Empiricism uber alles?

antiskeptic

Something that has arisen in t'other forum.

A drumbeat objection to the existance of God is the lack of empirical evidence for God. Theists will often attempt to approach the problem indirectly by pointing to arguments that look at what God has (they say) created - as a means of permitting us to infer God. The argument from design, the argument from fine tuning, the argument from morality etc. Aside from the fact that these arguments can be countered, it remains the case that such arguments are always approaching things indirectly. There is no empirical evidence for God himself.

But what if there was empirical evidence for God. What if God boomed down from the sky "It is true what they say - I do exist". What if he wrote "This is God and I wrote the Bible" in impossibly large letters across the sky". If he did, the atheist/agnostic demand for empirical evidence would be satisfied and, barring appeals to brains-in-jars or alien activity, the atheist/agnostic would now believe God exists.

But in his doing so, the atheist/agnostic should immediately realise that the trust he now has that God exists arises out of a method of trust-generation that God himself had designed and installed in humans: namely, Arrival at Knowledge via Empiricism. In other words, God is the one that has caused a phenomenon called 'trust' to arise in these now ex-atheists. And because God has done this, and only because he has done this, they find themselves trusting.

They have been subject to what God has done in them and should also realise that there is no means whereby they can generate this trust for themselves. It's God activity all the way down the line: from design of method of trust-generation to utilisation of method to evoke trust.

So, what if God causes this same level of trust to arise by another method. One that is not empirically based. If so, there can be no talk of one method being better, more trustworthy or more accurate than the other - because both methods would have been designed by God and the trust arising would have been provided by God through either method. The person is passive in both cases and contributes nothing to the trust they would have.

Conclusions/consequences:

it doesn't make a difference whether I trust that God exists because God has revealed it directly (if unempirically) to me or whether I trust that God exists because God writes it across the sky. If God reveals himself then I trust he exists - period.

atheists should realise that this hypothetical situation renders their demand for empirical evidence alone, void. Given that God can use different methods to reveal himself and that one can be as good as the next, they might as well demand that God reveal himself through personal revelation.

atheists like Richard Dawkins should stop dissing faith. Perhaps God hasn't turned up this way. Perhaps he has. It's not only possible, it's as good a way as any if God decides so. Agnosticism would be a safer option on the subject of personal revelation.

Goduznt Xzst

Your whole argument falls to pieces when you realize the majority of Atheists would not "trust" that a being displaying itself as an Omniscient Deity was in fact such.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_Due_(TNG_episode)

sink

That's why they call it faith. You're also engaging in some pretty poor circular reasoning.

I believe God exists -> God designed me to believe in him -> I believe in him so he must exists -> I believe god exists

cavedave

Isn't this the argument about the babelfish in the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy?

God refuses to prove that (S)He exists because proof denies faith and without faith God is nothing.

Man then counters that the Babel fish is a dead giveaway because it could not have evolved by chance. It therefore proves God exists, but by God's own arguments God does not exist.

God realizes (S)He hadn't thought of that and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

antiskeptic

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Your whole argument falls to pieces when you realize the majority of Atheists would not "trust" that a being displaying itself as an Omniscient Deity was in fact such.

Rather than debate a link, could I ask you what they would believe it to be? (given the exclusion of alien activity/brain in jar escape hatches)

antiskeptic

sink wrote: »

That's why they call it faith. You're also engaging in some pretty poor circular reasoning.

I believe God exists -> God designed me to believe in him -> I believe in him so he must exists -> I believe god exists

You seem to have missed dealing with the problem posed the atheist/agnostic (this being the athiest/agnostic forum I thought it'd be a good place to post it). Care to have a bite of the apple?

sink

antiskeptic wrote: »

You seem to have missed dealing with the problem posed the atheist/agnostic (this being the athiest/agnostic forum I thought it'd be a good place to post it). Care to have a bite of the apple?

I don't believe god exists, therefore if he designed me and my environment so that I would believe in him he's done a piss poor job. Very unimpressive for an omnipotent being, which leads me to believe he doesn't exist.

See I can use circular reasoning too.

antiskeptic

Care to have a bite of the apple?

sink wrote: »

I don't believe god exists, therefore if he designed me and my environment so that I would believe in him he's done a piss poor job. Very unimpressive for an omnipotent being, which leads me to believe he doesn't exist.

See I can use circular reasoning too.

Not thus...

NEXXXXT!!!

antiskeptic

cavedave wrote: »

Isn't this the argument about the babelfish in the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy?

No.

cavedave

sink
Quote:
Originally Posted by antiskeptic View Post
You seem to have missed dealing with the problem posed the atheist/agnostic (this being the athiest/agnostic forum I thought it'd be a good place to post it). Care to have a bite of the apple?

I don't believe god exists, therefore if he designed me and my environment so that I would believe in him he's done a piss poor job. Very unimpressive for an omnipotent being, which leads me to believe he doesn't exist

But if everyone believed in god that would not show much evidence of free will would it? You need a certain amount of badness to make good a choice that is worthy of praise.

Oh btw here is an article about the evolution of belief

“Our psychological architecture makes us think in particular ways,” says Bering, now at Queens University in Belfast, Northern Ireland. “In this study, it seems, the reason afterlife beliefs are so prevalent is that underlying them is our inability to simulate our nonexistence.”

antiskeptic

cavedave wrote: »

But if everyone believed in god that would not show much evidence of free will would it? You need a certain amount of badness to make good a choice that is worthy of praise.

Oh btw here is an article about the evolution of belief

“Our psychological architecture makes us think in particular ways,” says Bering, now at Queens University in Belfast, Northern Ireland. “In this study, it seems, the reason afterlife beliefs are so prevalent is that underlying them is our inability to simulate our nonexistence.”

To be honest, I'd like to hear responses on the problem posed by the OP.

Thanks.

sink

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not thus...

NEXXXXT!!!

I'm sorry what is your specific objection? My lack of trust in god is not worthy evidence of his non-existence, but your trust that he exists, is?

Goduznt Xzst

antiskeptic wrote: »

Rather than debate a link, could I ask you what they would believe it to be? (given the exclusion of alien activity/brain in jar escape hatches)

Why are you excluding options? Why can't it be an Alien race?

The religious like to exclude variables from their paradigms. I however do not.

That episode of TNG I linked is a demonstration of Clarkes third law:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

So maybe they can count the hairs on my head, create solar systems, extinguish the sun, rejuvenate my body... how do I know humans won't also have the technology to do this in the future?

antiskeptic

sink wrote: »

I'm sorry what is your specific objection? My lack of trust in god is not worthy evidence of his non-existence, but your trust that he exists, is?

My specific objection is that you are not dealing with the problem posed atheists/agnostics in the OP. You're off topic in other words.

antiskeptic

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Why are you excluding options? Why can't it be an Alien race?

Because if it could be aliens pretending to be God, it could be aliens pretending to be your mother. And aliens pretending to be this computer screen in front of you. All empirical observations fall - not just the empirical observation of God.

Which kicks talk of anything into touch and is thus, a pointless manoevre.

sink

antiskeptic wrote: »

My specific objection is that you are not dealing with the problem posed atheists/agnostics in the OP. You're off topic in other words.

What's the problem? Theists have "faith", atheists don't.

cavedave

antiskeptic

To be honest, I'd like to hear responses on the problem posed by the OP.

Thanks.

Ok here goes. Of course having faith in god requires faith. Thats a tautology.

"Most witches don't believe in gods. They know that the gods exist, of course. They even deal with them occasionally. But they don't believe in them. They know them too well. It would be like believing in the postman."
-- Terry Pratchett, Witches Abroad

And so the atheist/agnostic objection that there is no empirical evidence of God is irrelevant to belief that God exists

Faith in an afterlife has evolutionary explanations (as explained in the article you don't think is relevant). There are many things i can claim exist and only exist because there is no evidence for them but I find that argument silly.

antiskeptic

cavedave wrote: »

Ok here goes. Of course having faith in god requires faith. Thats a tautology.

"Most witches don't believe in gods. They know that the gods exist, of course. They even deal with them occasionally. But they don't believe in them. They know them too well. It would be like believing in the postman."
-- Terry Pratchett, Witches Abroad


Faith in an afterlife has evolutionary explanations (as explained in the article you don't think is relevant). There are many things i can claim exist and only exist because there is no evidence for them but I find that argument silly.

The OP outlines a problem for the atheist/agnostic centred around empirically based knowledge. None of what you say above has anything to do with the problem outlined in the OP.

antiskeptic

sink wrote: »

What's the problem? Theists have "faith", atheists don't.

Sink sunk

cavedave

antiskeptic

The OP outlines a problem for the atheist/agnostic centred around empirically based knowledge. None of what you say above has anything to do with the problem outlined in the OP.

Is the Op making a falsifiable hypothesis? If so could you please state it. Otherwise there is nothing I can argue about so, one must remain silent.

sink

antiskeptic wrote: »

Sink sunk

Thanks for that.

I guess I don't understand what your question is, it's not very clear.

antiskeptic

cavedave wrote: »

Is the Op making a falsifiable hypothesis? If so could you please state it. Otherwise there is nothing I can argue about so, one must remain silent.

The hypothesis that we actually occupy empirical reality is unfalsifiable. It is assumed we do occupy it. That God demonstrates his existance within that empirical reality is just another empirical occurance that we can assume occurs within the overall hypothesis regarding the reality of reality.

Your question belongs to brain-in-jar territory (which being unfalsifable territory) is excluded from the discussion.

antiskeptic

sink wrote: »

I guess I don't understand what your question is, it's not very clear.

Then break it down into pieces. First part poses a question:

But what if there was empirical evidence for God. What if God boomed down from the sky "It is true what they say - I do exist". What if he wrote "This is God and I wrote the Bible" in impossibly large letters across the sky". If he did, the atheist/agnostic demand for empirical evidence would be satisfied and, barring appeals to brains-in-jars or alien activity, the atheist/agnostic would now believe God indeed exists.

Do you agree that if God demonstrates his existance empirically for all to see then the atheist/agnostic would then believe God exists?

sink

antiskeptic wrote: »

Then break it down into pieces. First part poses a question:



Do you agree that if God demonstrates his existance empirically for all to see then the atheist/agnostic would then believe God exists?

Most would yes.

Empiricism makes exactly 2 assumptions.
1. The Universe is consistent.
2. We can observe the universe.

Both assumptions have stood up to all the testing and hypothesising we have done so far.

We know that all the theories about God are inconsistent both internally and with other thoeries.
And we know that God has not and probably cannot be observed.

The examples you give are not the same as "brain in the jar" or Descartes' Demon.
For example take this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wChk5nY3Kzg

It could be a trick.
Or it could be Magic.

Well you could just be a brain in a jar, so therefore it's magic.

antiskeptic

sink wrote: »

Most would yes.

An aside. Why would some not (the OP doesn't permit us to suppose aliens pretending to be God and the like)?

sink

antiskeptic wrote: »

An aside. Why would some not (the OP doesn't permit us to suppose aliens pretending to be God and the like)?

Because people are not entirely rational.

The Mad Hatter

antiskeptic wrote: »

Sink sunk

Sank.

:P

you seem to have missed something fundamental in Goduznt Xzist's post, by the way.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

Empiricism makes exactly 2 assumptions.
1. The Universe is consistent.
2. We can observe the universe.

Okay

Both assumptions have stood up to all the testing and hypothesising we have done so far.

Okay. (Although how you test the assumption that the Universe is consistant without invoking that assumption in the very instruments/techniques you use to observe the Universe is beyond me)

We know that all the theories about God are inconsistent both internally and with other thoeries.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I wouldn't agree that the Bible (as a theory of God) is internally inconsistant. I would agree different gods are mutally exclusive in their detailing.

And we know that God has not and probably cannot be observed

I'm not sure how anyone can state that God has not been observed (without knowing all there is to know). Nor am I sure how probabilities of his "cannot be observed" are arrived at.

All it would take for God to be observed is

a) God to exist
b) God to turn up empirically.

I know of nothing that prevents these two things occurring.

The examples you give are not the same as "brain in the jar" or Descartes' Demon.
For example take this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wChk5nY3Kzg

It could be a trick.
Or it could be Magic.

Well you could just be a brain in a jar, so therefore it's magic.

I'm not sure what you mean by "examples I give". Could you elaborate?

Delirium

The entity claiming to be God would have to do a lot better than say 'I'm God' in a loud voice to back up that claim.

If you were to consider the possibility it was God. You'd have to ask 'why return now? what happened in Gods existence to mellow out the vengeful God of the old testament?'

And I'd have to ask why you're excluding certain answers from your proposed scenario.

antiskeptic

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Sank.

:P

Sunk

2 : done for, ruined

you seem to have missed something fundamental in Goduznt Xzist's post, by the way.

Pray tell.

antiskeptic

koth wrote: »

The entity claiming to be God would have to do a lot better than say 'I'm God' in a loud voice to back up that claim.

Empirically speaking, what would you like to see him do?

If you were to consider the possibility it was God. You'd have to ask 'why return now? what happened in Gods existence to mellow out the vengeful God of the old testament?'

Let's suppose he replies "I'm here to extract vengence - and I want you to see me do it"

Will that do?

And I'd have to ask why you're excluding certain answers from your proposed scenario.

I've excluded answers that suppose we cannot trust empirical observations to be what they appear to be (after jumping through the various hoops demanded by empiricism). Because if we cannot trust them (but must instead suppose alien activity) then we have no such thing as empirically arrived at knowledge at all.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

Okay. (Although how you test the assumption that the Universe is consistant without invoking that assumption in the very instruments/techniques you use to observe the Universe is beyond me)

Simple. All it would require is for certain aspects of the universe (say physics equations) to be discovered/arrived at independently (which has happened)
or for a completely theoretical model derived from previously observed facts being proved correct (again which has happened.)

If the universe is not consistent how can this happen?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean here. I wouldn't agree that the Bible (as a theory of God) is internally inconsistant. I would agree different gods are mutally exclusive in their detailing.

The bible is very inconsistent, ask any of the regulars here.
For example the idea that God is all powerful is directly disprove in the bible, as is the idea that he is benevolent.

And if there is One true god, why are there so many differ ones?
And then how do you know that God is your version?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure how anyone can state that God has not been observed (without knowing all there is to know).

Well if you know of an observation that shows God exists where fraud and delusion have definitely been excluded, I'd love to see it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Nor am I sure how probabilities of his "cannot be observed" are arrived at.

Well going by the bible, he's magic and deceptive so he could always just be hiding.
We'd have no way of excluding that.

antiskeptic wrote: »

All it would take for God to be observed is

a) God to exist
b) God to turn up empirically.

I know of nothing that prevents these two things occurring.

So then, why hasn't he been observed empirically?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by "examples I give". Could you elaborate?

But what if there was empirical evidence for God. What if God boomed down from the sky "It is true what they say - I do exist". What if he wrote "This is God and I wrote the Bible" in impossibly large letters across the sky".

Both examples could be produced by significant technology or indeed with the power of Thor.
Neither of those examples by themselves could be empirical examples of God.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

Simple. All it would require is for certain aspects of the universe (say physics equations) to be discovered/arrived at independently (which has happened)
or for a completely theoretical model derived from previously observed facts being proved correct (again which has happened.)

If the universe is not consistent how can this happen?

Okay. Thanks

The bible is very inconsistent, ask any of the regulars here.
For example the idea that God is all powerful is directly disprove in the bible, as is the idea that he is benevolent.

Now we're talking about perceptions. And ideas of what omnipotence/benevolence mean.

And if there is One true god, why are there so many differ ones?
And then how do you know that God is your version?

At this point, I'm going to steer things back to the OP.

Well if you know of an observation that shows God exists where fraud and delusion have definitely been excluded, I'd love to see it.

The OP is suggesting God has done this to your satisfaction. It's not suggesting he has or will do it. This...

Both examples could be produced by significant technology or indeed with the power of Thor. Neither of those examples by themselves could be empirical examples of God.

..is not permitted for it would be brain-in-jar territory - a territory excluded in the OP on the grounds that such references destroy all observations - not just ones regarding God. This computer screen could be the product of alien influence too afterall.

Delirium

antiskeptic wrote: »

Empirically speaking, what would you like to see him do?

I'm not actually sure. For example, I thought maybe create a new continent. But that could happen possibly due to nature.

maybe walk me through the creation of existence. He'll have to rush me through a couple of millenia of brain development first though.

Let's suppose he replies "I'm here to extract vengence - and I want you to see me do it"

Will that do?

Honestly? Nope, because then God seems less enlightened than what I'd expect.

He has millenia of existence over me, but that would just seem petty for someone with the scope of power that God claims to have.

I've excluded answers that suppose we cannot trust empirical observations to be what they appear to be (after jumping through the various hoops demanded by empiricism). Because if we cannot trust them (but must instead suppose alien activity) then we have no such thing as empirically arrived at knowledge at all.

But the entity first appearing and claiming to be God would be unreliable also. How would it be proven to be God? It's not like we have His toothbrush that he left behind to compare DNA with.

Ickle Magoo

antiskeptic wrote:

And so the atheist/agnostic objection that there is no empirical evidence of God is irrelevant to belief that God exists.

Obviously. Empirical evidence of god is only relevant to those who require empirical evidence of god but isn't relevant to belief?

Currently belief in god depends on faith, there is a choice whether to believe christian, muslim, buddist, etc, version of events or have no particular supernatural belief at all...if a god made his existence an inarguable fact by showing himself to the world in a way that cannot be denied by most rational people then his existence would no longer be a question of faith, we would have knowledge of a godly existence, there would be no such thing as atheists or agnostics.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

Now we're talking about perceptions. And ideas of what omnipotence/benevolence mean.

Omnipotence, being the ability to do anything.
Benevolence, being a kind and loving person.

There are numerous examples of God being the exact opposite in the Bible.
It's pretty clear cut.

antiskeptic wrote: »

At this point, I'm going to steer things back to the OP.

So then, no you can't know?

antiskeptic wrote: »

The OP is suggesting God has done this to your satisfaction.

So even if he has proven that he exists and that he is everything people claim to be and is the person talked about in the bible.
Then yes I would concede he exists.
However i certainly wouldn't worship him as he's a bit evil.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's not suggesting he has or will do it. This...

And why not?
He had no problem doing it in the old testament.

And I'll take it you can't provide a single example of God being observed.

antiskeptic wrote: »

..is not permitted for it would be brain-in-jar territory - a territory excluded in the OP on the grounds that such references destroy all observations - not just ones regarding God. This computer screen could be the product of alien influence too afterall.

So since nothing can be empirically observed,David Copperfield can actually fly right?

antiskeptic

koth wrote: »

I'm not actually sure. For example, I thought maybe create a new continent. But that could happen possibly due to nature.

Before your very eyes, whilst you're suspended over the earth watching it happen in the space of a few hours (not that God need take that long but he want's to let you enjoy the show)?

maybe walk me through the creation of existence. He'll have to rush me through a couple of millenia of brain development first though.

Hop on board. And bring as many mates as you like so that the empirical element be strengthened. Sure, everyone at home won't believe you but you'd be empirically satisfied. Hell, bring a whole stadium full of people if you like.

Honestly? Nope, because then God seems less enlightened than what I'd expect.

He has millenia of existence over me, but that would just seem petty for someone with the scope of power that God claims to have.

Your model of God had God vengeful so I had God fulfill your model of him (for simplicities sake). And you're not happy with his answer

Some people

The point is hypothetical. And the hypothetical point is that you be satisified that God exists - based on empirical evidence.

But the entity first appearing and claiming to be God would be unreliable also. How would it be proven to be God? It's not like we have His toothbrush that he left behind to compare DNA with.

How do you prove DNA is DNA? By using something else? But how do you prove the something else is the something else?

Which is why we exclude such meanderings from the discussion. They lead endlessly to nowhere. Instead, we suppose God jumping through whatever empirical hoops we require - to be God. And not aliens, and not worldwide delusion.

strobe

Ahh Skep, I really like your OP's. At least you seem to put a decent amount of thought into them which is a nice change to the "You DO believe in God" style threads. But then the "No Nexxt" responses to peoples perfectly good answers always let you down.

Emperical evidence is something that can be tested and demonstrated to everybody else. The other evidence you are talking about, God whispering into your ear that he loves you and the like, can not be tested or demonstrated to anybody else, at all, ever, in anyway. It's that simple, this is why emperical evidence is worth more than the other types of "evidence" you want to claim as equally as valuable.

The Mad Hatter

antiskeptic wrote: »

Sunk

2 : done for, ruined

Sunk is a participle, not a verb. So Sink's sunk would have been ok (if it were true), but Sink sank. [/pedantry]

Pray tell.

Occam's razor. Your mum might be an alien, but it's far more probable she's your mum. Something claiming to be a god is far more likely to be a part of this universe than apart from it.

antiskeptic

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Obviously. Empirical evidence of god is only relevant to those who require empirical evidence of god but isn't relevant to belief?

The argument demonstrates how the provision of satisfying empirical evidnence of God - leading to trust that God exists - rests on God's provision all the way down the line.

If so, trust that God exists supplied by God by any other means is as good as the empirically provided means.

Currently belief in god depends on faith, there is a choice whether to believe christian, muslim, buddist, etc, version of events or have no particular supernatural belief at all...if a god made his existence an inarguable fact by showing himself to the world in a way that cannot be denied by most rational people then his existence would no longer be a question of faith, we would have knowledge of a godly existence, there would be no such thing as atheists or agnostics.

Agreed. The OP takes the atheist/agnostic, provides empirical evidence, makes the atheist/agnostic a believer in Gods existance.

What is suggested is that this means of God making believers is as good as any other means God makes believers (say by direct, personal revelation)

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

Conclusion: it doesn't make a difference whether I trust that God exists because God has revealed it directly (if unempirically) to me or whether I trust that God exists because God writes it across the sky. I can be as certain of the one method as I can be of the other.

You certainly can not be as certain of this "method" as the other, given your alternative method is just based on philosophical musings.

antiskeptic wrote: »

And so the atheist/agnostic objection that there is no empirical evidence of God is irrelevant to belief that God exists.

It's relevant to any valid belief that God exists.

antiskeptic

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Sunk is a participle, not a verb. So Sink's sunk would have been ok (if it were true), but Sink sank. [/pedantry]

Consider: baked bean

Sucksinkt?

Occam's razor. Your mum might be an alien, but it's far more probable she's your mum. Something claiming to be a god is far more likely to be a part of this universe than apart from it.

Why? When the universe could as easily be part of God.

Ickle Magoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

The argument demonstrates how the provision of satisfying empirical evidnence of God - leading to trust that God exists - rests on God's provision all the way down the line.

If so, trust that God exists supplied by God by any other means is as good as the empirically provided means.

But it isn't....because god whispering in your ear isn't any kind of evidence to me. If I claimed Elvis whispered in my ear would you just accept that as fact? Would the rest of the world?

Of course not, it would take Elvis showing himself to the world to prove he exists and although in hindsight it might make my claims more believable, it still doesn't make them true - unless Elvis also says that is what happened when he shows himself.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Agreed. The OP takes the atheist/agnostic, provides empirical evidence, makes the atheist/agnostic a believer in Gods existance.

What is suggested is that this means of God making believers is as good as any other means God makes believers (say by direct, personal revelation)

Direct, personal revelation is only good to the people that have direct, personal revelation - empirical evidence is there for everyone to see, test and study - I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that they are one and the same. Until & unless a god does show himself then claims of direct, personal revelations don't prove anything other than people think they have direct, personal revelations.

Delirium

antiskeptic wrote: »

Before your very eyes, whilst you're suspended over the earth watching it happen in the space of a few hours (not that God need take that long but he want's to let you enjoy the show)?

More like it. But it would still only prove abilities of the entity and not the identity of it.

It all hinges on trust. For example if a guy says his name is Dave Jones. It doesn't change much for me to trust that is his name. But is someone/thing claims to be God, that potentially changes my view of reality. It's now possible for all things that have been mentioned in books/movies to exist.

Hop on board. And bring as many mates as you like so that the empirical element be strengthened. Sure, everyone at home won't believe you but you'd be empirically satisfied. Hell, bring a whole stadium full of people if you like.

That would be very cool, regardless who was behind it.

Your model of God had God vengeful so I had God fulfill your model of him (for simplicities sake). And you're not happy with his answer

Some people

The point is hypothetical. And the hypothetical point is that you be satisified that God exists - based on empirical evidence.

I actually didn't. I proposed that He explain why He suddenly stopped with the vengenance in new testament. But I take your point about empirical evidence.

How do you prove DNA is DNA? By using something else? But how do you prove the something else is the something else?

Which is why we exclude such meanderings from the discussion. They lead endlessly to nowhere. Instead, we suppose God jumping through whatever empirical hoops we require - to be God. And not aliens, and not worldwide delusion.

No, you misunderstand. If I take a strand of my hair and give it to someone, they can confirm that I am the owner of the DNA. I was ruminating on the idea of having a sample of God to compare to the alleged God who has appeared.

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

You certainly can not be as certain of this "method" as the other, given your alternative method is just based on philosophical musings.

The alternative method permits arrival at the conclusion "God exists" through empirical evidence. You don't seem to want to consider the consequences of this eminantly possible hypothesis .. for some reason.

At least you haven't gone the brains-in-jars route

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

The alternative method permits arrival at the conclusion "God exists" through empirical evidence.

So then can you show any of the empirical evidence for the existence of God?
That's a rather important bit of empiricism.

Also remember your "alternative method" means that David Copperfield can fly.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You don't seem to want to consider the consequences of this eminantly possible hypothesis .. for some reason.

So I take it you're not actually reading the replies.

Gregor Samsa

antiskeptic wrote: »

Do you agree that if God demonstrates his existance empirically for all to see then the atheist/agnostic would then believe God exists?

Some might, some might not. There's plenty of empirical evidence for evolution by natural selection, yet many Christians don't believe in it. I'm sure plenty of atheists could be just as irrational.

Personally I would believe in god (let's assume the exact god you believe in for simplicity's sake, as we could be talking about any number of gods) if he demonstrated his existence empirically for all to see, but I honestly couldn't tell you what level of empirical evidence it would entail. Extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proof and all that. Suffices to say parting the clouds and appearing like a Monty Python animation would not suffice. If this god is indeed omnipotent, I'd let him worry about the details of how to sufficiently impress me. But I have to say, if your god did demonstrate his existence empirically to me, I still wouldn't worship him, because existing or not, anything that demands worship in exchange for salvation is a tyrant.

Now, lets flip this for a second: if Thor, Vishnu and Odin all demonstrated their existence empirically for all to see, and demonstrated that they were the only gods, then would then would you, as a Christian, cease to believe in your "one true god"? If the answer is no, then you really have no business talking about empiricism, because it doesn't concern you.

As for the so called problem you say your OP is posing for A&As, I really don't see it.

antiskeptic

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

But it isn't....because god whispering in your ear isn't any kind of evidence to me. If I claimed Elvis whispered in my ear would you just accept that as fact? Would the rest of the world?

The suggestion isn't that God whispering in my ear should be as convincing to you as God turning up in the sky to you. The suggestion is that God whispering in your ear is as good as God turning up in the sky to you.

Direct, personal revelation is only good to the people that have direct, personal revelation - empirical evidence is there for everyone to see, test and study - I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that they are one and the same.

What does God turning up to lots of people do to add to your conviction that God exists that God whispering in your ear doesn't? I mean, once you realise that God has turned up to many, you also have to realise that God has installed in you a trust-system that happens to be fueled by the fact that others see as you see.

Your level of trust via the empirical is God enabled. Why can't he install another system of trust that enables just as much. Or more so than empirical (where we could possibly have reason reason to suppose it could be aliens).

Until & unless a god does show himself then claims of direct, personal revelations don't prove anything other than people think they have direct, personal revelations.

The subject is your trust that God exists (however God provides it). Not the abilility of your trust to influence others. The suggestion is that God might have better ways of ensuring trust that he exists than the empirical.

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

The alternative method permits arrival at the conclusion "God exists" through empirical evidence.

No it doesn't. It's a philosophical or theological postulation. In layman's terms - it's clutching at straws.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You don't seem to want to consider the consequences of this eminantly possible hypothesis .. for some reason.

While you might like to think you have posed some form of dilemma for atheists, your hypothesis is no more eminently possible than one offered by an Amazonian tribesman concerning his tree-god. The basic fact that you can come up with an idea doesn't lend it any weight whatsoever.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

So then can you show any of the empirical evidence for the existence of God?

No. Hypothetical situations don't usually require it.

Also remember your "alternative method" means that David Copperfield can fly.

No it does not.

So I take it you're not actually reading the replies.

I am. Some folk seem to be considering what to do with God showing up. Others seem bent on invoking aliens.