Do you struggle with your religion.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

What do you mean by 'ordinary sense of the word'. Can I hazard a guess that you mean empirically known & testable & demonstrable to all? If so, can I ask you what category of knowing, knowing what you are thinking occupies since this is unknowable in that ordinary sense of the word.

I mean God does not fall into the same category of "I know it is raining but of course I can't know for sure because I might be a jar in a box"

The point I think a few people are missing is that God by definition is something that is untestable. And not simply in the way that everything is ultimately untestable to an absolute point. But untestable in any shape or form.

Because God defines how he is perceived we can never determine anything about the true nature of God, because from our point of view there is no such thing.

It is sort of like the Joker in the newest Batman movie. Nearly every scene he gives a new explanation for why he has the scars on his face. We, as the audience, have no way of telling which of these stories, if any, is actually true.

The example I used before is imagine the perfect form of the thought experiment "I am not lying"

From our perspective me lying and me not lying is exactly the same.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You seem to be taking a philosophy of knowledge and asserting you know that this philosophy is in fact the case. But as sure as night follows day, you'll have to step outside 'knowable' (the ordinary sense of the word) to know so.

Well now you are getting into how do we know we are not brains in jars. As I said you don't have to go that far.

As has already been said, just because we can't know anything for certain doesn't mean we then know everything to the same degree.

If we assume, for the sake of argument, that reality is as we perceive it, and that God (or a god, just to stop people going back to how Christians define God as if that means anything as to how he will be) exists, we still can't tell anything about him to any accuracy.

We can only know what he presents to us. We have no way of determining if what he present to us is real or not.

It basically comes down to this, How do you know God isn't lying to us.

Theists seem to dismiss this question far too quickly (normally with a who are you to say God is lying type non-response)

Given God controls the universe, a universe where God is lying and a universe where God isn't lying looks indistinguishable.

Now if someone wants to say I don't know God isn't lying to me, but I choose to believe he isn't as a leap of faith, as lmaopml is suggesting, that is fine.

But to me that is like saying on a leap of faith I think M-Theory is real.

It is the difference between what you choose to believe and what you can know.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Can it!

Can it what?

ISAW wrote: »

If you can't admit that scientific empirical representations of epistemological interpretations of ontological positions are not unique then you have a problem with logic.
And i have previously explained all the terms.

That sentence seems to have nothing to do with what I just said?

Again are you reading my posts properly?

ISAW wrote: »

so what? both are ontological positions.

So what what?

So they are unknowable?

What exactly is your point here ISAW?

ISAW wrote: »

You CLAIM it is unknowable ONLY in this epistemology.

Yes? And ... ?

ISAW wrote: »

good . go away then.

Can you please not be so rude. You engaged me, I didn't engage you.

If you want to discuss something by all means (this is after all a discussion board).

If you just want to be insulting perhaps you should remember the old adage If you have nothing nice to say ...

ISAW wrote: »

i have pointed out that all your argument amounts to is "you may believe that but what if your are wrong?"

Then you aren't paying attention.

ISAW wrote: »

One can NOT prove alternative ontology no more than one can prove God in the first place!

No one is attempting to "prove" anything.

If you are not going to have the decency to read my posts properly could you kindly stop insulting me.

ISAW wrote: »

you assume Christ is a shapeshifter!

Groan

ISAW wrote: »

So what? nor can you empirically test if God exists! that doies not mean that because you can not measure it in SI units that you can conclude that mothers do not love their children!

What? Mothers do not love their children? Where the heck did that come from and what the heck does that have to do with anything?

You seem to be having a completely different conversation that me. Calm down, stop insulting me and telling me to go away, go back and read my posts properly, and then if you want come back and ask a proper question. Otherwise this is pointless because you apparently aren't following me at all and I can tell you for certain I'm not following you.

ISAW wrote: »

NO GOD CAN'T!

God can't lie because Christians believe he can't lie? I don't think you have thought that one through very well.

I believe my girlfriend isn't going to cheat on me, does that mean she can't cheat on me, or only mean that if she does that means she isn't my girlfriend?

lmaopml

Wicknight wrote: »

I never got this type of argument.

I could have a "leap of faith" that string theory is accurate, but that to most people would be just silly.

Why is God any different?

If we can't determine which version of string theory is accurate or not it makes sense to say we don't know.

Why is God any different?

Ultimately it comes down to humans modelling the world in our own heads and trying to figure out what is or is not an accurate model.

I could say the model of string theory is accurate, but most people would correctly point out that I lack the ability to determine this.

Equally we lack the ability to determine very much at all about God. We can accept as is what we are told by books like the Bible, but we can't determine how accurate these are. We can, as you say, go on a leap of faith, and simply to choose what to believe.

But all that to me seems a silly as assuming a particular version of string theory is accurate just because it explains things.

Hi Wicknight,

To cut to the chase, rather than having a long drawn out and rather endless debate.........quite simply, because one is the investigation from a human perspective of our origins, and where we're going to end up, and the limits of same; as you so aptly demonstrate yourself - by your correct assumption that we can only determine what is most likely...or theorise about it, and some decide to follow particle physics and some decide their life work is written in the stars and planets or nice fluid mathematics........and some love the M theory that joins everything together but can't be proved and sounds like a pile to me...

Faith is entirely different, and I know it is confusing and can piddle ye off cause there are so many.....but it's different because it's not part of the naturalistic or cosmological or even quantum realm of discovery...It's not part of discovering anything about flesh blood and bones, evolution etc. etc.

It's quite simply a 'leap of faith'....Three simple words. It leaves you open to ridicule, but hey what doesn't??? shyt happens!

I'm happy with mine ...

No excuses.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Faith is entirely different, and I know it is confusing and can piddle ye off cause there are so many.....but it's different because it's not part of the naturalistic or cosmological or even quantum realm of discovery...It's not part of discovering anything about flesh blood and bones, evolution etc. etc.

Well if God exists that is a fact of reality. If God is reality that is a fact of reality. What God is, his nature, is a fact of reality. etc etc

So really these things are not as dissimilar as some like to pretend. There is no reason why you wouldn't use the logic of the philosophy of science in all areas.

lmaopml wrote: »

It's quite simply a 'leap of faith'....Three simple words. It leaves you open to ridicule, but hey what doesn't??? shyt happens!

But what is the point of taking a leap of faith just with God? What not take a leap of faith with quantum mechanics, or evolutionary biology?

The reason people don't do this is simply because it matters more if you are wrong.

lmaopml

I don't think it's because it matters more if your wrong Wicknight!

One of my favourite sayings before I had a nugget of 'faith' was; 'The only thing the dead know is that it's better to be alive'....

Anyway, I don't think most people only take a leap of faith with God in particular...I think we learn to take leaps of faith everyday, in particular the person whom we pick to live our lives with...or our friends we trust etc. etc. or even 'when to buy a house...' .....it's all on the same spectrum, but not quite as distinct as faith in God....I get that...

Ye know, it's not so unfamiliar to us......it's just something that has become an alien concept with all the noise of intellect...

Imo of course, and I know very little to be honest....

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

I don't think it's because it matters more if your wrong Wicknight!

Not really. My computer isn't going to stop working because your god doesn't exist but the Hindu one does. You can go your entire life believing in one god over another and that will cause no practical problems in your life. The same can't be said if you choose to believe in an inaccurate theory of electricity.

This is why there is one theory of electro-magnatisim, one theory of general relativity, one theory of atomic structure, one theory of dna replication.

And why there are hundreds of thousands of religions. You can go your entire life believing the wrong religion and it will have very little negative impact on your life

lmaopml wrote: »

Anyway, I don't think most people only take a leap of faith with God in particular...I think we learn to take leaps of faith everyday, in particular the person whom we pick to live our lives with...or our friends we trust etc. etc. or even 'when to buy a house...' .....it's all on the same spectrum, but not quite as distinct as faith in God....I get that...

But with humans it is a bit different though. We have the ability to assess people and people, unless they are very good con men, don't have the ability to completely control how they come across or what information we learn about them externally to their control.

If they did we would be a lot more cautious about how we interact with people.

You often hear people say to one another "But you don't know anything about him/her". What that tends to mean is that you don't know anything about him or her except what they themselves have told you themselves and you haven't verified that information externally to them yet.

So we do actually tend to be quite naturally wary of people until we can in some way confirm they are telling accurate information about themselves.

Which, obviously, we can't with God.

But, some what like what I said above, it is different because here on Earth if you do this you risk being taken advantage of, where as there is again little downside to believing in God even if he turns out to not be what he claims to be.

There is no practical down side to this until you are supposed to be going into heaven and find out you don't. But obviously this happens after you are dead so no one else sees this result.

No one goes See! See! I told people to be careful about trusting deities without verifying what they say

But that doesn't make the logic any sounder.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

I never got this type of argument.

I could have a "leap of faith" that string theory is accurate, but that to most people would be just silly.

Not necessarily. some scientists "believe in" memetics, string theory, the stady state universe, The Big Bang, Multiple universes.

Why is God any different?

In the sense that one may believe in something one can't prove? Who claimed God is different?

If we can't determine which version of string theory is accurate or not it makes sense to say we don't know.

If we can't determine whether God exists or whether Christianity is more correct than shamanism for example then it makes sense to say we can't empirically prove Christianity. however we can scientifically examine some elements of Christianity such as historicity of jesus or hermenutics and compare that to say Mormonism and we can rationally compare Christianity for example to Jehovas Witnessess views.

Why is God any different?

Did someone claim a particular christian believe in God was?

Ultimately it comes down to humans modelling the world in our own heads and trying to figure out what is or is not an accurate model.

Ultimately empirical science comes down to that. But, even in science that brings in the ontological problem. If we all construct a separate model in our head we run into problems of the implication of communicating or learning abut what the actual thing is. never the less that is NOT to say there isn't a REAL thing there is it? Or what of it exists apart from us ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_universals

I could say the model of string theory is accurate, but most people would correctly point out that I lack the ability to determine this.

But if you had the formal language training i.e. mathematics you could derive a solution to say the equations of general theory of relativity which describes the universe in which we live. Very few things in science offer this pure an explaination. the vast majority are reliant on the "personal construct" you mention above. AS such we negotiate what reality is and
socially "construct knowledge".

Personally I am not a sociological constructivist. I am more old school in the "science actually measures something that is there" sense. But you one the one hand adopt constructivsm and on the other objectivism or positivism. You cant have it both ways! Yu can't say knowledge is objectively measures by science and then say all knowledge is personally subjective!

Equally we lack the ability to determine very much at all about God.

In an objective/empirical/scientific measurement way! It doesn't really make any sence though to determine the Mass (in kilogrammes) of God does it? It is a bit like angles on the head of a pin. Philosophy tackled that in the middle ages.

We can accept as is what we are told by books like the Bible, but we can't determine how accurate these are. We can, as you say, go on a leap of faith, and simply to choose what to believe.

But all that to me seems a silly as assuming a particular version of string theory is accurate just because it explains things.

funny then how the Big Bang cosmologists make such a joke of "steady state" people like Hoyle and Burbridge then isn't it? that assume that they are right and Burbridge is ostracised.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Can it what?

Put it in a can!
You have been shown several times now
Roughly

Ontology - there is what is
Epistemology - There is how me know about what is
empiricism -There is how we measure it
Telelogy - should we care about it?

You claim that because we cant scientifically measure god we cant prove what god "really " is and there God might be something different or actually be entirely different to what he makes us believe.

It is a childish argument. You have been shown christians don't believe in an unreasonable God. You can't ask them to prove it or can't come back and say "maybe your are wrong"
It is invalid! you can't go to atheists and say "maybe your wrong" and insist they prove there is no God. So just stop with that argument and can it!

That sentence seems to have nothing to do with what I just said?

Really I think it explains exactly what you keep claiming.

You assert if you cannot differentiate between models of reality then you can't determine which one is accurate. that is what you stated

I replied:
You can't admit that scientific empirical representations (accurate) of epistemological interpretations (models) of ontological positions (reality) are not unique ( different) .

If you cant tell the difference then you cant tell if any model is unique or individual.

Which is used to reassert "any interpretation of the world relying on things which cant be empirically tested and confirmed is equally valid" e.g. a version where God is really Satan
first of all this (that they are all equally valid) is nonsense - you have been shown why
Second you have been shown that Christians believe in a particular view . that view is a rational and valid view. constantly saying "but what if that view is wrong" is NOT progressing any discussion.

Again are you reading my posts properly?

I am not going to spoonfeed you. It is clearly exactly in your own words above!

So what what?
There is no difference between someone proclaiming there is a multi verse and someone proclaiming God loves us, as both of these facts are unknowable.

See above. Just because they are not empirically testable does not mean they are not UNIQUE ontological positions! We can't empirically prove God. People believe God exists. Others believe God does not exist. so what they have two DIFFERENT beliefs. they believe in DIFFERENT things whether or not they can prove them or measure them. Your constant harping back to "you can't prove god does exist" or "you can't prove god doesn't exist" or "maybe a different god exists" is just tiresome. Christians believe in a particular God.

Yes? And ... ?

You CLAIM it is unknowable ONLY in this epistemology. to an atheist empirical scientist god doesn't exist because ther is no scientific proof. So what? that is NOT the Christian view!

Can you please not be so rude. You engaged me, I didn't engage you.

so what? I pointed out to you several times now that Christians believe in a benevolent rational God, and theyu do so from a rational perspective. "but maybe they are wrong. maybe Satan is really God" isn't an argument anymore! Can that argument and move on already! If you can't move on and can only keep harping back to "maybe there are other interpretations which are equally as valid" then go away! This discussion isnt about other interpretations or attributing exual validity to other interpretations. it is about the christian interpretation!

If you just want to be insulting perhaps you should remember the old adage If you have nothing nice to say ...

Yes if you have nothing to say about Christianity and can only come up with "non christian views are equally as valid and should be discussed equally " then please shut up or go away.

If a Biblical fundamentalist comes to the "creationism" debate and calls for equal time in schools for creationism on the science course you would be the first person to claim it is ludicrous wouldnt you? YOU would be the one claiming the flying spaghetti monster and a whole host of "other interpretations" don't gast awarded equal time.

Well then? If science class can discuss evolutiona nad leave creationism elsewhere Why do you think a board on Christianity should have to discuss all the other interpretations equally?



Then you aren't paying attention.

"you may believe that but what if your are wrong?" is constantly re entered!

"if you cannot differentiate between models of reality then you can't determine which one is accurate." amounts to the same thing!

you harp back to "well God could be an evil god"
You seem to lack the understanding that that is not the ontological position of Christianity!
One can NOT prove alternative ontology no more than one can prove God in the first place!

Put simply you have been shown what christians believe and they dont have to empirically prove it! Their is however evidence of the non empirical kind.

If you are not going to have the decency to read my posts properly could you kindly stop insulting me.

I only asked you that if you are going to harp on about other interpretations in a discussion on Christianity then either shut up or go away.

What? Mothers do not love their children? Where the heck did that come from and what the heck does that have to do with anything?

It has to do with "evidence" of the non empirical kind!

You seem to be having a completely different conversation that me. Calm down, stop insulting me and telling me to go away, go back and read my posts properly, and then if you want come back and ask a proper question. Otherwise this is pointless because you apparently aren't following me at all and I can tell you for certain I'm not following you.

apparently you aren't. Christianity is rooted in rationality. Other interpretations are not to be discussed equally here. The is evidence for "love" which is not empirically measurable.

God can't lie because Christians believe he can't lie? I don't think you have thought that one through very well.

God could lie but wont because he is good and rational. Mothers likewise love their children and dont burn them alive unless they are irrational or evil.

I believe my girlfriend isn't going to cheat on me, does that mean she can't cheat on me, or only mean that if she does that means she isn't my girlfriend?

What do you mean by "cheat"? According to what non cheating standard do you define it?

Your girlfriend isn't God. Your girlfriend is subject to human imperfection and might cheat. The definition of "cheat" has to have a backdrop which defines a cheater in relation to something that doesn't ever cheat. that moral backdrop is shared with God.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Put it in a can!
...
It is a childish argument.
...
please shut up or go away.

If you can't discuss this in a civilized manner I don't seem much point continuing to engage with you.

It speaks volumes for the quality of your argument though, when in doubt shout the other person down :rolleyes:

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Not quite.

Fanny asserted that if a Christian does this they are dishonest. I asserted that Christians (and others) do this.

I personally don't think dishonesty has anything to do with it, but it was the phrase Fanny was using, which is why I put it in quotes.

I've just seen this. Please understand that I'm not having a go at you, but I wish you wouldn't presume to speak for me, especially when you aren't accurately representing my position. I never claimed that if a "Christian does this they are dishonest".

The reason I withdrew from this debate was because it wasn't going anywhere. I alluded to this in my "5-page special" remark. To be perfectly honest, I have bigger fish to fry, and more weighty issues are pressing down on me. Therefore I didn't want to get into another long debate, especially when it appears that our opinions on truth are predicated upon our very different beliefs about God's existence. I don't appreciate the pointed remarks and complaints that suggest I somehow forced you into joining this debate. You expanded on one of Canis Lupus' posts and I replied to it.

You talk about the multiverse and compare the uncertainty of its existence with God. I reject the comparison. The concept of a multiverse is born of science - albeit a controversial extrapolation of it - and if it is ever to be answered it will be through science. My stated position that we can't know about the existence or non-existence of the multiverse is based entirely on the knowledge of others. I don't know my quantum foam from my hyperspatial links, and I don't pretend to either. Maybe tomorrow a portal into an alternate universe will open in my closet.

On the other hand, we have God, a being that is not a scientific concept, nor is there any express reason why he should be testable by and subject to the rigours of science. (I suspect we will disagree about this.) To use theological language: one is caused, the other is an uncaused cause, a Prime Mover. One has no obvious impact on my life, the other has a considerable impact. For example, even from the point of finance, my net spend on investigating all things multiverse is zero. My net spend on books that help me understand a little more about God is a quite a bit more.

You might tell me that we can't know anything about God, and this is an interesting dogmatic assertion coming from a position of experiential ignorance about the Divine, but I hope you realise that next time I gather together with people in church to praise God your words wont register.

I'm definitely out of this debate.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

If you can't discuss this in a civilized manner I don't seem much point continuing to engage with you.

I have to agree with WK. Please try and approach this with a little less vigour.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

but I hope you realise that next time I gather together with people in church to praise God your words wont register.

I don't really care Fanny, if people don't want to listen to me that is fine. I'm not sitting here saying Why is PDN not listening to me?? Why is Excelsor not replying?? Why is BC ignoring me??

All I ask is that people don't engage with me and then after they have had their say imply that I'm being some how trouble-some or derailing threads for continuing the discussion. It is quite annoying.

philologos

Wicknight, your assumption that we cannot know anything about God is very much a limited one when you are discussing with Christians who believe that God has revealed Himself to people over time.

If it is true, that God has revealed Himself, and that we can enter into a relationship with Him, your point about being unable to know is nullified.

Repeating this sentence over and over won't help anything. Rather you must try to tackle the underlying issue which is actually whether or not the God exists in the first place to reveal this to us. Or indeed, if He has in the first place.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Wicknight, your assumption that we cannot know anything about God is very much a limited one when you are discussing with Christians who believe that God has revealed Himself to people over time.

I agree, but is more your issue than mine. I'm simply explaining the logic, what you do with it is up to you.

Jakkass wrote: »

If it is true, that God has revealed Himself, and that we can enter into a relationship with Him, your point about being unable to know is nullified.

Depends on how you define relationship.

You don't have to know anything about God for God (assuming he exists) to effect you or interact with you.

We discovered and understood radiation 100 years ago, but radiation was effecting humans for millions of years.

And there are probably elements in nature that are effecting us that we may never be able to know anything about due to their nature.

For example it is possible we will never know anything more about Dark Matter than it is some how interacting with us on a gravity level (we don't actually know dark matter is even matter, that is just a place holder term).

That doesn't mean something doesn't exist that is interacting with us, simply that we lack the ability to determine anything about it. We may figure out a way of doing this, but equally we may not.

Would everyone here not thing it would be odd for someone to say "I have faith that dark matter are negative neutrinos"?

Jakkass wrote: »

Rather you must try to tackle the underlying issue which is actually whether or not the God exists in the first place to reveal this to us. Or indeed, if He has in the first place.

Not really. That is sort of like saying before we can tackle can we know what happened before the big bang we must establish what happened before the big bang.

lmaopml

Wicknight wrote: »

I agree, but is more your issue than mine. I'm simply explaining the logic, what you do with it is up to you.

Going out on a limb here to try to see exactly what the point is of the twist this discussion has taken..It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that there is a determination to tag and bag all people who believe in
God, or have faith into a 'set' of people with one particular common denominator, or attribute...a massive job considering how narrow that parameter is..

The yardstick being used is 'logic and reason'...but only in the Scientific application...

..and the wholly dissappointing point of the 'mission' is that ....'Faith in God, is not rational or reasonable, and I'm going to point it out so that you know........'...Am I right?

What I don't understand is, why would anybody assign themselves such a mission, and still claim to be logical and reasonable when it's quite clear that it's doomed to failure because people don't use scientific disciplin to
make every decision in life, and it's also true that doing so would limit us and our potential. It's a bit of a contradiction in terms..and seems rather
pointless and fruitless...and not a very rational cause...

The truth is, that I don't know a single person who lives their lives based wholly and measurably using an underlying scientific disciplin as the only rule of thumb..
The persistent assumption here is that people of faith are making a scientific statement, even though it's quite
obvious that they aren't...and they must be blue in the face saying it..lol......it's also true that they are fully functioning human beings who use their 'logic and reason' no less than
their counterparts who don't have faith.....and still have an extra dimension to their being...

For most people of faith this is working out nicely...Yes there are weirdos and wackos everywhere, but they aren't exclusively religious - I think that's spread out fairly evenly across humanity...

I don't know a single Christian who would claim to 'know' everything, or make a claim that God is scientifically
demonstratable across various different mindsets....

..so while the 'point' being made is true in the universe where scientific disciplin is the only disciplin allowed....

..the bases of making that point is built on a very shaky worldview that is not part of the reality of the
human condition that we see around us everyday....


I think the ability to compartmentalise 'logic and reason' and 'faith' in ones life is not something to be particularly ashamed of.....I would see being able to compartmentalise life and draw on the tools of logic and
reason or faith and inspiration when they are required as something to be wholly and totally proud of...

So I guess, agree to disagree is best for now....considering none of us know everything anyway..

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

What I don't understand is, why would anybody assign themselves such a mission, and still claim to be logical and reasonable when it's quite clear that it's doomed to failure because people don't use scientific disciplin to
make every decision in life, and it's also true that doing so would limit us and our potential. It's a bit of a contradiction in terms..and seems rather
pointless and fruitless...and not a very rational cause...

I guess it comes down to how bothered you are.

I agree entirely that if someone comes to me and says "I was out last night and I saw Colin Farrel" I don't whip out a bunson burner and start trying to test that claim to a scientific standard.

But equally I'm perfectly happy with the idea that the person might be wrong. I don't care that much if it is true or not

While I'm not apply scientific reasoning I can though make some rough estimates. Colin Farrel appears to be a live. He is from Ireland so the idea that he is in Ireland is not unusual. etc etc

But again I'm perfectly happy with the idea that this is flawed. I wouldn't dare assert to a high level of accuracy that Colin Farrel was in Dublin last night. Other explanations, such as my friend was mistaken, are valid as well.

I'm accepting on face value the claim without rigorously studying it not because I'm happy to accept what I know based on such a low level of examination but simply because I'm not that bothered if I'm wrong. On the other hand if someone had a gun to my head I certainly wouldn't say "I know my friend Sarah saw Colin Farrel cause she told me so!". I've no way of assessing if it actually happened or not, and there are plenty of explanations that could explain why she thinks she did but didn't actually.

So when people say it is silly to try and apply science to the question of God I agree with that only if people aren't that bothered about it.

It is when people get quite bothered about it (I'm sure a lot of Christians would claim to still know God exists when they have a gun to their head) that this seems like an odd stance to take.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

I mean God does not fall into the same category of "I know it is raining but of course I can't know for sure because I might be a jar in a box"

"I know what I was thinking a few seconds ago" doesn't fall into the category of "I know it is raining" either. Yet I know what I was thinking a few seconds ago.

The point I think a few people are missing is that God by definition is something that is untestable. And not simply in the way that everything is ultimately untestable to an absolute point. But untestable in any shape or form.

God can demonstrate he exists. All he has to do is turn on a sense in us that detects God and we'll detect him.

I think where you err is in your supposing that a philosophy which suggests empirical testing the only way to ascertain fact (as opposed to subjective observation) is itself fact. It isn't: I mean, you know what you thought a few seconds ago - but can't test for it.

Because God defines how he is perceived we can never determine anything about the true nature of God, because from our point of view there is no such thing.

It is true that God could be lying about his not being capable of lying. It is true that you wife could be faking her love for you (supposing you married). Inability to determine truth absolutely (which would require us to be God ourselves) doesn't prevent the world going round.

Well now you are getting into how do we know we are not brains in jars. As I said you don't have to go that far.

Who said anything about brains in jars? What I was suggesting is that there is no testing for knowing what we think. Yet we know what we think. It's a clear example of where your empirical philosophy breaks down (quite apart from it stating non-empirically demonstrable "facts" - such as itself being the only way to knowledge)

As has already been said, just because we can't know anything for certain doesn't mean we then know everything to the same degree.

If we assume, for the sake of argument, that reality is as we perceive it, and that God (or a god, just to stop people going back to how Christians define God as if that means anything as to how he will be) exists, we still can't tell anything about him to any accuracy.

We can only know what he presents to us. We have no way of determining if what he present to us is real or not.

Oh dear...

If God exists (as Christians present him to be) then he is the one who equips us with means whereby we decide upon the accuracy of what we know. Which leads you to a self-refuting statement.

You've just suggested that God (if he exists) has equiped us so as to conclude we can't accurately tell anything about him. But if (necessarily) claiming this an accurate suggestion, then we can indeed tell something accurate about God, namely: he has equipped us with the inability to be accurate regarding him - when we've just been accurate regarding him...

It basically comes down to this, How do you know God isn't lying to us.

How do you know your wife isn't lying to you? Well you don't - not absolutely. It seems to me that no one is really concerned with irrelevancies such as the inability to have absolute knowledge. The real world gets on with the business of living based on what it knows to be the case by other means. You do accept you can know your wife/father/mother loves you in a way that makes knowing absolutely that they do an irrelevancy, don't you?



And as should be clear from the above, if God is lying to us then we can't have any degree of certainty about anything - since God is the one supplying the tools (remember this toolbox?) whereby we arrive at degrees of certainty.

lmaopml

Wicknight wrote: »

I guess it comes down to how bothered you are.

I agree entirely that if someone comes to me and says "I was out last night and I saw Colin Farrel" I don't whip out a bunson burner and start trying to test that claim to a scientific standard.

But equally I'm perfectly happy with the idea that the person might be wrong. I don't care that much if it is true or not

While I'm not apply scientific reasoning I can though make some rough estimates. Colin Farrel appears to be a live. He is from Ireland so the idea that he is in Ireland is not unusual. etc etc

But again I'm perfectly happy with the idea that this is flawed. I wouldn't dare assert to a high level of accuracy that Colin Farrel was in Dublin last night. Other explanations, such as my friend was mistaken, are valid as well.

I'm accepting on face value the claim without rigorously studying it not because I'm happy to accept what I know based on such a low level of examination but simply because I'm not that bothered if I'm wrong. On the other hand if someone had a gun to my head I certainly wouldn't say "I know my friend Sarah saw Colin Farrel cause she told me so!". I've no way of assessing if it actually happened or not, and there are plenty of explanations that could explain why she thinks she did but didn't actually.

So when people say it is silly to try and apply science to the question of God I agree with that only if people aren't that bothered about it.

It is when people get quite bothered about it (I'm sure a lot of Christians would claim to still know God exists when they have a gun to their head) that this seems like an odd stance to take.

Hi Wicknight,

I guess I find it odd that it bothers someone so much...There are so many other things to be bothered about...

It's clear that people of faith aren't going anywhere anytime soon, with this in mind, I would imagine an energetic campaign for tolerance and providing a political framework that encourages peace and protects the individuals right to self expression ( so long as it's not harmful obviously ) would be far more worthy of someone who is clearly intelligent like your good self...

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

I guess I find it odd that it bothers someone so much...There are so many other things to be bothered about...

It is not really belief in God per say that bothers me, it is general acceptance of ideas and concept based on poor evidence, pseudo-science, personal asssements, snake oil etc etc.

It is becoming more and more acceptable in society to abandon verification and go simply on personal assessment. That is not just religion, but in all areas of life, from homeopathy to personal angels to ufos. Though religion is obviously the major and most visible one. Religion, since it is so accepted in society, lends these more fringe beliefs an air of respectability. Who are you to tell me my homeopathy isn't going to cure my cancer, sure you believe in a man coming back from the dead! That sort of thing.

I don't think this is good. There is a reason science works, it is precisely because it doesn't do this. If we abandon these principles I think things are only going to get worse

But this is very off topic, and probably not a suitable discussion for the Christianity forum. I would be happy to discuss it further in A&A

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

"I know what I was thinking a few seconds ago" doesn't fall into the category of "I know it is raining" either. Yet I know what I was thinking a few seconds ago.

You do, but often we find we have trouble remembering things, say for example, when we are drunk

Would it not be reasonable for you to question what you remembered if you were drunk or on drugs?

We know the human mind can trick us into believing we are experiencing supernatural events when we aren't (or most likely aren't).

To me that is should make us question how we know we are detecting God, in the same way you should wondered did I actually pay for the taxi last night or did I just think I did.

antiskeptic wrote: »

God can demonstrate he exists. All he has to do is turn on a sense in us that detects God and we'll detect him.

Would you agree thought that any mildly powerful supernatural being can also do this?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think where you err is in your supposing that a philosophy which suggests empirical testing the only way to ascertain fact (as opposed to subjective observation) is itself fact. It isn't: I mean, you know what you thought a few seconds ago - but can't test for it.

As I said there are plenty of times when my confidence of what I think I remember drops pretty low.

We can actually test (both scientifically and just ad-hoc) under what conditions the brain has trouble recalling things accurately, and thus we can build up a good idea of when it is valid to have confidence in your memory and when it isn't.

Again you wouldn't trust your brain under the influence of drugs or alcohol. There are scientific tests to confirm this but most people just realizes it naturally by thinking they did something when drunk and then realizing they didn't, thus slowly coming to the conclusion that it is hard to have confidence in your brain under certain conditions.

Eventually of course we get to the brain in the jar scenario (how do you know you were drunk last night in order to determine you shouldn't have confidence in your memories)

But the point is that we don't have to go to that extreme to find situations when it seems sensible not to trust our minds.

Given what we know about triggering supernatural thinking in the brain, I think it is quite sensible to not trust person conclusions about God that you cannot verify externally to your own recall or assessment.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It is true that God could be lying about his not being capable of lying. It is true that you wife could be faking her love for you (supposing you married). Inability to determine truth absolutely (which would require us to be God ourselves) doesn't prevent the world going round.

No, but it should cause us to think more about how we verify things, something theists don't seem that bothered about.

My girlfriend could be faking her love for me, and this happens all the time. I would be far more cautious about proclaiming I know my girlfriend loves me than I think your average theist would be about proclaiming they know God loves them, and my girlfriend isn't even a supernatural being.

I'm sure we have all looked back at times when we were in relationships and thought "What was I thinking" when at the time we thought we were madly in love.

This is another example of when it is difficult to trust your personal assessment. If you see a 17 year old couple about to get married who proclaim they know they will love each other for ever and ever most people, through experience, would say slow down and take a few years because you don't know this now but what you feel isn't trust worthy.

antiskeptic wrote: »

What I was suggesting is that there is no testing for knowing what we think. Yet we know what we think. It's a clear example of where your empirical philosophy breaks down (quite apart from it stating non-empirically demonstrable "facts" - such as itself being the only way to knowledge)

But that is like brain in a jar. All empirical tests break down at some point. Logically we can't be certain about everything.

I've no issue with you saying you know you believe in God. It is when theists extrapolate from that to make claim about the existence of God.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If God exists (as Christians present him to be) then he is the one who equips us with means whereby we decide upon the accuracy of what we know. Which leads you to a self-refuting statement.

If God appeared before you you couldn't tell if that was actually God or some equally powerful being pretending to be God.

If God twiddles your neurons so you "know" he exists you can't tell if that was actually God or some equally powerful being pretending to be God.

By definition there is no test to determine if one supernatural all powerful being is different to another supernatural all powerful being.

You can say that doesn't bother you, you will worship the one that is God or is pretending to be God because as far as you are concerned that is the same thing (if a person in a shop is nice to you because they want to be nice to you or simply because they are being paid to be nice to you, they are still nice to you and the end result is the same)

It is the problem with the supernatural, everything instantly goes to brain in a jar levels.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You've just suggested that God (if he exists) has equiped us so as to conclude we can't accurately tell anything about him. But if (necessarily) claiming this an accurate suggestion, then we can indeed tell something accurate about God, namely: he has equipped us with the inability to be accurate regarding him

No we can't say that because you have inserted the clause (if he exists), which is an assumption not something you have determined.

If it happens to be true we got lucky, we didn't determine it.

You can claim something and that may be true. And obviously if it is true it is true. But that is not the same thing as determining it is true.

If I pick the winning lotto numbers my ticket is the true numbers. But that is luck. I didn't determine what the numbers were going to be and then write them down.

If you define "God" and then that happens to be what God is like that is not the same thing as determining that is what God is like.

antiskeptic wrote: »

How do you know your wife isn't lying to you? Well you don't - not absolutely.

Forget absolutely, I don't to any strong degree of confidence at all. Wives lie to their husbands all the time.

I can try and verify her claims and try and determine if she is lying to me, but then it is difficult to tell if she is lying or merely mistaken.

I can shove her under a cat scan and try and see if the imagination parts of the brain light up. But that would probably lead to divorce.

So, like I was saying to lmaopml, it comes down to how bothered you are and how badly do you want to know.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It seems to me that no one is really concerned with irrelevancies such as the inability to have absolute knowledge.

If that was true you wouldn't be typing on this keyboard because no one would have figured out how electricity works.

That is something where people are bothered to know because an inaccurate assumption leads to no practical use (where as assuming your life isn't lying even though she might be does)

I would have thought that theism would be something people would be bothered to know, but the more I talk to you guys the less that seems to be the case. It seems to be more on the lines of your wife not lying to you, lets assume it is true because it is better if we do.

antiskeptic wrote: »

And as should be clear from the above, if God is lying to us then we can't have any degree of certainty about anything - since God is the one supplying the tools (remember this toolbox?) whereby we arrive at degrees of certainty.

Now you are getting it. So why do religions proclaim "truths" about God and religion? Why don't they just say we don't know?

Fanny Cradock

One of my gripes with my beloved iTouch is that when you sometimes scroll down the screen to get to other files it will detect your movement as a double tap which starts playing your music or whatever. Still, in this case the double tap happened onto an interesting talk form Tim Keller entitled Finding God: Seasons of spiritual dryness and disillusionment. This talk deals with Psalm 42-43. In many respects I happen to think Mother Teresa's doubts mirror those experienced by the Psalmist.

I also not that there is another talk from Keller entitled Doubt: What should I do with my doubts? (Actually, you can download 47 talks from Keller at this link)

lmaopml

Wicknight wrote: »

It is not really belief in God per say that bothers me, it is general acceptance of ideas and concept based on poor evidence, pseudo-science, personal asssements, snake oil etc etc.

It is becoming more and more acceptable in society to abandon verification and go simply on personal assessment. That is not just religion, but in all areas of life, from homeopathy to personal angels to ufos. Though religion is obviously the major and most visible one. Religion, since it is so accepted in society, lends these more fringe beliefs an air of respectability. Who are you to tell me my homeopathy isn't going to cure my cancer, sure you believe in a man coming back from the dead! That sort of thing.

I don't think this is good. There is a reason science works, it is precisely because it doesn't do this. If we abandon these principles I think things are only going to get worse

But this is very off topic, and probably not a suitable discussion for the Christianity forum. I would be happy to discuss it further in A&A

Hi Wicknight,

I don't think it needs to be dragged on; I'm really good at keeping things fairly short, so long as the mods don't mind....

I know there is a reason why science works, I understand that entirely...

I can 'kinda' see where you are coming from in the sense that I used to think there was an ultimate way of thinking too.....or that others should really think the same way...and it was so dangerous to humanity etc. etc. to open the floodgates to airy fairy thought...

Ok, to make a long story short, I think I totally underestimated my fellow Christians...I always thought I was fighting something, but found out the reality was entirely different to my preconceptions....I had to get over myself a bit now, and to be honest I still am.....but it gave me a brand new respect for humanity and the many different ways we perceive things...

There is a magnificent beauty to Christianity the likes of which I never expected to encounter..

I am still learning, and although some Christians are dissappointing, I'm certainly not sorry I started.......but it's really hard....it can be displayed all over this board.....but it's so beatifully human too....

lmaopml

Thanks for the links Fanny Cradock. Tim seems like a very nice man, I read his book where he deals with doubt some time ago; and coined the phrase....'doubt the doubters'... can't remember the name now, but I enjoyed it...

I'll enjoy hearing more from him..

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Hi Wicknight,

I don't think it needs to be dragged on; I'm really good at keeping things fairly short, so long as the mods don't mind....

I know there is a reason why science works, I understand that entirely...

I can 'kinda' see where you are coming from in the sense that I used to think there was an ultimate way of thinking too.....or that others should really think the same way...and it was so dangerous to humanity etc. etc. to open the floodgates to airy fairy thought...

Ok, to make a long story short, I think I totally underestimated my fellow Christians...I always thought I was fighting something, but found out the reality was entirely different to my preconceptions....I had to get over myself a bit now, and to be honest I still am.....but it gave me a brand new respect for humanity and the many different ways we perceive things...

There is a magnificent beauty to Christianity the likes of which I never expected to encounter..

I am still learning, and although some Christians are dissappointing, I'm certainly not sorry I started.......but it's really hard....it can be displayed all over this board.....but it's so beatifully human too....

Not quite following

Are you saying you realised it wasn't dangerous to open the flood gates to airy fairy thought or that you realised Christianity was an except and wasn't airy fairy?

lmaopml

Hi Wicknight,

Essentially I think I recognised the endless hope in accepting a possibility at first...I knew I would be criticised for it; but decided that it didn't particularly matter, as I had a 'right' to persue the possibility of God...and couldn't believe that I had spent my time denying that to others.....

I had a personal philosophy that was as deep as a peanut on the issue of God, and a preconceived notion of that belief and of people who believe that still makes me blush..

I also realised that in accepting this, it didn't compromise my ability to ration and reason without spiralling out of all rational control...lol...

..and like I said, I don't make excuses...it is subjective and personal and I've found it ( on a personal note ) to be rather more enriching since I found my faith...

I don't believe anymore that there is a 'way' of thinking that is ultimate and superior that can be assigned across the board with humanity; and should be adherred to in all things....It was fruitless and empty...There are far more interesting and worthy persuits...

Neither do I believe I know everything there is to know about God either...I'm tentative and greedy about what I take on board or no and whom I listen to....

Anyway, that's that...I know you will probably think it's a pile; but at least I'm being honest