to maintain the suppressive force for as long as we want the sin suppressed.

And so the effort to suppress increases day by day, year by year. It being our will that applies the effort. Suppression by act of will: bare-faced denial, self-justification, bending truth, evasion, misdirection, letting ourself off the hook, etc.

5) You ask how God convinces you? Well consider all the above. Pressure building up and up. Suppression building up and up in step with that. God is the one that maintains the pressure. You're the one that maintains the suppression. Either your will gives or your will won't.

If it does then the walls containing the pressure rupture and the pressure releases with explosive force. The objectivity of your rotteness breaks to the surface of your consciousness in an overwhelming release that brings you to your knees. You are convinced because you now have all the objective evidence you need to be convinced.

If it doesn't? Well you maintain suppression to the very end. And have all revealed anyway at Judgement. Your will wins - in that it has it's own way finally.

Back to the original question, how do I know it is God trying to convince me, as opposed to sin or Satan.

You don't. And what you think isn't relevant to the effective operation of the mechanism of salvation in your case

My conscience tells me something, it seems the only way to tell if it is God's voice or Satan's voice is comparing it with the Bible.

Which becomes some what circular since how do we know the Bible is trust worthy?

Again, not relevant to the mechanism of salvations operation. There is no reliance on your conscious judgment. There is merely objective truth and your response to it (whether you believe in objective truth or not being irrelevant)

That is judging God and assuming to know better though. Who is to say God wouldn't expect me to believe in something so wild and for which the evidence was other than compelling.

If that was the case I would say your version of God doesn't exist either.

And we know how I get into trouble when I start saying things like that.

It's not judging God. It's utilising the general view on what constitutes fair dealing and measuring a mechanism of salvation against it to see how it measures up. Expecting you to believe something you have no basis for believing isn't by anyones reckoning, fair.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

I notice you said in the other thread (which I didn't want to derail) that atheit beliefs sustain unbelief.

How does that tie in with all this.

Surely I'm not sustaining my unbelief? God has simply not converted me yet?

See above discussion on suppression. A simple example has a naturalist write off what would be objectively wrong behaviour as the result of his being an evolved creature. "Evolution is the cause - not me." Take for example the promiscuous: "nature has determined that I sow my genes as widely as possible and that is why I do as I do".


It's important to remember that God is as interested in providing a means whereby we can escape him as he is a means whereby he can capture us. He's primarily concerned that our will regarding him and what he represents wants and won't skew the balance. Because we are thinking, reasoning beings he provides (or permits others to provide) means of suppression that are maintained using the facilities of thinking and reasoning.

You're not operating in a vacuum - you've been created by God and God is as intent on finding out your answer as he is anyone elses. The "flotative force" of sin is everpresent and increasing. It needs belief in and application of suppressive tools in order that a person vprevent arrival at the belief they are rotten. Consider how the exact same effect can be achieved through the seemingly contra-atheist view: religious belief. Take Roman Catholicisms 'confession' for example: you sin and go periodically to have your sins forgiven which "releases the pressure" and you're back to being "clean" again. You are, of course, not cleansed at all - God's mechanism of salvation doesn't permit it's motive force: a build up of pressure, to be dribbled away so. This religious activity is as unbelieving as is anything atheism can produce. All sides of the same unbelieving coin.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

See above discussion on suppression. A simple example has a naturalist write off what would be objectively wrong behaviour as the result of his being an evolved creature. "Evolution is the cause - not me." Take for example the promiscuous: "nature has determined that I sow my genes as widely as possible and that is why I do as I do".

Leaving a side that this isn't actually what evolution has designed us to do, how can someone do that if they aren't actually deterring their own morality?

To use your own terminology, what "toolbox" are they using, given that you don't have your own toolbox, you either get one from God or from sin.

And how would this sustain unbelief? It can sustain promiscuous behavior, but what does that have to do with unbelief? If God has not choose to make me believe then there is nothing I can do about that

antiskeptic

It's just occurred to me that an excellent image to convey wilful suppression in the face of the God's utilsation of our sin is the "yellow-barrel scenes" in the flim(sic), Jaws.

You'll remember the function of the barrels. They were hooked into the shark in order to bring him to the surface. The shark applies his will to suppress the effect the barrels try to exert on him.

Well the barrels can be seen as the pressure God brings to bear to bring our sin into the light. And the great whites effort can be seen as our wilful effort to prevent that occurring. More and more barrels are added to us with each passing sin. And it takes more and more effort to maintain the suppression.

The final result depends on the exertion of our will. If we really don't want to come to the surface and into the light then God won't force it. A point comes where he doesn't attach any more barrels to our sin and we can remain submerged forever.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's just occurred to me that an excellent image to convey wilful suppression in the face of the God's utilsation of our sin is the "yellow-barrel scenes" in the flim(sic), Jaws.

You'll remember the function of the barrels. They were hooked into the shark in order to bring him to the surface. The shark applies his will to suppress the effect the barrels try to exert on him.

Well the barrels can be seen as the pressure God brings to bear to bring our sin into the light. And the great whites effort can be seen as our wilful effort to prevent that occurring. More and more barrels are added to us with each passing sin. And it takes more and more effort to maintain the suppression.

The final result depends on the exertion of our will. If we really don't want to come to the surface and into the light then God won't force it. A point comes where he doesn't attach any more barrels to our sin and we can remain submerged forever.

Ok, but that some what contradicts your earlier posts.

Getting back to the toolbox analogy, you implied earlier that we can't make our own moral judgements, these are decided earlier by God or by sin.

So when we fight against the barrels it isn't actually us fighting against them, it is sin or Satan or who ever.

So a more accurate analogy would be a tug of war between God and Satan with us tied up in the middle.

We certainly feel the tug of war, but we have no control over who is pulling the hardest.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Leaving a side that this isn't actually what evolution has designed us to do, how can someone do that if they aren't actually deterring their own morality?

Sorry, I was using your terminology that had evolution purposeful . Let's agree that those whose tendency is to spread their genes far and wide are those that increase their survival chances.

I'm not sure what question you're asking. Could you rephrase?

To use your own terminology, what "toolbox" are they using, given that you don't have your own toolbox, you either get one from God or from sin.

It is your own toolbox in that it's your nature to desire that which is sinful. It's just that your nature isn't left solely to it's own devices. If it was it would always cut the thread and plunge into sin. But God exposes us to beauty and goodness which act to constrain us (his toolbox). He shifts our will into neutral as it were. The question is: will we slot ourselves into motion again - so as to drive off in the only direction our will is able to drive off in - towards sin.

And how would this sustain unbelief? It can sustain promiscuous behavior, but what does that have to do with unbelief? If God has not choose to make me believe then there is nothing I can do about that

Sustaining unbelief works to prevent arrival at belief. Assigning promiscuous behaviour to Evolution is suppression of the truth regarding promiscuity (the truth being that sin is what is driving it). Suppression sustains unbelief because it prevents the truth bubbling to the surface (as per mechanism outlined).

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Getting back to the toolbox analogy, you implied earlier that we can't make our own moral judgements, these are decided earlier by God or by sin.

I'm not sure I implied that. We are given a knowledge of good and evil so we do know what is right and wrong*. God's voice tells us so. We also have the magnetic draw of sin within and without pulling us in the direction of evildoing.

When we cut the thread - so as to plunge into sin - it's us doing the cutting. Us doing the deciding to cut.

(*leaving aside the callousing that takes place as the conscience is repeatedly suppressed over the course of a career in sin)

So when we fight against the barrels it isn't actually us fighting against them, it is sin or Satan or who ever.

Thus not. The tug of war is between God's will and our sinful will. Satan is like power-assisted steering: an assist to the driver, not the driver himself.

The overarching things to see is that

a) We are exposed to sin which has attributes and characteristics and attractive power. That exposure takes the form of something internal to our makeup (as well as the external assist)

b) We are exposed to good which has attribute and characteristics and attractive power. That exposure takes the form of something external to our makeup (even though we might think our conscience is an internal part of us)

Our will is the final decider on our destination. If finally relinquishing self-determination we will arrive at God via his drawing power (hence fisher of men pictures in the Bible). If finally refusing to relinquish self-determination we won't arrive at God via his drawing power.

Will finally neutralised = salvation
Will finally active = damnation

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure I implied that. We are given a knowledge of good and evil so we do know what is right and wrong*. God's voice tells us so. We also have the magnetic draw of sin within and without pulling us in the direction of evildoing.

Which means we don't decide our own moral judgements, surely.

You said this originally when I suggested that I arrive at the same conclusion as God and thus agree with him. You said that I can't do that because the toolbox is not my own. When I arrive at the same conclusion as God it is actually God, because God is the source of everything.

Which is fair enough, but surely that applies to the other side as well. I can't agree with sin (ie disagree with God) because that would not be my own conclusion either, it would be sourced from sin.

antiskeptic wrote: »

When we cut the thread - so as to plunge into sin - it's us doing the cutting. Us doing the deciding to cut.

But from what source? Our sinful nature is obviously not a rational decision.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Thus not. The tug of war is between God's will and our sinful will.

But it is not our sinful will, in the same way it is not our God given will.

Sin was placed in us by the Fall, in the same way that goodness was placed in us by God.

If it is actually God when I see a person on the ground and I help them up, then it is actually the Fall when I see a person on the ground and I rob them.

If I can't agree with God then I can't agree with sin, and thus I'm agreeing with nothing.

You seem to want your cake and to eat it. You want our good actions to be actually the glory of God, but our bad actions to be all our own fault.

But that is ultimately illogical since we no more decided our bad nature than we decided our good nature.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Which means we don't decide our own moral judgements, surely.

You said this originally when I suggested that I arrive at the same conclusion as God and thus agree with him. You said that I can't do that because the toolbox is not my own. When I arrive at the same conclusion as God it is actually God, because God is the source of everything.

Which is fair enough, but surely that applies to the other side as well. I can't agree with sin (ie disagree with God) because that would not be my own conclusion either, it would be sourced from sin.

It's neither an adamic-style free will - in which the drive in either direction is sourced from within your will alone. Nor is it a robotic-will (as you suggest above) - in which neither direction is sourced in you. Rather, its a will which either expresses itself (in which case evil occurs) or a will which doesn't express itself (in which evil doesn't occur). The source driving to evil is within the will itself. The source stilling the will into inactivity is sourced in God.

His thread, your scissors.

But from what source? Our sinful nature is obviously not a rational decision.

I'm not sure what rationality has to do with it. Attraction would be a better word. You have a sinful nature and so find sin attractive (the source of evil is internal in that it lies in your very nature). You are also exposed to that which is beautiful and are arrested by it (source of good is external to you). This good also comments on your evil and condemns evil in you. It presents argument to you - in othe words

The question is whether you'll be convinced by it.

Sin was placed in us by the Fall, in the same way that goodness was placed in us by God.

Goodness wasn't placed in you. Your will is sinful (internal) with goodness an external-to-you influence (according to our model of why you do good and why you do evil)

Your nature was indeed affected in this way at the Fall. No matter - it is your will all the same. Remember that in order to sin, you have to choose to suppress goodness. It's not an automatic thing that must occur (otherwise you'd do nothing but sin all day)

If it is actually God when I see a person on the ground and I help them up, then it is actually the Fall when I see a person on the ground and I rob them.

Hopefully you'll appreciate that it's your wilful suppression of the restraint placed on the Fall within you that produces robbery. The Fall is merely influence (internal), just as God is a restraint on that influence (external). The decider is your will.

Do nothing and remain restrained. Do something and sin.

You seem to want your cake and to eat it. You want our good actions to be actually the glory of God, but our bad actions to be all our own fault.

It's the only rational way I see salvation by grace alone - without work. Which is the biblical position.

You'd agree that if fallen as I suggest you've fallen then this is the only way your salvation can be accomplished. You can't do the work yourself, it's just not within your makeup.

But that is ultimately illogical since we no more decided our bad nature than we decided our good nature.

It's not our deciding which nature we have that matters - for we're not responsible for the fact we inherited a sinful nature. It's what we decide to do when that sinful nature is placed in the same arena containing an external counter-restraint to that sinful nature.

What we're left with (and will be judged for) is responsibility for what it is we decide to lay our hearts desire with. And for the sinning we are responsible for plumping for.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hopefully you'll appreciate that it's your wilful suppression of the restraint placed on the Fall within you that produces robbery. The Fall is merely influence (internal), just as God is a restraint on that influence (external). The decider is your will.

Do nothing and remain restrained. Do something and sin.

It's the only rational way I see salvation by grace alone - without work. Which is the biblical position.

You are going to have to explain the "do nothing" bit again because at the moment it is not making any sense.

I see an old woman on the ground. Now, natural if I do nothing I do nothing, I neither help her or hinder her. I just stand there (which in itself is probably bad, but for argument sake)

I have a little voice in my head, which we are assuming is God, saying "Go help her up"

And I have another little voice in my head, which we are assuming is the sinful nature placed inside me by the Fall, saying "Screw her, lets go get a burger"

You seem to be implying if I don't make any rational choice my default action will be to help her because that is what God wants me to do.

That I don't agree with God and say yes I should go pick her up, I just do that unless I otherwise choose not to. The only choice I can make is to not help her. But that implies that when we do good we are merely robots. We don't choose to do good, we simply do it.

It also makes choosing not to help her some what illogical. How is it a "choice" is I can only pick one thing?

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

You are going to have to explain the "do nothing" bit again because at the moment it is not making any sense.

I was looking at a programme on foetus/new-born baby brain development last night. They were illustrating that a baby already knows at birth not to wander off a table edge (if placed on a table). Even when the mother beckons and urges, the baby will only travel to the edge. There they stop and reach and cry - but won't go over the edge.

The baby's will wants only one thing. Mommy. And heads in the direction of it's will. The knowledge placed in the baby (which isn't being rationalised because the baby doesn't yet know to be afraid of heights for rational reasons) restrains the baby from going so far as to fall off the table. It's not the will of the baby that stops it falling over the edge. It's will wants only one thing. It's the knowledge installed in it which is restraining the will. The will is "doing nothing" to contribute to not falling over the edge.

Similarily, a knowledge of good and evil restrains the sinful will except in the case of an older person, that restraint isn't sure to prevent an exercise of will. If the will insists, the person can tip over the edge. It can cut the thread.

I see an old woman on the ground. Now, natural if I do nothing I do nothing, I neither help her or hinder her. I just stand there (which in itself is probably bad, but for argument sake)

We aren't supposing "doing nothing" to mean you enter suspended animation when faced with decisions. Rather, "doing nothing" means not exercising your will to the point where the restraint is cut. When it's not cut you'll remain restrained from sin and it's opposite (good) will be done. Good could be physcically active or passive - which it is, isn't the point.

I have a little voice in my head, which we are assuming is God, saying "Go help her up"

Indeed.

And I have another little voice in my head, which we are assuming is the sinful nature placed inside me by the Fall, saying "Screw her, lets go get a burger"

Okay. Although it must be noted that the sinful nature is you. Not something separate to you. You, your personhood, and it, are one

You seem to be implying if I don't make any rational choice my default action will be to help her because that is what God wants me to do.

Again, I'm not sure where rationality comes into it. You've got two influences operating in you and you're not going to remain standing there. One will win out.

That I don't agree with God and say yes I should go pick her up, I just do that unless I otherwise choose not to. The only choice I can make is to not help her. But that implies that when we do good we are merely robots. We don't choose to do good, we simply do it.

Indeed. Although I wouldn't say robot because essential in the good doing was your will remaining inactive. It didn't have to. And so you are not like a robot at all. Robots have to do what they do.

It also makes choosing not to help her some what illogical. How is it a "choice" is I can only pick one thing?

As stated. Your will doesn't have to activate (which will only result in sin). If it does act then it was you doing it. It's not a choice of a freewilled type (which involves active choice in either diection). But there are still two positions and you're the decider as to which one you'll be in - passively so in the one direction and actively in the other.

Consider: a person lifts your eyelids and places a matchstick under them to keep them open. You'll now see (and be affected and influenced by) whatever travels across your vision. You'll keep on seeing until such time as you choose not to see. All you have to do is knock away the matchsticks and your eyes will close.

No act of will is required to see - you're seeing as a result of someone elses will. The choice is still there however.

It's a mall technicality Wicknight. Something which brings about salvation by grace alone (for which there are good reasons)

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote:

And your arguemnt fails because there are a billion different views of god, all claiming to be the one true one. God's existence is actually irrelevant here because it is abundantly clear to that EVEN IF a god exists, personal experience alone is not a reliable indicator of its nature.

We're not talking of his nature. We're talking of his existance. That three people view a car crash in three different ways doesn't alter the fact that the car crash exists.

In fact if I was to accept your argument, that empiricism is no more reliable an indicator, then t here is no reliable indicator, none whatsoever so we shouldn't even bother ourselves with the question because the answer is unknowable

A logical argument stands until logically refuted. Your non-acceptance need be based on logical refutation.

I agree that no means of knowledge can be deemed absolute. That doesn't seem to cause anyone concern in their day to day lives.

Oh but it does because there are a billion people who are all just as sure as you that god has been revealed to them but if you are right then they must all be wrong

.


Indeed.

Without any form of independent verification it simply becomes an arrogant declaration that you know better than the billion other people who are as sure as you are that they know the truth.

You sh/would agree that if God has revealed himself to me and not to them then they cannot be as sure as I am that they know the truth.

I agree that I can't know I know the truth (any truth) in any absolute way - not unless I became God*. I'm no more concerned about that than I am that I can't show I'm not a brain in a jar in any absolute way.

*which happens to be what occurs. Children of God are like order with God. Perhaps it's safe to say I can know the truth absolutely

How can you possibly know that you haven't been fooled in the same way they have?[/uote]


Can God reveal himself to a person so that they know he exists and their not being fooled? Note the emphasis on the person empowering the knowledge and the person in receipt of it.

I think you need to start with the admission that he can - and work from there.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

We're not talking of his nature. We're talking of his existance. That three people view a car crash in three different ways doesn't alter the fact that the car crash exists.

That is true but if you are trying to find out what happened in the crash and all you have is three conflicting stories then EVEN IF one of them is absolutely correct, you have no way of determining which one that is. If a god exists but there is no reliable way to determine its nature then its existence is irrelevant

antiskeptic wrote: »

You would agree that if God has revealed himself to me and not to them then they cannot be as sure as I am that they know the truth.

No I don't agree, that's the whole point. They are exactly as sure as you, I would argue some are even far more sure than you, such as people who have died for their gods. People who are mistaken do not know they are mistaken

antiskeptic wrote: »

I agree that I can't know I know the truth in any absolute way. I'm no more concerned about that than I am that I can't show I'm not a brain in a jar in any absolute way.


Sure is sure. It's not being God.

Can God reveal himself to a person so that they know he exists? Note the emphasis on the person empowering the knowledge and the person in receipt of it.

I think you need to start with the admission that he can - and work from there.

No you don't need to start with that because EVEN IF HE CAN, it is abundantly clear that there are a billion people who think that god has been revealed to them who are wrong. The point is not deciding if he can or not, it's determining if he actually has or if you're one of the billion people who have deluded themselves into thinking he has. And if I accept your argument that empiricism does not help here then there is no way to do that. You simply have to have total confidence in your own ability to determine truth where a billion others have failed

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That is true but if you are trying to find out what happened in the crash and all you have is three conflicting stories then EVEN IF one of them is absolutely correct, you have no way of determining which one that is.

If a god exists but there is no reliable way to determine its nature then its existence is irrelevant

?

We don't need to have an absolute correct view of anything in order that it's existance be very relevant indeed. Are we to suppose the existance of the car crash irrelevant just because we don't know which of the three versions is true (or closest to true)?

You seem to be taking a very black and white view. If we can't tell everything then we can tell nothing. Life just doesn't work like that, Sam.

No I don't agree, that's the whole point. They are exactly as sure as you, I would argue some are even far more sure than you, such as people who have died for their gods. People who are mistaken do not know they are mistaken

Which brings us back to God's ability. Assuming God is able to demonstrate his existance to someone then he must be able to engender something in that person that the other person doesn't have. God-source certainty would differ from false certainty in a material way.

Else God cannot demonstrate his existance to someone.

You're slipping again into the error of putting the onus on me to correctly ascertain God. And not on God to be able to demonstrate his existance.

Can God reveal himself to a person so that they know he exists? Note the emphasis on the person empowering the knowledge and the person in receipt of it. I think you need to start with the admission that he can - and work from there

No you don't need to start with that because EVEN IF HE CAN, it is abundantly clear that there are a billion people who think that god has been revealed to them who are wrong. The point is not deciding if he can or not, it's determining if he actually has or if you're one of the billion people who have deluded themselves into thinking he has.

The same error again. IF God has demonstrated his existance to someone THEN there is no deciding on the issue of whether he has or not. He's just done so and the objection stops.

And if I accept your argument that empiricism does not help here then there is no way to do that. You simply have to have total confidence in your own ability to determine truth where a billion others have failed

Ditto the above..

IF God can .. there is no reliance on me in this.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

?

We don't need to have an absolute correct view of anything in order that it's existance be very relevant indeed. Are we to suppose the existance of the car crash irrelevant just because we don't know which of the three versions is true (or closest to true)?

You seem to be taking a very black and white view. If we can't tell everything then we can tell nothing. Life just doesn't work like that, Sam.

the point I'm making is that if there are a million conflicting versions of god and no way to determine which, if any, is right then we can tell nothing. You might as well tell me that there is a box on a planet a million light years away that has "something" in it but we have no idea what that something is. The obvious response being: so what?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which brings us back to God's ability. Assuming God is able to demonstrate his existance to someone then he must be able to engender something in that person that the other person doesn't have. God-source certainty would differ from false certainty in a material way.

Else God cannot demonstrate his existance to someone.

You're slipping again into the error of putting the onus on me to correctly ascertain God. And not on God to be able to demonstrate his existance.


The same error again. IF God has demonstrated his existance to someone THEN there is no deciding on the issue of whether he has or not. He's just done so and the objection stops.




Ditto the above..

IF God can .. there is no reliance on me in this.

I'm not making any error mate, you are. You are making an assumption about the nature of god that could I suppose be said to make sense in theory but does not take account of reality. If god was able to do this and if it was possible to reliably tell the difference between true certainty and false certainty, there wouldn't be a billion different people who are all as certain as you of things that contradict what you think is true. You say that if god exists it should be possible to reliably tell the difference between a true certainty and a false one but it is demonstrably not possible to do that so your god must not exist

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm not making any error mate, you are. You are making an assumption about the nature of god that could I suppose be said to make sense in theory but does not take account of reality. If god was able to do this and if it was possible to reliably tell the difference between true certainty and false certainty, there wouldn't be a billion different people who are all as certain as you of things that contradict what you think is true. You say that if god exists it should be possible to reliably tell the difference between a true certainty and a false one but it is demonstrably not possible to do that so your god must not exist

Sorry Sam, but you've just made the same error again.

I have no part to play with my arrival at the knowledge that God exists. My arriving at that point has to do with something he does. If you place the reliance on me in any way then you've shifted the onus from him to me for the knowledge.

And the question has always been "Can God demonstrate his existance to a person". If he can then I've nothing to do with it.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Sorry Sam, but you've just made the same error again.

I have no part to play with my arrival at the knowledge that God exists. My arriving at that point has to do with something he does. If you place the reliance on me in any way then you've shifted the onus from him to me for the knowledge.

And the question has always been "Can God demonstrate his existance to a person". If he can then I've nothing to do with it.

If god could demonstrate his existence to a person in a way that it was reliably possible to tell the difference between a true demonstration and a false one then then every single view of god in the world would be indentical. Every single view is not identical, in fact they vary massively, so clearly god cannot demonstrate himself in a way that it is reliably possible to tell the difference between a true demonstration and a false one. And if you say god must be able to do this if he exists, then he doesn't exist

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If god could demonstrate his existence to a person in a way that it was reliably possible to tell the difference between a true demonstration and a false one then then every single view of god in the world would be indentical.

Hmm.

I don't know whether you've ever been in love. If you've been so fortunate then you'll know what I mean when I talk of the 'heightened sense' of the other person: their smile, their scent, the way their mouth curls when they laugh. You run up enormous phone bills. You want to be as physically close as possible as often as possible - indeed, separation for even short periods is a torture.

Fortunately, 'in love' doesn't last for very long - perhaps a year, two at most. During that time, the lustre will begin to tarnish and you'll start seeing faults and failings in the beloved: the fact they don't shower everyday. Or the way they have this annoying habit of tapping their feet under the table during dinner (that drives you mad at times). Or that hyena laugh. We forget that the lustre is probably wearing off us to, for them

What sometimes occurs during the in love period is that you come to actually love the other person. Such that even when the in loveness has worn off (in love perhaps being considered as Natures way of getting folk together in the first place) you want to stick around and share your life with the other person. Blissful, sweet, carefree, heady in love is exchanged for the gritty, tough, frustrating, more rewarding territory of love.

Ask a person whose in love whether they love the other person and they'll say "yes, yes, YES!!" The other person is the centre of their world. Ask a person who loves whether they love the other person and they'll say they do too. The other person is at the centre of their world - along with all the other people loved.

There is a very reliable way to tell the difference between the two totally different states of love. And that's experience the two.

I've experienced god-in-my-image and likeness. I've also experienced God. And so I can tell the difference between two. Anyone who is utterly convinced they experience God need first experience God in order to compare. Then they'll know. Note that going from one god-in-own-image to another (say atheism to Islam) is like going from one in-love experience to the next: there is no material difference between the states in order that a comparison be drawn.

(note that my claiming to know God isn't something I ask you to believe. Rather, I'm merely saying that certainty of experience of God need not necessarily mean God has been experienced - it would have been an in love kind of god-experience. Then again, certainty of experience of God can result from experiencing God - it would arise from a love God)

Every single view is not identical, in fact they vary massively,

You could say that the object of love in the in love experience #1 'varies massively' from the object of love in experience #2. But you'd see that the essence of experiences (although different in detail) have similar flavour. So is it with all the gods (godless or otherwise). They all share the same essence in that they position man on the throne of mans life. Atheism does it. Islam does it. They are different ways to achieve the very same result.

so clearly god cannot demonstrate himself in a way that it is reliably possible to tell the difference between a true demonstration and a false one. And if you say god must be able to do this if he exists, then he doesn't exist

Which would make this a proof against the Christian God. Dawkins would be pleased given that he only has a bootstrap deck of probabilities to deal from. So why hasn't he used this proof of yours?

Well, it turns out your assertion falls over a major hurdle - and it doesn't look like it is going to get up anytime soon. Certainty in knowledge about anything you care to mention would, if God exists, rely ultimately on God as provider/sustainer of the means whereby we are certain. He would, for example, be the provider/sustainer of the method we call Empiricism (a means whereby certainty is provided within the empirical realm) and any knowledge that we are certain of - whilst utilising empirical evaluation unto certainty - is provided us by God.

If God can't provide a means of being certain it is him, then he cannot provide us with a means of being certain about anything. It follows that IF you can be certain about things AND God exists THEN it is possible to be certain God exists.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which would make this a proof against the Christian God. Dawkins would be pleased given that he only has a bootstrap deck of probabilities to deal from. So why hasn't he used this proof of yours?

I've never actually heard this logic being put forward as one of the arguments for god so I think it's safe to say he's never heard it or if he has, it's a minority view that would have most believers shouting straw man at him if he tackled it. Most say they believe by faith. It's one of many problems caused by the fact that there a billion definitions of god all claiming to be the true one, no matter which definition you use someone will have a different definition and accuse you of not knowing what you're talking about. so this is not a "proof" against the christian god, it's a "proof" against god as you have defined it, which is just one of millions of envisionings of the christian god

antiskeptic wrote: »

If God can't provide a means of being certain it is him, then he cannot provide us with a means of being certain about anything. It follows that IF you can be certain about things AND God exists THEN it is possible to be certain God exists.

No matter how convincing your experience was you have absolutely no way of knowing how convincing the experience that someone else claims to have was. For all you know theirs could have been a hundred times more convincing and would make yours like like a mushroom induced hallucination. The only way for you to be certain of this is to be able to read their mind and experience exactly what they experienced. You do not have this ability therefore god can't provide us with a means to be certain it is him, therefore he can't provide us with a means of being certain about anything, therefore god as you describe him must not exist

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I've never actually heard this logic being put forward as one of the arguments for god so I think it's safe to say he's never heard it or if he has, it's a minority view that would have most believers shouting straw man at him if he tackled it. Most say they believe by faith.

And one of the main criticisms of The God Delusion is it's demolishing of a straw man faith. People saying their faith is based on direct revelation by God are a dime a dozen so I can't understand how this view hasn't been heard of before.

It's one of many problems caused by the fact that there a billion definitions of god all claiming to be the true one, no matter which definition you use someone will have a different definition and accuse you of not knowing what you're talking about. so this is not a "proof" against the christian god, it's a "proof" against god as you have defined it, which is just one of millions of envisionings of the christian god

Fair enough. Your proof has a hurdle to leap over however. Lets see whether it does...

No matter how convincing your experience was you have absolutely no way of knowing how convincing the experience that someone else claims to have was. For all you know theirs could have been a hundred times more convincing and would make yours like like a mushroom induced hallucination. The only way for you to be certain of this is to be able to read their mind and experience exactly what they experienced. You do not have this ability therefore god can't provide us with a means to be certain it is him, therefore he can't provide us with a means of being certain about anything, therefore god as you describe him must not exist

There is no attempt to address the IF God exists AND reveals himself to antiskeptic THEN antiskeptic knows God exists argument here, Sam. You're wandering off into irrelevant (and well-trodden) territories:

- a person being convinced of God (but to whom God hasn't revealed himself) represents no problem for any business between me and God. I don't need to see inside his mind as I would already know his conviction is misplaced. The IF God exists AND reveals himself to antiskeptic THEN antiskeptic knows God exists argument is untouched by this tack.

- putting the onus on me to produce a means whereby I can be certain - when the argument places the onus on God to provide the means whereby I can be certain (whether by empirical means or otherwise). The IF God exists AND reveals himself to antiskeptic THEN antiskeptic knows God exists conundrum remains unaddressed and untouched.


You are incorrect that I need to see inside another mind to ensure my own certainty. All I need is:

a) for God to exist

b) God to decide to reveal himself to me

Once God satisfies those conditions then I will know. And that knowledge is knowledge - not conviction.


__________________

Another conundrum for you which you might consider addressing. You'd probably accept that God could demonstrate his existance empirically and to your satisfaction. He could recite the Bible backwards from memory, turn loaves and fishes into a feast for millions before your eyes, or flatten Mt. Everest by jumping up and down on it.

Why would you trust this God-designed means of enabling you to know he exists and no other? Like, in order for him to demonstrate to you empirically, you'd have to accept that he designed empiricism. And you would have to place your trust in him regarding his design as an adequate means for him to reveal himself to you.

Indeed, I can think of no hoop you could ask God to jump through that wouldn't ultimately rely on your trusting God for any confidence you have it's him.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

And one of the main criticisms of The God Delusion is it's demolishing of a straw man faith. People saying their faith is based on direct revelation by God are a dime a dozen so I can't understand how this view hasn't been heard of before.

Maybe he has heard it and chose not to include it in his book. You'd have to ask him why he didn't include antiskeptic's favourite argument of "I know because god has revealed himself to me and all those other people who "know" contradictory things are of no concern to me because they all only think they know but I really know because god has revealed himself to me but not to them no matter how much they say otherwise because if it's really god then I can tell the difference between a true revelation and a false one even though no one else seems to be able to". You've have to ask him

antiskeptic wrote: »

Fair enough. Your proof has a hurdle to leap over however. Lets see whether it does...


There is no attempt to address the IF God exists AND reveals himself to antiskeptic THEN antiskeptic knows God exists argument here, Sam. You're wandering off into irrelevant (and well-trodden) territories:
- a person being convinced of God (but to whom God hasn't revealed himself) represents no problem for any business between me and God. I don't need to see inside his mind as I would already know his conviction is misplaced. The IF God exists AND reveals himself to antiskeptic THEN antiskeptic knows God exists argument is untouched by this tack.

- putting the onus on me to produce a means whereby I can be certain - when the argument places the onus on God to provide the means whereby I can be certain (whether by empirical means or otherwise). The IF God exists AND reveals himself to antiskeptic THEN antiskeptic knows God exists conundrum remains unaddressed and untouched.


You are incorrect that I need to see inside another mind to ensure my own certainty. All I need is:

a) for God to exist

b) God to decide to reveal himself to me

Once God satisfies those conditions then I will know. And that knowledge is knowledge - not conviction.


__________________

Another conundrum for you which you might consider addressing. You'd probably accept that God could demonstrate his existance empirically and to your satisfaction. He could recite the Bible backwards from memory, turn loaves and fishes into a feast for millions before your eyes, or flatten Mt. Everest by jumping up and down on it.

Why would you trust this God-designed means of enabling you to know he exists and no other? Like, in order for him to demonstrate to you empirically, you'd have to accept that he designed empiricism. And you would have to place your trust in him regarding his design as an adequate means for him to reveal himself to you.

Indeed, I can think of no hoop you could ask God to jump through that wouldn't ultimately rely on your trusting God for any confidence you have it's him.

antiskeptic, could you please explain all those other people to me? How is it that they can be totally convinced, as convinced as you, and still be wrong? And more importantly, what makes you different to them? Remember that an awful lot of them (probably all) will justify their position in exactly the way you do, that if it's really god then they can be certain. They're certain, and yet they're wrong. You say that if it's really god then it's possible to be certain but if it's not god,
it's still possible to be certain............

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

The will is "doing nothing" to contribute to not falling over the edge.

But that doesn't work because if that was the case no good deed would be rationalized.

In which case you would never get someone pulling someone from a burning building cause the person would just run into a wall (instinct can navigate a collapsing building, or operate a stair lift.

If I choose to operate a stair lift, climb up it and jump into a burning building, navigate myself around the flames, grab a child, consider the best way to get out of here (perhaps consider leaving the rest of the people in the building to die in order to save myself), there is no way someone can call that "doing nothing". It is along series of conscious rational choices, each on the opportunity to do something heroic and good or something cowardly and selfish.

Saying the fire fighter did nothing, he just let God's will hold him in place, rather than choose sin, is ridiculous.

So clearly the analogy fails for anything other than the most basic instinctive urge, which doesn't cover most altruistic actions.

antiskeptic wrote: »

We aren't supposing "doing nothing" to mean you enter suspended animation when faced with decisions. Rather, "doing nothing" means not exercising your will to the point where the restraint is cut.

Yes but as I explained above that doesn't make sense in situations where your conscious will is doing the driving.

antiskeptic wrote: »

When it's not cut you'll remain restrained from sin and it's opposite (good) will be done. Good could be physcically active or passive - which it is, isn't the point.

I think you need to leave the analogy of the man hanging from a rope because it clearly doesn't explain things particularly well and you have started self-referencing it. You do nothing when hanging from a rope, but you can't keep referring to hanging from a rope to demonstrate this point.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Okay. Although it must be noted that the sinful nature is you. Not something separate to you. You, your personhood, and it, are one

Well in you, is you, that is some what semantics. The point is that I have two voices in my head both telling me different things (classically visualized as the angel on one shoulder and the devil on the other)

They both got there because they were placed in me, either by God or by the Fall (we weren't created with a sinful nature, it was given to us).

It makes no sense to say I don't choose to listen to the angel but I do choose to listen to the devil.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Again, I'm not sure where rationality comes into it. You've got two influences operating in you and you're not going to remain standing there. One will win out.

Because I pick one. Rationally.

Your argument seems to be that when I pick God I'm not actually picking anything, I'm "doing nothing", just hanging there, but when I pick sin I'm choosing sin, I'm doing something.

That argument seems to not hold up on any analogy bar the one of hanging from a rope. The fire fighter is clearly not doing nothing, nor is he unconsciously choosing a side.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Consider: a person lifts your eyelids and places a matchstick under them to keep them open. You'll now see (and be affected and influenced by) whatever travels across your vision. You'll keep on seeing until such time as you choose not to see. All you have to do is knock away the matchsticks and your eyes will close.

Again these analogies are flawed because they literally don't require action. But that is clearly not the case in so many instances.

The fire fighter does not do nothing when he sees a burning building, nor does he go running to the building out of subconscious instinct.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's a mall technicality Wicknight. Something which brings about salvation by grace alone (for which there are good reasons)

I'm curious is this something you have actually worked out from base principles, or is it doctrine you have simply accepted because it is in the Bible?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is no attempt to address the IF God exists AND reveals himself to antiskeptic THEN antiskeptic knows God exists argument here, Sam. You're wandering off into irrelevant (and well-trodden) territories

Two posibilities (well more than 2 but for the sake of argument)

• God exists and has altered antiskeptics brain so he knows God exists
  
• God isn't real and biology has altered antiskeptics brain so he thinks God exists when he really doesn't

Given that from your perspective both of these possibilities results in the same out come, how you tell one from the other?

And if you can't tell one from the other, how can you say God has revealed himself to you?

This is the corner stone of knowledge, the idea that we can differentiate between explanations. But both explanations give the exact same result, so how can one be demonstrated to you?

Goes back to what I was saying about God revealing himself as a tree that you cannot tell apart from another tree.

Someone says to you that tree over there is God. You go examine the tree and it looks like every other tree

Now, assume it is God. Has God revealed himself to you? No, of course not because you can't tell the difference between the God tree and every other tree.

But now imagine you say "That just looks like a tree", and the person says If it is God are you saying God can't be a tree? If God exists can he not reveal himself to you as a tree? Would you pay much stock to that? Would you think, yes that is right, God can reveal himself as a tree (if he exists), and then assume God has revealed himself to you as a tree?

The same principle holds. God might have altered your brain to make you believe he exists, but I imagine your brain looks identical to the brain of everyone else with the naturally occurring tendency to believe supernatural human like agents exist in the world.

So God has "revealed" himself to you in a manner that you can't tell the difference between God and a naturally occurring phenomena, the same as if he appeared as a tree that looks like every other tree.

Sam Vimes

Also antiskeptic, what we're doing here is trying to determine whether or not god has revealed himself to you. you say that given the following assumptions you can be certain that he has:

All I need is:

a) for God to exist

b) God to decide to reveal himself to me

Once God satisfies those conditions then I will know. And that knowledge is knowledge - not conviction.

So you are concluding that god has revealed himself to you based on the assumption that god has revealed himself to you. Of course we both know that an argument that assumes it's own conclusion is commonly known as a circular argument and is a logical fallacy. If we don't begin with the assumption that god has revealed himself to you the whole argument falls apart because it's possible to be absolutely certain that god has revealed himself to you whether he has or not. Your level of certainty, what you think you "know" is irrelevant.

I am now going to "prove" by the same method you're using that god has not revealed himself to you.

All I need is:

a) for god not to exist

b) for god not to reveal himself to people, what with not existing and all

Once these conditions are satisfied then I will know that god has not revealed himself to you. And that knowledge is knowledge - not conviction. That's right antiskeptic, I have "proved" that god has not revealed himself to you by assuming that he has not revealed himself to you just as you have "proved" that he has revealed himself to you by assuming that he has revealed himself to you