Getting 'evidence' would break the system.

antiskeptic

Blowfish wrote: »

Did you skip my previous post? God could only ever use a non empirical system to reveal himself to Sarky if he has actually 'configured' Sarky to believe non empirical 'evidence'. I think it's pretty obvious that he hasn't and Sarky is only ever going to believe empirical evidence, hence as I pointed out, using your logic, God either made a mistake in his 'Sarky configuration' and/or is incredibly cruel for expecting Sarky to do the impossible and believe despite being 'configured' not to be able to.

God could configure Sarky to 'see' him unempirically in a flash. The biblical name for it is being 'born again' ( so extensive is the reach of the reconfiguration).

(It might be worth mentioning my position on that: I would hold that a person is first saved, then they receive evidence of God's existence (in the sense they now know God exists for sure))

Blowfish

antiskeptic wrote: »

God could configure Sarky to 'see' him unempirically in a flash. The biblical name for it is being 'born again' ( so extensive is the reach of the reconfiguration).

So now you are effectively saying that it's completely and utterly impossible for Sarky to believe in God until God steps in and changes how Sarky works.

Doesn't that remove any semblance of free will whatsoever? It's not Sarky's choice to have his 'configuration' changed, but God's.

Furthering that logic, every single Atheist exists solely because God created them in such a way that it's impossible for them to believe in him, and hasn't bothered to 'change' them to allow them to believe in him and be 'saved'.

Why the hell did he do that?

antiskeptic

Blowfish wrote: »

God would be pretty stupid to present Sarky non-empirical evidence, given that he'll only accept empirical.

I'm not so sure. If there is absolute good and evil (for instance). And if Sarky has been given a way to know and respond to both (via conscience), then it doesn't matter that Sarky hasn't empirical evidence, he still knows what he's doing.

And those responses can be fed into the algorithm* which decides whether God will save Sarky or not. If he does save Sarky and then reconfigures him, Sarky will see God - unempirically.

Sarky can trace his salvation (and subsequent seeing of God) back to his responses to something that couldn't empirically be proven (goodness - an aspect and attribute of God, and evil - it's opposite)




*I use the word 'algorithm' in the attempt to deflect folk from the simplistic (and utterly incorrect) notion that if Sarky is simply good enough then God will save him .. and vice versa.

antiskeptic

Blowfish wrote: »

So now you are effectively saying that it's completely and utterly impossible for Sarky to believe in God until God steps in and changes how Sarky works.

In the conscious, rational sense of knowing, as sure as night follows day, that God of the Bible exists? Yes.

The biblical term used for the un-reconfigured condition is 'blind'. (Was blind but now I see)

(Sure, man has a sense of god. He is a spiritual animal. He has a sense of an ultimate reckoning for his wrongdoing. But the sense of knowing God exists I'm talking of is the sense of being as sure as I am that this computer screen exists. That requires a reconfiguration)

Doesn't that remove any semblance of free will whatsoever? It's not Sarky's choice to have his 'configuration' changed, but God's.

The sequence suggested is:

Man queried on his position before God: surrender or remain a rebel. This query is asked of all men even though they might not be consciously aware that they are being asked

Man who surrenders is saved

Man who is saved is reconfigured as a consequence of his surrender. To the victor go the spoils afterall

Man's doesn't need to surrender. He can remain a rebel.

And so, a reconfigured man is reconfigured because of an act of his own will - surrender.

Furthering that logic, every single Atheist exists solely because God created them in such a way that it's impossible for them to believe in him, and hasn't bothered to 'change' them to allow them to believe in him and be 'saved'.

Why the hell did he do that?

Every atheist is like everyone ever born. A born rebel (hence the need to be bjorn again). The name you attach to this rebel or that rebel doesn't matter: atheist, Muslim, cultural Christian, agnostic

Re-configuration is as much an option for them as for any other rebel. Heck, I used to be a rebel myself.

Stark

Nice explanation. Do you have some sort of a source for all this or is it just another story that has to be blindly believed and not questioned?

Blowfish

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not so sure. If there is absolute good and evil (for instance). And if Sarky has been given a way to know and respond to both (via conscience), then it doesn't matter that Sarky hasn't empirical evidence, he still knows what he's doing.

And those responses can be fed into the algorithm* which decides whether God will save Sarky or not. If he does save Sarky and then reconfigures him, Sarky will see God - unempirically.

So your algorithm so far is:

<be good> + <some random stuff> = <god 'reconfigures' you so you can believe in him>.

What is the <some random stuff> bit in this algorithm?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Man queried on his position before God: surrender or remain a rebel. This query is asked of all men even though they might not be consciously aware that they are being asked

Right. So, for myself (and all 'Sarky's' of this world) who can only ever believe or act on empirical data, what exactly (in empirical terms) is being 'queried on your position before God'? How are we being queried? What 'position' are we being queried on? How is it being done 'before God' if (by your own admission) it is impossible for us to believe in him?

Sarky

antiskeptic wrote: »

That strikes me as rather lazy. It's be better if you started at the first sentence and indicated where things break down for you. I've even given you strong hints

Yes, you're telling me which way I should answer questions, instead of letting me consider them myself. Your questions are stupid, for the reasons Blowfish et al. have already outlined. I don't appreciate being evangelised at.

If your god exists, and configured me the way I am, then it's HIS responsibility for me reckoning that he's got shag-all basis in anything approaching reality. He either made a mistake, or he's a cruel jerk. Nowhere in your scenario do I have any choice in the matter. And don't even bother getting into the "how can we KNOW that monitor is in front of you?" bollocksology, you couldn't address it back in the A&A forum, and I very much doubt you're going to present it clearly here, either.


So which is it: God made a mistake with me, or he's just indulging a cruel streak?

Extra bonus question: Why should I have to lower my standards for your god?

Monty Burnz

liveya wrote: »

It's possible people diagree within the church because some hold more truth than others, I recognize the fairness of the anonymous Christian, and how it simultaneously does not reduce Christ to an option. It makes sense, so I accept it. So does the church and the pope. If a fellow Christian finds it ridiculous that God is just and Christ is the only way to the father, then what kind of a Christian are they, a Fred Phelps, that's what,

Also it was Karl Rahner who proposed the theory to the church, not me.

I think you will find that many Christians think that it is a ridiculous position, including many of the Christians who post here. It seems odd that over a matter of basic fact like this that even Christians can't agree.

Also I'm aware who proposed it, I described it as your idea as shorthand for 'this idea which you appear to subscribe to".

Monty Burnz

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not so sure. If there is absolute good and evil (for instance). And if Sarky has been given a way to know and respond to both (via conscience), then it doesn't matter that Sarky hasn't empirical evidence, he still knows what he's doing.

He knows what he's doing and he knows that it is wrong in good conscience to randomly believe stuff that he does not have evidence for.

antiskeptic

Sarky wrote: »

Yes, you're telling me which way I should answer questions, instead of letting me consider them myself.

I only gave hints. You can fill your own answers in of course. But you do need to start at the start and work from there.

And the start of the argument is you supposing God as just having evidenced himself to you empirically - as you would demand it. And working from there..

Sarky

So how about the bulk of my post you didn't bother with?

Why should I presuppose god, when there's not a shred of anything to convince me? Why should I have to lower my standards, instead of your god getting off his behind and upping HIS game? And How do you propose I lie to myself correctly so that your god will "reconfigure" me, leaving aside how absolutely bloody terrifying that should sound to anyone with even a tiny bit of self-esteem?

dyer

to be honest.. being stuck in heaven with a load of well to do Christians would be my idea of hell. i'll take my chances.

Stark

Sarky wrote: »

So how about the bulk of my post you didn't bother with?

Why should I presuppose god, when there's not a shred of anything to convince me? Why should I have to lower my standards, instead of your god getting off his behind and upping HIS game? And How do you propose I lie to myself correctly so that your god will "reconfigure" me, leaving aside how absolutely bloody terrifying that should sound to anyone with even a tiny bit of self-esteem?

And why the Christian god for that matter when there are many in which to put your blind faith.

Sarky

If I were to be convinced of the existence of a god, it would more likely be one of the Norse chaps instead of that Abrahamic one. Much more interesting, much more sensible.

antiskeptic

Blowfish wrote: »

So your algorithm so far is:

<be good> + <some random stuff> = <god 'reconfigures' you so you can believe in him>.

I didn't put in "be good"

What is the <some random stuff> bit in this algorithm?

Good and evil come into it. But not in the sense of your good and bad being trun onto a weighing scales and your eternal destination hinging on which you have more of on your account.

The algorithm has more to do with your hearts desire wrt good and evil, rather than how much of each you carry out. An example will come up in a minute...

Right. So, for myself (and all 'Sarky's' of this world) who can only ever believe or act on empirical data,

There is no empirical data for good. Yet you can act in relation to that. And believe that some things are good and other things evil (for reasons other than utilitarian reasons e.g. "it's utilitarian-good for me that the tribe does well. And so I do good")

what exactly (in empirical terms) is being 'queried on your position before God'? How are we being queried? What 'position' are we being queried on? How is it being done 'before God' if (by your own admission) it is impossible for us to believe in him?

It's done before God because God can see all your motivations and can see all the circumstances such as to tease out what is your hearts desire and what is the result of say, your circumstance.



Let's take a sliver from it and look at a case of you doing an evil - to look at how your hearts desire is being queried.

You do an evil (which happens to be an old favorite of mine). You've led a girl on to bed her with no real intention of following up on the the deception which has her suppose you're interested in a relationship with her. You use her for a while, enjoy her and then discard her.

God has designed it so that our consciences convict us of our wrongdoing. If we permit our consciences free reign we would be consumed by guilt and would beg forgiveness from the one whom we've hurt. Her. But we don't do this (or I didn't at least).



What we can do (and are permitted to do by God) is suppress. To push away (or bury) the guilt. We make excuses, we suppose ourselves bucks and laugh with our mates about it, we contort our own sexuality and ability to relate to others honestly in order not to face up fully to what we've done and do.

And so a yellow barrel goes in. Like the yellow barrels used in Jaws. By act of will we can force the barrel (that is: the truth about our ugly action with that girl) under the surface and out of sight.

And so we go on. Wrongdoing heaped upon wrongdoing. Barrel upon barrel hooked under the skin. Barrel after barrel of truth about our actions and motivations suppressed. Suppression is an action word and it takes an act of will to maintain suppression, to maintain all that truth under the surface and out of clear view. For the truth hasn't actually gone away. It's all there, the guilt and shame rendered by our actions, waiting to pop back to the surface and into our full view.



Which will it be? Will we, through act of sheer will, maintain the suppression to the very end of our lives (even if on the surface all looks calm and respectable). Or will the will surrender?

If it doesn't surrender then that constitutes a clear answer to God's query: their hearts desire was to live and love the lie, to be allowed to maintain a lifestyle that hurt and destroyed others in order that the self could have it's selfish desires satisfied.

If it does surrender then that also constitutes a clear answer to God's query: despite being a sinner like the other - worse perhaps, despite a life spent satisfying those selfish desires at another's cost, a time came when the person just wasn't prepared to suppress the truth about themselves any longer. They loved the truth more

The act of surrender isn't an act of will in the positive, active sense. Rather, it's a giving up, a ceasing of the exertion of will required to suppress truth. Once that happens, the barrels rise to the surface all by themselves. And the truth does what it always does - reveals what has been the case about the person.

And that truth will appall the person - for the truth about (their) evil is that it IS appalling. And to their knees they will fall. For God has ordained that any person, no matter what evil they have done, who surrenders from the effort to suppress the truth about themselves, will find him.


So: Don't stop sinning - it might end up saving you

antiskeptic

Sarky wrote: »

If I were to be convinced of the existence of a god, it would more likely be one of the Norse chaps instead of that Abrahamic one. Much more interesting, much more sensible.

Be that as it may, the dilemma posed you stands (unless of course, these interesting, sensible gods aren't actually creators of all)

Sarky

The dilemma would be choosing between "my creator is incompetent" and "my creator is a douchebag". You refuse to see it like that because you need your god to exist and have a glorious Plan that manages to justify all manner of horrible things. But you know that's what it boils down to.

The Norse gods were frequently cruel or uncaring where mortals were concerned. Sometimes they f*cked up royally. No dilemma there, they could easily be both. Perhaps you should convert?

pauldla

antiskeptic wrote: »

Have you considered the possibility that the problem might lie with your ability to follow an argument?

Several pages on and I admit, I am still none the wiser. I cannot follow your argument; and I suspect I am not the only one.

You obviously have a point that you wish to make, and I would like to understand what it is you are saying. I'll quote the passage that I'm having problems with:

What this means is that God evidencing himself empirically and verifiably to you is a valid and reliable a means of God evidencing himself as is his evidencing himself to you non-empirically/verifiably.

To me this seems like mere wordplay, but I may well be missing the point. So could I ask you to please restate your argument as you would for one of limited intelligence, or for a child.

If, for whatever reason, you choose not to, or if (dare I say it?) you cannot, can I call upon somebody else to explain it for me, please?

antiskeptic

pauldla wrote: »

To me this seems like mere wordplay, but I may well be missing the point. So could I ask you to please restate your argument as you would for one of limited intelligence, or for a child.

Once upon a time, God granted Sarky's demand that He demonstrate His existence to Sarky. And that He do this empirically.

Sarky was now satisfied that God existed. As satisfied as he could be about anything which is demonstrated empirically.

But something else now struck Sarky. He realized that the reason he had been convinced of God's existence, was the result of God having designed Sarky so that he could be convinced of things generally, through empirical evidence. That if God hadn't designed Sarky so, then all the empirical evidence in the world wouldn't convince Sarky of God's existence. Sarky thought of the example of a tree - something he now knew was designed by God but which was without the capacity to be convinced of things by empirical evidence.

"How lucky am I" thought Sarky to himself, realizing the vast number of things he had already been and could yet be convinced of empirically - the result of God having designed him so.

And he was a lucky little atheist. For he had been made in God's own image and likeness - despite all his fist waving at God.



One day, a nasty little goblin of a creature called antiskeptic rolled into Sarky's village saying: "Sarky, do you realize that God demonstrating his existence to you empirically can be as valid and reliable a means of demonstration as would be his doing so non-empirically?"

"Uh?!" said Sarky hurriedly reaching for The God Delusion and cursing the fact that his 'Bible' didn't have as good a verse reference system as the enemies tome.

"You do now know that the level of certainty you derive from being exposed to empirical evidence generally, is solely due to God having decided that that level of certainty should be raised in you by such evidence" continued antiskeptic. "He didn't design a bacteria that way now did he? You can expose a bacteria to empirical evidence for all manner of things yet nothing will alter for the bacteria"

"Uh? I guess I do now know that. And I guess the bacteria hasn't been configured like me" mumbled Sarky unhappily.

"So what if God designed another method whereby he demonstrated his existence to people? And what if God made it so that you could be more certain of his existence by that method that you are by this empirical one?"


"But I am certain. The empirical demonstration is the best of all" cried Sarky sarkily


"That's not really answering the question is it? Would you agree that God can design any number of methods whereby he demonstrates his existence to people. And that he can assign whatever level of certainty he likes to each method? Empirical is assigned pretty high levels of certainty but you don't get 100% certainty from it do you?"


"No, no, no!! Go away you nasty little goblin" shouted Sarky as he ran away, taking his copy of The God Delusion with him



And didn't live happily ever after. At least not until he forgot all about this problem and began demanding once again that he would only believe in God if God turned up empirically in front of him (and at least 200 others from the scientific community who didn't believe in God up to that point. Just to be 99.3% certain)

Monty Burnz

That's a lovely story, but it still doesn't explain why no god has provided Sarky with the minimal level of evidence of his existence that Sarky was 'made' to accept.

antiskeptic

Monty Burnz wrote: »

That's a lovely story, but it still doesn't explain why no god has provided Sarky with the minimal level of evidence of his existence that Sarky was 'made' to accept.

It wasn't meant to so no surprise there.

Monty Burnz

antiskeptic wrote: »

It wasn't meant to so no surprise there.

So that's a question you can't answer?

antiskeptic

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So that's a question you can't answer?

I can answer alright and have in earlier posts in this thread. Follow the discussion with blowfish for example

mrac

antiskeptic wrote: »

I can answer alright and have in earlier posts in this thread. Follow the discussion with blowfish for example

Fair enough but apologies I cannot follow your line of thought in your earlier posts (and from reading the recent comments there seems to be others like me) so would it be possible for you to show us what exactly your stance is on that issue? Thanks

Monty Burnz

antiskeptic wrote: »

I can answer alright and have in earlier posts in this thread. Follow the discussion with blowfish for example

I followed that discussion very closely and you never answered this question.

antiskeptic

Expanding on msg 95.


Man, Sarky for example, is queried by God on his position w.r.t. God: surrender his rebellion or remain a rebel (I say 'remain' because all men are born rebels). This question is asked of all men even though they might not be consciously aware that they are being asked. The question is veiled. Sarky isn't fully consciously aware he is being asked anything by God. This doesn't prevent Sarky answering of course.

The man who surrenders his rebellion is saved. Sarky, who hasn't yet surrendered isn't yet saved.

The man who is saved is reconfigured by God as a consequence of his surrender. That reconfiguration would, amongst many other things, permit Sarky to detect God such that he would be convinced of Gods existence. There is lots more to reconfiguration than just God demonstrating his existence - reconfiguration is intended to make a person fit for their new, post-rebellion purpose.


Of course, man's doesn't need to surrender. He can remain a rebel if that's his desire. Sarky is currently in that position. And because he is a rebel he remains un-reconfigured. And so he cannot detect God like I can.


And so

why no god has provided Sarky with the minimal level of evidence of his existence that Sarky was 'made' to accept.

God hasn't provided evidence of his existence to Sarky because Sarky isn't saved. Sarky isn't saved because he prefers ongoing rebellion at this time. That situation will hopefully be changed some day

mrac

antiskeptic wrote: »

Expanding on msg 95.


Man, Sarky for example, is queried by God on his position w.r.t. God: surrender his rebellion or remain a rebel (I say 'remain' because all men are born rebels). This question is asked of all men even though they might not be consciously aware that they are being asked. The question is veiled. Sarky isn't fully consciously aware he is being asked anything by God. This doesn't prevent Sarky answering of course.

The man who surrenders his rebellion is saved. Sarky, who hasn't yet surrendered isn't yet saved.

The man who is saved is reconfigured by God as a consequence of his surrender. That reconfiguration would, amongst many other things, permit Sarky to detect God such that he would be convinced of Gods existence. There is lots more to reconfiguration than just God demonstrating his existence - reconfiguration is intended to make a person fit for their new, post-rebellion purpose.


Of course, man's doesn't need to surrender. He can remain a rebel if that's his desire. Sarky is currently in that position. And because he is a rebel he remains un-reconfigured. And so he cannot detect God like I can.


And so



God hasn't provided evidence of his existence to Sarky because Sarky isn't saved. Sarky isn't saved because he prefers ongoing rebellion at this time. That situation will hopefully be changed some day

But you agree in your scenario god made Sarky a skeptic and then asked him to do something his skeptical mind could not. So by the scenario you have proposed god created him in such as way as to be unsaveable. God created an impossible situation for Sarky and then punishes Sarky for not being able to overcome this impossible situation. Hitchens said it best when he said by god we are "created sick and commanded well"

antiskeptic

mrac wrote: »

But you agree in your scenario god made Sarky a skeptic and then asked him to do something his skeptical mind could not.

I would agree that God permitted a situation whereby Sarky would be born a skeptic/unbeliever/rebel.

I wouldn't agree that God then asked Sarky to do something he couldn't. Perhaps you could explain what you suppose it is Sarky is being asked to do (seeing as it's not that Sarky believe in God without evidence in order that he be saved. We have seen that God provides sure evidence of his existence after a person is saved)

God created an impossible situation for Sarky and then punishes Sarky for not being able to overcome this impossible situation. Hitchens said it best when he said by god we are "created sick and commanded well"

Hitch is gone but let's see if his argument makes it past the first fence. We'll await what this "impossible situation" Sarky is being asked to overcome...

mrac

antiskeptic wrote: »

I would agree that God permitted a situation whereby Sarky would be born a skeptic/unbeliever/rebel.

I wouldn't agree that God then asked Sarky to do something he couldn't. Perhaps you could explain what you suppose it is Sarky is being asked to do (seeing as it's not that Sarky believe in God without evidence in order that he be saved. We have seen that God provides sure evidence of his existence after a person is saved)





Hitch is gone but let's see if his argument makes it past the first fence. We'll await what this "impossible situation" Sarky is being asked to overcome...

Ok if its not believing in god then what is he being asked?

The man who surrenders his rebellion is saved

What exactly does this mean? How can one surrender to something they believe to be fairy tail (and by your scenario programmed to believe its fairy tail) ?

antiskeptic

mrac wrote: »

Ok if its not believing in god then what is he being asked?

Msg 94 on with Blowfish there's not much point in me repeating myself. In summary.

Sarky might deny that there is such a thing as objective good and evil* but his denial doesn't make it the case. If there is a God and if Sarky has been given a knowledge of good and evil by God then he is placed on the stage where his actions in the realm of good and evil constitute his answer to God on the matter of rebellion. Whether he likes it or not. Whether he's consciously aware of it or not.

I've used the word algorithm to deflect folk from the notion that a persons salvation (or not) depends on how much good and evil they do

*good and evil are but one aspect of the complete mechanism which constitutes Sarky's means of responding to God.

What exactly does this mean? How can one surrender to something they believe to be fairy tail (and by your scenario programmed to believe its fairy tail) ?

Sarky doesn't believe good and evil is a fairy tale. Nor does he need to consider the question of God in order to be dealing with the currency of good and evil. Which is, as I say, but one of the components of the mechanism by which he gives his answer to God.

Sarky is constructing his answer to God all day, every day. In every thought, word and deed.