Faith: the evidence of things not seen

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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".

It's not so much my favorite argument as an argument arising out of a fairly widespread claim as to what faith is.

There are explanations as to why it is that other people claim as they do and you'd have to evaluate other things this faith 'theory' says in order to a) discover what those explanations are b) that they harmonize well with the observations.

Isn't that how theories go: see if they can explain the observations and in the measure they do, they are considered sound(er)

You've have to ask him

I think I know the reason why Richard set a strawman on fire instead. He'd be one of those "contradictory beliefs" I was talking about above. An observation that fits the theory perfectly.

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............

Firstly, I'm not sure that other world religions have a personal God who turns up (as it were). Islam doesn't. Roman Catholicism doesn't (in that it accomodates large numbers of people who claim no personal tete a tete with God). Neither does Hinduism as far as I can tell. That said, a person can say they are convinced as convinced can be that their god exists. And there are many who claim personal experience of God just as I do.

How is this?

Well (when speaking of those who actually claim personal revelation), Satan is described as being able to manifest as an "angel of light" and be capable of "signs and wonders" that would lead astray even the elect (Christians). We see in Old Testament times that members of Pharoahs court were able to counter Mose's supernatural efforts with their own in a kind of magical shootout at the OK Corral. So I'd suspect him behind things mainly.

None of which, I hasten to add, affects the position presented: "IF God then..."

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Also antiskeptic, what we're doing here is trying to determine whether or not god has revealed himself to you.

Why are you trying to do that? I'm not attempting to present anything that could enable you to conclude one way or the other. This isn't about proving God. It's about dismantling various atheist/agnostic positions.

For example: the agnostic position "I cannot know God exists" is dismantled by

a) If God exists

b) ..and reveals himself to you

c) ..then you would know God exists.

You'll appreciate (hopefully) by now, the futility of appealing to empiricism as a defence against God's personal revealation (empiricism being an invention of God in the case he exists)

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.

There you go again: finding a form of words that sidesteps the statements made so as to turn them into something else. I don't "conclude because.. based on an assumption.." (what a mangled sentence!). Rather, if I know God exists it is because he does. If he doesn't then what I'm left with isn't knowledge, it's something else. There is no circular involved in a straight line. It's either/or.

So how do I decide? Well I don't decide - anymore than I decide that I'm not a brain in a jar. Anymore than I decide I exist. Some questions are pointless for there is no means of answering them.

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.

This is a variation on Dawkins 0-7 scale.

Whereas it is possible that a person know that God exists (a 0 score), it is not possible for a person to know he doesn't (a 7 score). The only way you could know God doesn't exist is for you to know everything (which would make you God ).

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

For example: the agnostic position "I cannot know God exists" is dismantled by

a) If God exists

b) ..and reveals himself to you

c) ..then you would know God exists.

That is not true, at least not to the standard most agnostics take.

Again consider the the possibilities

• God exists, he reveals himself to you
• God doesn't exist, something pretending to be God reveals himself to you
• God doesn't exist, no supernatural beings exist, humans are prone to imagining incorrectly that God has revealed himself to you

An agnostic would reasonably say that since he can't tell the difference between these position, since the out come is the exact same, it can't determine which is true and therefore cannot know God exists, even if A is true and the others are false.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

That is not true, at least not to the standard most agnostics take.

I recall presenting you with the problem of agnostics/atheists trying to apply empirical standards to the situation - namely, that God presenting himself empirically (as an agnostic might demand) would involve the agnostic/atheist (now finding themselves) trusting a God-designed method of attaining knowledge.

And if agreeing that they must trust one God-designed method (for God would clearly have designed them so that that 'trust' be something that is evoked in them by it) then they should agree that they would necessarily trust any other God-sourced method designed to produce trust in them.

They should agree that it's not really up to them. They they are subject to what God produces in them

Again consider the the possibilities

Sure..

God exists, he reveals himself to you

In which case all the onus is on God to equip and sustain my knowing (see up top).

God doesn't exist, something pretending to be God reveals himself to you

Okay - but brain in jar territory, which we agree there is no point entertaining.

God doesn't exist, no supernatural beings exist, humans are prone to imagining incorrectly that God has revealed himself to you

Okay. But this statement says there can be no difference between imagining and God actually turning up. Which means the agnostic is saying God cannot demonstrate his existance to people. Which he patently can: I mean, the agnostic must agree he could do so empirically (or admit he can know nothing at all) - which returns us to the top of page.

The breakout of this loop might be found in the limits of imagination. We don't suppose we are falsely imaging our existance or the world around because something in us sits above imagination and pronounces judgement on/evaluates this 'lower' activity. This higher us, isn't imagination - which seems to leave us with the first two possibilities - one of which might be true but isn't worth considering.

Which leaves me left considering only the first possibility. I'm not saying you should consider it the case - because you haven't had the experience.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

There you go again: finding a form of words that sidesteps the statements made so as to turn them into something else. I don't "conclude because.. based on an assumption.." (what a mangled sentence!). Rather, if I know God exists it is because he does. If he doesn't then what I'm left with isn't knowledge, it's something else. There is no circular involved in a straight line. It's either/or.

Ah I think I'm finally understanding what you're saying and in part I agree with you. It is not possible to "know" that god exists unless he exists and has reveladed himself to you. Makes perfect sense. But this is nothing more than semantics. You say that if god hasn't revealed himself to you then "what you're left with isn't knowledge, it's something else". The thing that you're left with is that you think you know he has revealed himself to you. As I said before, people who are mistaken do not know they are mistaken.

You say that Satan can make himself appear as an "angel of light" but if this happened then you wouldn't "know" it was god, because it wasn't. I fully agree with this but you would still think you knew and that's all that matters because thinking you know is indistinguishable from actually knowing

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Okay. But this statement says there can be no difference between imagining and God actually turning up. Which means the agnostic is saying God cannot demonstrate his existance to people. Which he patently can: I mean, the agnostic must agree he could do so empirically (or admit he can know nothing at all) - which returns us to the top of page.

Yeah but you are ignoring how he does it. You don't need to get into brain in a jar territory

He can't demonstrate his existence if it is in a manner that is indistigousable from a natural event. Which is what he is doing in your case

liamw

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which leaves me left considering only the first possibility. I'm not saying you should consider it the case - because you haven't had the experience.

Seriously, why are you ignoring the third possibility? Not only is it a naturalistic explanation but it has science to back it up. Why are you just ruling out this possibility? I don't get it.

Zombrex

1. Assume God exists
2. Assume God created humans
3. If God created humans he made us to rely on empirical testing, demonstrated by how successful that is compared to other methods (one theory of the atom, thousands of religions)
4. Therefore God cannot reveal himself in a manner other than empirical as this would contradict 3.
5. Therefore anyone who experienced the revealed God without empirical testing hasn't.

There pretty simply logic similar to your own antiskeptic that demonstrates God hasn't revealed himself to you

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

1. Assume God exists
2. Assume God created humans
3. If God created humans he made us to rely on empirical testing, demonstrated by how successful that is compared to other methods (one theory of the atom, thousands of religions)
4. Therefore God cannot reveal himself in a manner other than empirical as this would contradict 3.
5. Therefore anyone who experienced the revealed God without empirical testing hasn't.

There pretty simply logic similar to your own antiskeptic that demonstrates God hasn't revealed himself to you

I've a bit of a problem calling 3. logic. 3. appears to me to involve an unwarranted assumption. If God made us then all you can say for sure about the empirical nature he equipped us with is that it allows us to deal with the nature of the empirical realm. That we rely on empirical testing says something about the variation possible - both within (our senses) and without (the world around us) which makes it sensible (if desired) to test things.

It says nothing about any other way God might have for dealing with us. Not does it say that such ways need suffer from the problems that the empirical side of things patently does.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

It says nothing about any other way God might have for dealing with us. Not does it say that such ways need suffer from the problems that the empirical side of things patently does.

As Wicknight says, one theory of the atom, thousands of religions. And within those religions, millions of different revelations and billions of different interpretations. Whatever problems empiricism suffers from it terms of reliability, it is clear that personal experience alone suffers from a hell of a lot more.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

If God made us then all you can say for sure about the empirical nature he equipped us with is that it allows us to deal with the nature of the empirical realm.

No quite. He made it so that we can only deal well with the nature of the empirical realm.

If we don't deal with the empirical realm we end up with a whole load of different view points and assessment and no one can figure out properly which is right.

When I say figure out I mean to a level they can figure out other things, like electricity.

There is a huge gulf in how we understand things we can test empirically and things we can't. Things we can't people are basically just going on guesses that they might be right (as you yourself admit)

So he has made us so that we are very bad at figuring out anything we can't measure and test.

That is sourced from God, as you like to put it. It is how God has arranged it. He could have arranged it so that we were very good at personal assessment. He didn't (assuming he exists)

antiskeptic wrote: »

It says nothing about any other way God might have for dealing with us.

Yes it does, because the other ways don't work well, and again that is sourced/determined by God.

It is illogical that God would reveal himself to us in a way he has already made to not work well, as God doesn't do bad things.

Therefore you can conclude that those who believe they have had God reveal himself to them in a manner that is non-empirical, haven't

If we assume God exist we can't then simply ignore how nature is, or how we are. All your arguments earlier in the thread fall apart because you ignore that empirical study itself comes from God.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

That is sourced from God, as you like to put it. It is how God has arranged it. He could have arranged it so that we were very good at personal assessment. He didn't (assuming he exists)

Bit of cart before horse here. When you elevate "empirical objective truth" (a concept in itself riddled with philosophical problems) to the top of how we know about the world then in the hierarchy assessing things the "personal assessment" you refer to is subjective and non empirical. But the hierarchy is YOUR categorisation. You hae decided that empirical "truth" is the greatest form of truth. You can't then say it is God's fault for not arranging something in the way you care to arrange it.

Yes it does, because the other ways don't work well, and again that is sourced/determined by God.

Again "work well" according to objective empirical standards.

It is illogical that God would reveal himself to us in a way he has already made to not work well, as God doesn't do bad things.

Again where does God say objective empirical truth is "well"?

Therefore you can conclude that those who believe they have had God reveal himself to them in a manner that is non-empirical, haven't

according to testable criteria of objective empirical truth they haven't. Your point being?

If we assume God exist we can't then simply ignore how nature is, or how we are.

But epistemological interpretations are not ontological entities.

How we rate the ways about which we know about the nature is not itself nature.

The type of map we make will not change the territory no matter how much better we consider one form of map over another.

All your arguments earlier in the thread fall apart because you ignore that empirical study itself comes from God.

Yes but so what? There are problems with elevating empiricism to lofty heights . the Logical positivists encountered similar problems with logic and reason. Postmodern science was the result of the science wars.

Science itself accepts the critiques just as mathematics isn't sufficient.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Bit of cart before horse here. When you elevate "empirical objective truth" (a concept in itself riddled with philosophical problems)

Why are you quoting that as if I said it?

I didn't, and I agree it is riddled with philosophical problems, but then I never said that

ISAW wrote: »

You hae decided that empirical "truth" is the greatest form of truth.

Well for a start I never said "truth" either (where are you getting these quotes?)

But anyway, what I was talking about is knowledge derived from empirical testing. And I didn't decide that it was a greater form of knowledge than personal assessment, God did.

Which is the point. God (assuming he exists) already decided this, and reality reflects it.

There is no point pretending we live in a reality we don't.

ISAW wrote: »

You can't then say it is God's fault for not arranging something in the way you care to arrange it.

Well yes, that is the point.

You can't blame God just because you can't empirically test for God yet you want to know he exists. What you want is irrelevant.

ISAW wrote: »

Again "work well" according to objective empirical standards.

According to God's standards. He made them after all (we are assuming).

ISAW wrote: »

Again where does God say objective empirical truth is "well"?

He "says" that through reality, through the fact that it does.

Where does God say things fall down? Through the fact that things fall down.
Where does God say planets move around the Sun? Through the fact that they do.
Where does God say that angles in a triangle add up to 180? From the fact that they do.

This is what we were saying to antiskeptic. You can't assume God exists and then ignore the reality around us.

ISAW wrote: »

according to testable criteria of objective empirical truth they haven't.

I don't know what the testanle criteria of objective empirical truth is so you are going to have to explain that one to me.

ISAW wrote: »

How we rate the ways about which we know about the nature is not itself nature.

No, God decides nature. We simply observe what he decided.

ISAW wrote: »

Yes but so what? There are problems with elevating empiricism to lofty heights

We "elevate" empiricism to the height God has decided we can observe it at.

No one is claiming empiricism is perfect, but God has not revealed a better way to us yet.

He has revealed thought that personal assessment is worse than empirical assessment. Where they fall the the scales of worst to perfect of methods is irrelevant once we know that one comes above the other.