An empirical demonstration of God vs. A personal revelation from God

antiskeptic

This idea came up in another thread but I thought it worth examining it on it's own.

The almost universal objection to belief in God amongst atheists stems from lack of what is considered to be direct, empirical evidence for his existance. But consider what would be the case if God did turn up in a way that convinced you of his empirical existance. Say he boomed down from the sky, or turned water into wine before an assembled multitude in Croke Park, or walked from England to France atop the English Channel - brought to you live on Sky. Or did raise people from the dead - a relative you yourself know was dead comes knocking on your door proclaiming Christ.*

Now that you know a creator God exists you are faced with a problem. The problem is the deduction that empiricism-as-a-way-of-knowing-things only has value because God created it/you to operate that way. In other words, the certainty you have that God exists arises not from empiricism but from he who created empiricism. You'd realise that you only know he exists because he has established that knowledge in you - the means being no longer independent of him, are rendered moot. And so your trust can no longer rest in empiricism but in Him who made empiricism trustworthy.

So what's the difference then, between God turning up by personal revelation or by empirical demonstration. In both cases we'd have to be trusting in God for our knowledge of God. Granted, there is a circularity here, but the circularity is the same in both cases.


Assuming he agrees, the atheist should conclude that his demand of God should be either: that God demonstrate himself empirically or that he demonstrate himself by personal revelation. The one method could have no more trust-value than the other, in the case of God actually turning up.



*For the purposes of discussion, I'll suppose whatever empirical hoop you want jumped through has been jumped through - you now occupy the position of knowing the biblical God exists. Disappearing down solipsist boltholes is excluded on pointlessness grounds.

cavedave

Say very advanced aliens arrived tomorrow. They created loaves and fishes with a replicator. They reanimated the dead. All sort of good stunts. Would you worship them?

You might bow and sing songs when they say "worship me or ill strangle you with my tentacles" but I mean really worship? Just because something is very powerful does not mean you lose your self determination.

If they said they made humans 2001 style where the made the monkeys evolve would I worship them then? My parents made me. I am thankful for all the did and their sacrifices for me. I still live my own life and do not do everything they tell me to.

Even if there was a god why would you obey her?

antiskeptic

cavedave wrote: »

Say very advanced aliens arrived tomorrow. They created loaves and fishes with a replicator. They reanimated the dead. All sort of good stunts. Would you worship them?

You might bow and sing songs when they say "worship me or ill strangle you with my tentacles" but I mean really worship? Just because something is very powerful does not mean you lose your self determination.

If they said they made humans 2001 style where the made the monkeys evolve would I worship them then? My parents made me. I am thankful for all the did and their sacrifices for me. I still live my own life and do not do everything they tell me to.

Even if there was a god why would you obey her?

All very much off the point.

axer

The problem I have with personal relevation is it does not take into account how the mind works and the power of the mind.

If a Schizophrenic sees a two headed dog, it is real to him/her. Does that mean a two headed dog exists?

cavedave

cavedave wrote: »

Say very advanced aliens arrived tomorrow. They created loaves and fishes with a replicator. They reanimated the dead. All sort of good stunts. Would you worship them?

You might bow and sing songs when they say "worship me or ill strangle you with my tentacles" but I mean really worship? Just because something is very powerful does not mean you lose your self determination.

If they said they made humans 2001 style where the made the monkeys evolve would I worship them then? My parents made me. I am thankful for all the did and their sacrifices for me. I still live my own life and do not do everything they tell me to.

Even if there was a god why would you obey her?

Yeah I have to admit that was my first thought too, even if it was off the point

gbee

antiskeptic wrote: »

All very much off the point.

I don't think it is off the point, it is exactly the point. It is exactly the same thesis that you've put forward.

What one must keep in mind here is that Gods have evolved in Earth in modern history from the arrival of other earthy visitors.

Cortés, on his horse was considered a God by the natives of South America, which led partly to they own annihilation.

A WWII fighter pilot downed in the south seas was rescued by villagers by a tribe as yet undiscovered at that time. A new religion with the Cross as it's symbol emerged, Mitchell was hailed as a God and the Cross represented the tail piece of the crashed aircraft.

Captain Cook, again in the South Seas .. survived [up to Hawaii] only because he was thought a God in a 'massive' ship ...

I could go on and list maybe another dozen incidents ....

antiskeptic

axer wrote: »

The problem I have with personal relevation is it does not take into account how the mind works and the power of the mind.

If a Schizophrenic sees a two headed dog, it is real to him/her. Does that mean a two headed dog exists?

The issue at hand is the conclusions you would have to draw about empiricism if the demand for empirical evidence for God was met.

Which should cause the Empirical-Evidence onlyists to pause.

antiskeptic

gbee wrote: »

I don't think it is off the point, it is exactly the point. It is exactly the same thesis that you've put forward.

What one must keep in mind here is that Gods have evolved in Earth in modern history from the arrival of other earthy visitors.

Cortés, on his horse was considered a God by the natives of South America, which led partly to they own annihilation.

A WWII fighter pilot downed in the south seas was rescued by villagers by a tribe as yet undiscovered at that time. A new religion with the Cross as it's symbol emerged, Mitchell was hailed as a God and the Cross represented the tail piece of the crashed aircraft.

Captain Cook, again in the South Seas .. survived only because he was thought a God in a 'massive' ship ...

I could go on and list maybe another dozen incidents ....

The asterixed section of the OP is for you then

legspin

antiskeptic wrote: »

This idea came up in another thread but I thought it worth examining it on it's own.

The almost universal objection to belief in God amongst atheists stems from lack of what is considered to be direct, empirical evidence for his existance. But consider what would be the case if God did turn up in a way that convinced you of his empirical existance. Say he boomed down from the sky, or turned water into wine before an assembled multitude in Croke Park, or walked from England to France atop the English Channel - brought to you live on Sky. Or did raise people from the dead - a relative you yourself know was dead comes knocking on your door proclaiming Christ.*

Now that you know a creator God exists you are faced with a problem. The problem is the deduction that empiricism-as-a-way-of-knowing-things only has value because God created it/you to operate that way. In other words, the certainty you have that God exists arises not from empiricism but from he who created empiricism. You'd realise that you only know he exists because he has established that knowledge in you - the means being no longer independent of him, are rendered moot. And so your trust can no longer rest in empiricism but in Him who made empiricism trustworthy.

So what's the difference then, between God turning up by personal revelation or by empirical demonstration. In both cases we'd have to be trusting in God for our knowledge of God. Granted, there is a circularity here, but the circularity is the same in both cases.


Assuming he agrees, the atheist should conclude that his demand of God should be either: that God demonstrate himself empirically or that he demonstrate himself by personal revelation. The one method could have no more trust-value than the other, in the case of God actually turning up.



*For the purposes of discussion, I'll suppose whatever empirical hoop you want jumped through has been jumped through - you now occupy the position of knowing the biblical God exists.

I really don't give a monkeys cuss if this character gives all the empirical evidence I need to convince me of their existence. The most positive reaction they would get from me is contempt.

28064212

antiskeptic wrote: »

Assuming he agrees, the atheist should conclude that his demand of God should be either: that God demonstrate himself empirically or that he demonstrate himself by personal revelation. The one method could have no more trust-value than the other, in the case of God actually turning up.

Empirical evidence means it can be verified (to a reasonable degree) by others. Personal revelation can not. There are literally thousands of people who claim to have had a personal revelation. Many of them say different things, and many of them are directly contradictory. There is no difference between a 'genuine' personal revelation and a hallucination. It is reasonable to discount personal revelations, based on the knowledge we have about how the mind works.

If a God "proved" he existed empirically, and there was verifiable evidence, and there were no other reasonable explanations (e.g. mass psychosis), then the "God Theory" would be the most likely explanation. Exactly like the theory of evolution or the theory of gravity is the most likely explanation to describe what we know about them.

tl;dr
Personal revelation - numerous other explanations are much more likely
Empirical evidence - 'God' becomes the most likely explanation

cavedave

antiskeptic

All very much off the point.

Ok put it this way. God reveals herself to me in a flaming bush to me beside my bus stop and tells me to go kill my son and be happy about it. Or She appears live on the NEWS in a flaming bush and tells everyone to kill their son and be happy about it.

Either way I'm not doing it.

axer

antiskeptic wrote: »

The issue at hand is the conclusions you would have to draw about empiricism if the demand for empirical evidence for God was met.

Which should cause the Empirical-Evidence onlyists to pause.

The but the difference between empircal evidence for god and personal relevation still is massive due to the ability of the human brain to make stuff up. That is my point.

If there was empirical evidence for a god/creator then I would look at the evidence and if it was strong enough then I would conclude that the probability of one existing is high. I would never accept personal relevation as evidence for the reason I have already mentioned. They are completely different.

The Mad Hatter

cavedave wrote: »

Ok put it this way. God reveals herself to me in a flaming bush to me beside my bus stop and tells me to go kill my son and be happy about it. Or She appears live on the NEWS in a flaming bush and tells everyone to kill their son and be happy about it.

Either way I'm not doing it.

cavedave, that's not what he's getting at. The question is, "what would empirical proof of god say about empiricism?" It doesn't matter what the proof is, or what it tells you to do. Put that aside for this argument - it's not important.

antiskeptic, if such a thing were to happen, it wouldn't change the nature of empiricism as more reliable than personal testimony, no matter who had made it that way. The whole point of empiricism is that we're not, as you say, created to operate that way, but that we have to work quite hard to. Empiricism is about removing us from the equation as much as possible.

gbee

antiskeptic wrote: »

The asterixed section of the OP is for you then

I was not wearing my reading glasses. I will say this, this is the Atheism & Agnostics forum, and you impose a belief in the God of the Bible as a condition to reply.

IMO, you must move your post to the Christianity forum, where such a rule does exist.

antiskeptic

28064212 wrote: »

Empirical evidence means it can be verified (to a reasonable degree) by others. Personal revelation can not. There are literally thousands of people who claim to have had a personal revelation. Many of them say different things, and many of them are directly contradictory. There is no difference between a 'genuine' personal revelation and a hallucination. It is reasonable to discount personal revelations, based on the knowledge we have about how the mind works.

Not relevant to the OP - sorry.

If a God "proved" he existed empirically, and there was verifiable evidence, and there were no other reasonable explanations (e.g. mass psychosis), then the "God Theory" would be the most likely explanation. Exactly like the theory of evolution or the theory of gravity is the most likely explanation to describe what we know about them.

The * section of the OP for you. You are to suppose yourself in a position of knowing God exists just as you know the computer screen in front of you exists. I take it the existance of the computer screen in front of you isn't a theoretical thing?

Once you've strapped yourself in, you can begin with the problem posed

antiskeptic

gbee wrote: »

I was not wearing my reading glasses. I will say this, this is the Atheism & Agnostics forum, and you impose a belief in the God of the Bible as a condition to reply.

IMO, you must move your post to the Christianity forum, where such a rule does exist.

You don't have to believe in God. You have to consider your demand for empirical evidence for God in the light of what that actually would mean. Its looking before you leap.

Beruthiel

antiskeptic wrote: »

But consider what would be the case if God did turn up in a way that convinced you of his empirical existance.

And his name is Q

Say he boomed down from the sky, or turned water into wine before an assembled multitude in Croke Park, or walked from England to France atop the English Channel - brought to you live on Sky. Or did raise people from the dead - a relative you yourself know was dead comes knocking on your door proclaiming Christ.*

The Ancients* could pretty much do all of the above.

You say cavedave is going off point, but I don't believe so.
If some being comes down from the sky then as far as I'm concerned, he's an advanced alien, not a god.


*Stargate

cavedave

The Mad Hatter
cavedave, that's not what he's getting at. The question is, "what would empirical proof of god say about empiricism?" It doesn't matter what the proof is, or what it tells you to do. Put that aside for this argument - it's not important.

Religions go around telling people what to do. If no one does what god tells them there is not much point having a religion. Rev:"Dearly beloved we are gathered here today to say how much we like fjords. They are top notch. See you next week".

It doesn't say anything about empiricism I think. Of course god could flip a neuron and make you believe in her. Or could flip loads of neurons and make everyone believe in her. Who would claim god could not do that?

The Mad Hatter

antiskeptic wrote: »

You are to suppose yourself in a position of knowing God exists just as you know the computer screen in front of you exists. I take it the existance of the computer screen in front of you isn't a theoretical thing?

That's another interesting thought. No, we can't know for certain that the computer screen in front of us is real. We could be living in the Matrix, or could be the extremely complex fantasy of someone else's solipsism. Personally, I have to assume that my computer is real, or I couldn't use it.

The Mad Hatter

cavedave wrote: »

Religions go around telling people what to do. If no one does what god tells them there is not much point having a religion. Rev:"Dearly beloved we are gathered here today to say how much we like fjords. They are top notch. See you next week".

Ok?

Again, this seems irrelevant to the topic.

It doesn't say anything about empiricism I think. Of course god could flip a neuron and make you believe in her. Or could flip loads of neurons and make everyone believe in her. Who would claim god could not do that?

I agree, but I still think it's an interesting question.

28064212

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not relevant to the OP - sorry.





The * section of the OP for you. You are to suppose yourself in a position of knowing God exists just as you know the computer screen in front of you exists. I take it the existance of the computer screen in front of you isn't a theoretical thing?

Once you've strapped yourself in, you can begin with the problem posed

Actually, the computer screen is theoretical. I'm assuming I'm not having a massive hallucination, and that I'm not strapped into some kind of Matrix-like interface. The computer screen is not provable, it's evidence is solely empirical. If God provides empirical evidence, I will believe he exists, but I will not know he exists

Edit: Dammit Mad Hatter, that was my question

antiskeptic

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

antiskeptic, if such a thing were to happen, it wouldn't change the nature of empiricism as more reliable than personal testimony, no matter who had made it that way. The whole point of empiricism is that we're not, as you say, created to operate that way, but that we have to work quite hard to. Empiricism is about removing us from the equation as much as possible.

We would realise we were created to realise that our perceptions can be faulty. We would realise that we were created to suppose objectivity of observation is increased when multiple people share our observation.

Empiricism combines those two elements. Both elements would have been created by God. Thus empiricism created to operate so by God.

And so the problem.

gbee

antiskeptic wrote: »

You don't have to believe in God. You have to consider your demand for empirical evidence for God in the light of what that actually would mean. Its looking before you leap.

I can't. But if I were to do a Miss World Contestant on it, I'd look for World Peace, end of World Hunger, End of Capitalism, end of all Religions.

Oh and a spin around the universe stopping off at Risa with a bag full of chips ... emmmm.

That'd do it, yup, I think that would start to change my mind.

antiskeptic

28064212 wrote: »

Actually, the computer screen is theoretical. I'm assuming I'm not having a massive hallucination, and that I'm not strapped into some kind of Matrix-like interface. The computer screen is not provable, it's evidence is solely empirical. If God provides empirical evidence, I will believe he exists, but I will not know he exists

Got you. I should have also said that solipsist boltholes are to be avoided. OP to be modified to suit.

And so, aside from solipsist boltholes...

cavedave

@The Mad Hatter ok fourth time lucky. Of course god could make everyone believe in her by breaking the known laws of physics. Either on a macro level or inside our heads.

Saying that should effect us is like saying pond skimmers should stop using surface tension because they see a human who can move without using it. We are where we are if something else is more advanced then us then they can manipulate us. We are still stuck on the water membrane.

Wow and antiskeptic hasn't dredged up his old empiricism uber alles godwins bollocks yet.

But he still shows the same misunderstanding of empiricism.

If you think that God still has control over either how we perceive him on every level or controls how empirical reasoning works, then by definition that wouldn't be empirical. SO therefore your analogy fails completely.

If God where to appear where he could be verified totally independant from his interference (ie. actually empirically) then you wouldn't have to rely God for the information at all.

So Antiskeptic, can you provide a single example of anything known arrived at by personal revelation?
Cause otherwise, all your argument is, is just special pleading.

antiskeptic

Beruthiel wrote: »

If some being comes down from the sky then as far as I'm concerned, he's an advanced alien, not a god.

As you wish. The thread is directed as those whose atheism is based on a lack of empirical evidence for God - not those who score a Dawkinsian 7.

Beruthiel

I only score 7?

cavedave

not those who score a Dawkinsian 7.

Dawkinsian (comparative more Dawkinsian, superlative most Dawkinsian)
Relating to the "selfish gene" view on evolution as proposed by Richard Dawkins.  ]

You dont want people you believe in the Selfish gene theory in this thread?

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

But he still shows the same misunderstanding of empiricism.

And you a misunderstanding of what constitutes a Creator, I suspect*.

If you think that God still has control over either how we perceive him on every level or controls how empirical reasoning works, then by definition that wouldn't be empirical. SO therefore your analogy fails completely.

?

If God where to appear where he could be verified totally independant from his interference (ie. actually empirically) then you wouldn't have to rely God for the information at all.

*

So Antiskeptic, can you provide a single example of anything known arrived at by personal revelation? Cause otherwise, all your argument is, is just special pleading.

In a word, word-salad.

antiskeptic

cavedave wrote: »

You dont want people you believe in the Selfish gene theory in this thread?

Dawkinsonian?

gbee

antiskeptic wrote: »

As you wish. The thread is directed as those whose atheism is based on a lack of empirical evidence for God - .

I think I finally understand your question, but I don't believe in God from my own deductions from observing the universe and life. The fact that there is no empirical evidence is not an obstacle for me.

antiskeptic

gbee wrote: »

I think I finally understand your question, but I don't believe in God from my own deductions from observing the universe and life. The fact that there is no empirical evidence is not an obstacle for me.

Fair enough - then the OP isn't for you.

The Mad Hatter

antiskeptic wrote: »

We would realise we were created to realise that our perceptions can be faulty. We would realise that we were created to suppose objectivity of observation is increased when multiple people share our observation.

Empiricism combines those two elements. Both elements would have been created by God. Thus empiricism created to operate so by God.

And so the problem.

Yes, and empiricism would still be more reliable than personal testimony, no matter who created it, because it doesn't rely on just one person, nor on an individual's fallible mind. Just because we'd then know who created the universe wouldn't make the rules that work inside it any less reliable.

Problem solved.

Cavedave,

cavedave wrote: »

@The Mad Hatter ok fourth time lucky. Of course god could make everyone believe in her by breaking the known laws of physics. Either on a macro level or inside our heads.

Saying that should effect us is like saying pond skimmers should stop using surface tension because they see a human who can move without using it. We are where we are if something else is more advanced then us then they can manipulate us. We are still stuck on the water membrane.

You seem to be under the impression that I disagree with you. I don't. But what you're arguing is not what's in question here. Of course if god existed, he or she could make us believe. What antiskeptic is asking is whether empirical evidence of god - whatever that evidence might be - would challenge the idea of empiricism, and whether that then means that, in the case of the existence of god, empirical evidence is equal to personal revelation. My answer is no.

28064212

antiskeptic wrote: »

Got you. I should have also said that solipsist boltholes are to be avoided. OP to be modified to suit.

And so, aside from solipsist boltholes...

You "got me"? By leaving out part of your post?

Empirical evidence is flawed regardless of whether God exists or not. But all evidence is empirical.

The Mad Hatter

Also, apologies, 28064212, for stepping on your post

Right, I'm off for a run. I fully expect that when I return this thread will have blown out of all sensible proportion.

Dades

antiskeptic, the question in your OP makes no sense.

IF God came down and showed us he existed and (for the sake of argument) told us that personal revelation was a valid method on enquiry, then of course we'd all have to go with that.

But he hasn't, and he didn't so the empirical method is still the only valid method of enquiry.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

This idea came up in another thread but I thought it worth examining it on it's own.

The almost universal objection to belief in God amongst atheists stems from lack of what is considered to be direct, empirical evidence for his existance. But consider what would be the case if God did turn up in a way that convinced you of his empirical existance. Say he boomed down from the sky, or turned water into wine before an assembled multitude in Croke Park, or walked from England to France atop the English Channel - brought to you live on Sky. Or did raise people from the dead - a relative you yourself know was dead comes knocking on your door proclaiming Christ.*

Now that you know a creator God exists you are faced with a problem. The problem is the deduction that empiricism-as-a-way-of-knowing-things only has value because God created it/you to operate that way. In other words, the certainty you have that God exists arises not from empiricism but from he who created empiricism. You'd realise that you only know he exists because he has established that knowledge in you - the means being no longer independent of him, are rendered moot. And so your trust can no longer rest in empiricism but in Him who made empiricism trustworthy.

So what's the difference then, between God turning up by personal revelation or by empirical demonstration. In both cases we'd have to be trusting in God for our knowledge of God. Granted, there is a circularity here, but the circularity is the same in both cases.


Assuming he agrees, the atheist should conclude that his demand of God should be either: that God demonstrate himself empirically or that he demonstrate himself by personal revelation. The one method could have no more trust-value than the other, in the case of God actually turning up.



*For the purposes of discussion, I'll suppose whatever empirical hoop you want jumped through has been jumped through - you now occupy the position of knowing the biblical God exists. Disappearing down solipsist boltholes is excluded on pointlessness grounds.

This is circular logic based on an unreasonable assumption. You could, according to your argument, have any and all types of personal revelations, so your argument is reduced to this:

Lets say god exists, roight, well god could do anything roight, therefore anything must mean god exists, roight? QE-f*cking-D, roight.

There is also a big non-sequitor in the middle:
The only reason, according to your example, that a non-believer would believe in some entity as god is because of some empirical reason, raising the dead or whatever, but then you say this would leave the non-believer not believing in empirical evidence as god is the source of empiricalism. Why? Would I stop believing in different food tasting different, because god is the source of all taste?
Even if I did, you are left with a contradiction- if I no longer believed in empirical evidence, then I would question my initial empirical belief in god too. And if I did that then I wouldn't believe in god and therefore would have no reason to question empiricalism, but then I would have to believe in an empirically proven god.... and around and around. Wow, even your contradictions are circular.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

The issue at hand is the conclusions you would have to draw about empiricism if the demand for empirical evidence for God was met.

Which should cause the Empirical-Evidence onlyists to pause.

Except it wont cause any Empirical-Evidence onlyist to pause, bar the moron in your example.

Once you convince yourself that personal revelation is as valid as empirical evidence in terms of god, you begin to question as to what counts as personal revelation and soon eveything can be personal revelation - from the little voice at the back of your head telling you to drive into the back of the guy who just cut in front of you in traffic, to the impulse to throttle the screaming child in Tesco. And you are left with having to consider every and any impulse and coincidence as personal revelation.

This is were personal revelation falls apart for what it really is-personal opinion. You have to pick and choose what you think god wants you to do based on what you feel fine with because when you ignore empirical evidence, its all you got left.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

We would realise we were created to realise that our perceptions can be faulty. We would realise that we were created to suppose objectivity of observation is increased when multiple people share our observation.

Empiricism combines those two elements. Both elements would have been created by God. Thus empiricism created to operate so by God.

And so the problem.

Why, exactly is that a problem?
Maybe god put these elements in us so that we could better believe in him? Maybe empiricalism is the only true way to believe in god?

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

And you a misunderstanding of what constitutes a Creator, I suspect*.

Ah the "well so are you" school of debate... my one weakness.

But my understanding of a creator (good or not) has no baring on this discussion.
Your understanding of empiricism however...

In you OP you describe God as providing the means for empricism, therefore he has control of them and can influence them, therefore it cannot be independent of him, therefore it is not, by definition, empirical.

So then if we are to use actual empiricism in your example, by somehow making sure God was not interfering and totally independently verifying his existence, this would not invalidate empiricism or make personal revelation any more accurate.
So your analogy fails even before Dades points out the much more important and more fatal flaw.

antiskeptic wrote: »

In a word, word-salad.

I don't see how.
Can you show an example of personal revelation working?
Or is God the only case in which it is valid?

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

antiskeptic, the question in your OP makes no sense. IF God came down and showed us he existed

...who/what, would you now realise, is providing you with your sense of trust in empiricism-a-way-to-knowledge? Wouldn't it be God?

If so (and I can't see how not so), then what difference with him turning up and providing a sense of trust via personal revelation?

antiskeptic

28064212 wrote: »

You "got me"? By leaving out part of your post?

I didn't close solipsist boltholes in my OP. Your response ran down a solipsist one. That bolthole now closed in the OP.

Empirical evidence is flawed regardless of whether God exists or not. But all evidence is empirical.

It is? Could you provide empirical evidence for that claim?

axer

antiskeptic wrote: »

If so (and I can't see how not so), then what difference with him turning up and providing a sense of trust via personal revelation?

You cannot trust personal revelation since it could have been a creation of your brain. That is why I would only rely on replicable empirical evidence. If god is proven by replicable empirical evidence then I will believe that that god exists and it would be irrelevant that the god created empirical evidence since we know it works.

If has a personal relevation that nobody else could sense or verify I would get myself checked out by a psychologist/psychotherapist.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This is circular logic based on an unreasonable assumption. You could, according to your argument, have any and all types of personal revelations, so your argument is reduced to this:

Lets say god exists, roight, well god could do anything roight, therefore anything must mean god exists, roight? QE-f*cking-D, roight.

You haven't addressed the issue here. Conclusions to be drawn about empiricism in the case God exists. Discuss.

The only reason, according to your example, that a non-believer would believe in some entity as god is because of some empirical reason, raising the dead or whatever, but then you say this would leave the non-believer not believing in empirical evidence as god is the source of empiricalism.

I'm saying God revealing himself so would have an impact on empiricism. This isn't a non-sequitur - it is a logical and rational certainty.


What happens (it seems to me) is that trust would switche from empiricism-whose-trustworthiness-derives-from-God-knows-where to empiricism-whose-trustworthiness-derives-from God.

Why? Would I stop believing in different food tasting different, because god is the source of all taste?

See above.

Even if I did, you are left with a contradiction- if I no longer believed in empirical evidence, then I would question my initial empirical belief in god too. And if I did that then I wouldn't believe in god and therefore would have no reason to question empiricalism, but then I would have to believe in an empirically proven god.... and around and around. Wow, even your contradictions are circular.

See above. You have no reason to stop believing in empiricism. It's just the source of it's trustworthiness that would change.

antiskeptic

axer wrote: »

You cannot trust personal revelation since it could have been a creation of your brain. That is why I would only rely on replicable empirical evidence.

If has a personal relevation that nobody else could sense or verify I would get myself checked out by a psychologist/psychotherapist.

There's an OP to be dealt with. This thread isn't about folks difficulty with personal revelation aside from the OP/

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why, exactly is that a problem?

The problem is that you would be dependent on God for your trusting - not on the method he choses to provide you with that trust. Once realising that trust-in-God is (inevitably) method-independent then personal revelation can be as good a means for God to demonstrate himself as any other.

28064212

antiskeptic wrote: »

It is? Could you provide empirical evidence for that claim?

Show me an example of any evidence that isn't experienced through the senses, that isn't based on our perceptions. But of course that just runs down the 'invalid' solipsist bolthole again.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You haven't addressed the issue here. Conclusions to be drawn about empiricism in the case God exists. Discuss.

I'm saying God revealing himself so would have an impact on empiricism

You're making the assumption that God can be shown to exist outside of empirical evidence.

axer

antiskeptic wrote: »

There's an OP to be dealt with. This thread isn't about folks difficulty with personal revelation aside from the OP/

I don't think many people would believe empirical evidence that is just provided by one source nor is replicable. I think that is the confusion here.

If I had empirical evidence that others could not replicate then I would assume that I have a psychological issue (If I was seeing things).

Blackhorse Slim

antiskeptic wrote: »

What happens (it seems to me) is that trust would switche from empiricism-whose-trustworthiness-derives-from-God-knows-where to empiricism-whose-trustworthiness-derives-from God.

Not at all. "Trust", as you put it, would switch from empiricism-whose-trustworthiness-derives-from-logic to empiricism-whose-trustworthiness-derives-from-logic - ie no change.



Although it's all meaningless until god shows up empirically.

Blackhorse Slim

antiskeptic wrote: »

The problem is that you would be dependent on God for your trusting - not on the method he choses to provide you with that trust.

Ok, here's the cause of your confusion. This is incorrect.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Once realising that trust-in-God is (inevitably) method-independent

It's not.

antiskeptic wrote: »

then personal revelation can be as good a means for God to demonstrate himself as any other.

It's not.