What kind of evidence would prove god ?

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Dades wrote: »

I really don't get why you keep bring up post 19. It sounds completely circular.

Let's see the analysis:

If you believe in god for whatever reason, that reason is convincing?

Do you mind if I pass on this effort and wait around for Zombrex? If you're not going to lift a finger then neither me..

aidan24326

I'm sure there are eloquent, well-thought out arguments contra religion. Christopher Hitchens isn't one who I'd be giving much time to in that regard however. I can't remember who it was who coined the phrase 'theologically illiterate' in describing Dawkins attempts during The God Delusion but the same could be applied to Hitchens. Woefully infantile presentations of the oppositions position rendered his views comic book. IMO.

Kinda sums up most of what he was attempting to debunk actually, however good or bad a job he may have made of it.

Mark Hamill

Sertus wrote: »

I really do want to keep this scientific

What do you mean by play ? As in Play God ?

So if 'God' permitted Scientists to play God, then it would be scientific evidence.

Play, as in do whatever they want, at any level (space, time, energy, matter etc.) of this or any other universe. And it wouldn't be scientific simply because scientists did it, it would be scientific because it would be reproducible and independently tested (by everyone else in existence).

Sertus wrote: »

Also not sure about the infinite bit, i.e. allowing these interactions a billion years ago, and then billion years in the future, would mean it had time travel abilities, but not necessarily that the being / spirit was actually infinite.

As I said before: If something is omnipresent across time, and can entirely control the universe then they are not subject to time, therefore they are infinite.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Sertus wrote: »

Ok, taking the skimpy and infamous post 19 :

By all means...

Good, that means nothing wrong with a scientific means then

Not at all. Other than that there's a degree of tentitivity attached.

Good, because empiricism, in the scientific sense, would satisfy me

The same validity applies to revelation. Or any other means decided upon by God. (for some reason, the 'by God' bit seems to be overlooked by most)

And as God made humans all slightly different, and taking into account individual personal differences, God must know that some people just by honest nature require more evidence than others to have confidence.

The evidence only has value because God attaches a sense of confidence to it. What happens if he uses Revelation on you and attaches more confidence to that than to empirical means at his disposal.

..was the conclusion you didn't meantion

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Perhaps worship is the wrong word. There's nothing amiss with worship whereas there is something seriously amiss in utilising that which the inventor would have created in order to determine whether the Creator exists or not. To the exclusion of any other means the Creator might have at his disposal that is.

Perhaps slavish adulation would be a better term

We don't have, at our disposal, the means the creator has at his. So we use the most efficient and reliable means we have.

Even with the term slavish adulation, your previous post conflates religious faith with general faith.

This post also implies that you don't use one means to the exclusion of any other means to determine your creator exists. Meaning, if you want to be consistent, you can't argue that personal revelation is good enough by itself to prove god's existence. So what other means do you have for proving gods existence?

Sertus

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

As I said before: If something is omnipresent across time, and can entirely control the universe then they are not subject to time, therefore they are infinite.

Hmmm not sure about that, that would only demonstrate current control of this universe and ability to time travel within it, and not infinity. There may be multiple other universes out there as Stephen Hawkins and others postulate.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Mark Hamill wrote: »

We don't have, at our disposal, the means the creator has at his. So we use the most efficient and reliable means we have.

We have? They're all his. Reminds the argument at post 19

Even with the term slavish adulation, your previous post conflates religious faith with general faith.

Not when general faith forgets who invented Science and thinks it's relying on Science to reveal the Creator rather than on the Creator who created Science to reveal himself (bearing in mind the context of the thread)

Sarky

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

Do you even realise how daft your posts are getting, antiskeptic?

Mark Hamill

Sertus wrote: »

Hmmm not sure about that, that would only demonstrate current control of this universe and ability to time travel within it, and not infinity. There may be multiple other universes out there as Stephen Hawkins and others postulate.

I already said that the being could interact with our universe on such a level that it could access, and fully interact with, any other universe. Also, a being that is omnipresent across time and can fully interact with any matter or energy (including its own) will never age or die. It is infinite.

Motopepe

antiskeptic wrote: »

One conclusion from the argument at post 19:

- it's not for us establish the existence of our Creator (should there be such a being). Rather, it is for the Creator to establish his existence for us.

Whether he does this empirically or by any other means he choses isn't the issue. The issue that it's for him to do it by any means at his disposal.

You are incorrect to speak of 'conclusions' from post 19. All that exists there is argument and opinion synopsized thusly...
If you are convinced that God exists then the OPs question is moot (i.e. no longer practically applicable).

Therefore, this thread is asking a question that is outside the parameters permitted by your argument.
Thats a conclusion!

Sertus

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Clause 19

Any means which leads to your being satisfied God exists is as good as any other means. Consider:

As soon as God demonstrates his existence to you (by whichever means  satisfies you: empiricism, reasoning, revelation), you'll realise that those means were designed by God.

Which contradicts this :

antiskeptic wrote: »

The evidence only has value because God attaches a sense of confidence to it. What happens if he uses Revelation on you and attaches more confidence to that than to empirical means at his disposal.

..was the conclusion you didn't meantion

and I don't buy that, surely you have to tailor the message for your intended audience, its not one size fits all, hence four different styles of Gospel. Some women get romance, some men don't, some women get cars, some women don't. And yet to date God has conveniently completely excluded anyone who prefers scientific evidence ? If you want to get your message across, you don't broadcast on LW and refuse to broadcast to anyone who is only equipped for FM.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

We have? They're all his. Reminds the argument at post 19

So when you said "any other means the Creator might have at his disposal" you weren't talking about gods omniscience? Omniscience is a means at gods disposal, is it not?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not when general faith forgets who invented Science and thinks it's relying on Science to reveal the Creator rather than on the Creator who created Science to reveal himself (bearing in mind the context of the thread)

You are still conflating religious faith with general faith. Religious faith actively requires no evidence, and the faith is used as an expression of worship. General faith is the result of evidence and is not used as anything. General faith doesn't just apply to science, it applies to anything that you have seen working (evidence) and assume will continue to work in the same way (faith). I have faith in my brakes, but I don't worship my bike.

I added a paragraph to my last post, which you may have missed because you responded so quickly. I'll repeat it here:
This post also implies that you don't use one means to the exclusion of any other means to determine your creator exists. Meaning, if you want to be consistent, you can't argue that personal revelation is good enough by itself to prove god's existence. So what other means do you have for proving gods existence?

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Motopepe wrote: »

If you are convinced that God exists then the OPs question is moot (i.e. no longer practically applicable).

The OP's question is applicable alright (since I'm not denying God can manifest himself empirically). It's just that God can manifest himself anyway he likes.

Therefore, this thread is asking a question that is outside the parameters permitted by your argument.
Thats a conclusion!

The OP is being challenged on why he limits God to turning up empirically - when it doesn't necessarily matter which way God turns up to him. Should God give the OP confident conviction of His existence by whatever means then confidently convinced the OP shall be.

No?

Sertus

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

a being that is omnipresent across time and can fully interact with any matter or energy (including its own) will never age or die. It is infinite.

Not sure I understand the science behind this claim, perhaps its only present everywhere for a certain duration ? So how do you establish it is infinite ?

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Sertus wrote: »

Which contradicts this :

True. It was clarifed much earlier in the discusson but I can't edit it. No matter. Point is: God is the one who decides confidence levels. Mean revelation could be God-designed to provide more confidence

The argument is really about the demand that God turn up empirically. And about the denigration of revelation - when the atheist should realise that would be a matter for God to decide. Should he exist.

and I don't buy that, surely you have to tailor the message for your intended audience, its not one size fits all, hence four different styles of Gospel. Some women get romance, some men don't, some women get cars, some women don't. And yet to date God has conveniently completely excluded anyone who prefers scientific evidence ? If you want to get your message across, you don't broadcast on LW and refuse to broadcast to anyone who is only equipped for FM.

There is good theologica reason to suppose that all those who believe (in the sense of being saved) believe through revelation. But that aside ..

The argument is merely about what God decides be the case. You can love empiricism all you like but if God revealed through revelation and attached more confidence to that means than empiricism then you wouldn't be complaining and demanding that because you this, that or the other type.

Your type would have been altered. By that very revelation.

No?

Sertus

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

antiskeptic wrote: »

The OP is being challenged on why he limits God to turning up empirically - when it doesn't necessarily matter which way God turns up to him. Should God give the OP confident conviction of His existence by whatever means then confidently convinced the OP shall be.

So why would God choose not to ?, as again this smacks of Predestination / Pre-selection.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So when you said "any other means the Creator might have at his disposal" you weren't talking about gods omniscience? Omniscience is a means at gods disposal, is it not?

I was referring to means God has at his disposal for giving us confidence as to his existence. Empirical means, appeals to reason and direct revelation are three that spring to mind.

Empricism vs. Revelation are what it's boiled down to in this thread.

You are still conflating religious faith with general faith. Religious faith actively requires no evidence,

It requires evidence alright - in so far that faith needs something to bring about confidence. And since God is assigning the confidence quotient to all means (empiricism / reasoning / revelation) it doesn't really matter what the medium for confidence giving is.

General faith is the result of evidence and is not used as anything. General faith doesn't just apply to science, it applies to anything that you have seen working (evidence) and assume will continue to work in the same way (faith). I have faith in my brakes, but I don't worship my bike.

Note, I'm talking specifically in the context of the argument at post 19. And so:

Faith in Science to determine the existence of the Creator is necesarily faith in the Creator of Science. When this is forgotten, Science becomes a god.

This post also implies that you don't use one means to the exclusion of any other means to determine your creator exists. Meaning, if you want to be consistent, you can't argue that personal revelation is good enough by itself to prove god's existence. So what other means do you have for proving gods existence?

I didn't imply more than one means was always necessary. It might be if you were relying on empiricism since that only provides tentitive answers (or to put it another way: God has assigned "less-than-fully-certain" to that means of revealing things, him included.)

But if God has a means at his disposal wherby he provides 100% confidence then no other means would be required.

Mark Hamill

Sertus wrote: »

Not sure I understand the science behind this claim, perhaps its only present everywhere for a certain duration ? So how do you establish it is infinite ?

By it making you infinite.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Sertus wrote: »

So why would God choose not to ?, as again this smacks of Predestination / Pre-selection.

I'd plump for the OP a ducking and diving duck, avoiding those oncoming wheels.

Nothing predestination about it - it's mere act of will. Perhaps he'll be run over one day.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Night awl...

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was referring to means God has at his disposal for giving us confidence as to his existence. Empirical means, appeals to reason and direct revelation are three that spring to mind.

Empricism vs. Revelation are what it's boiled down to in this thread.

But this then makes your argument before an argument against god using one specific means, not humans doing so. Humans use the means they have confidence in. So you can't blame humans for only having confidence in one means, if god only gives them confidence in that means.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It requires evidence alright - in so far that faith needs something to bring about confidence. And since God is assigning the confidence quotient to all means (empiricism / reasoning / revelation) it doesn't really matter what the medium for confidence giving is.

The act of making a claim is not evidence for that claim.
The medium for confidence giving is important if the means are unequal in the amount of confidence they instil.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Note, I'm talking specifically in the context of the argument at post 19

The context of post 19 doesn't change the fact that you are conflating two different types of faith. The faith that you describe in post 19 (religious faith in personal revelation) is not the same kind of faith that people have in science or their bicycle brakes.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I didn't imply more than one means was always necessary.

You said : "there is something seriously amiss in utilising that which the inventor would have created in order to determine whether the Creator exists or not. To the exclusion of any other means the Creator might have at his disposal that is." If you are now saying that sometimes one means is enough, then you are directly contradicting your previous post. But then again you directly contradict yourself in this post:

"since God is assigning the confidence quotient to all means (empiricism / reasoning / revelation) it doesn't really matter what the medium for confidence giving is"
to
"[empiricism] only provides tentitive answers (or to put it another way: God has assigned "less-than-fully-certain" to that means of revealing things, him included.)

But if God has a means at his disposal wherby he provides 100% confidence then no other means would be required."

A jump from "all means are equal", to "some are better than others" (personal revelations over empiricism) in just a few sentences.


One last thing: you do realise that the amount of confidence you have in something has zero bearing in whether or not it true, right? There are people who are as certain as you are that they had a personal revelation from their contradictory (in relation to your) god. You can't both be right.

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you're not going to lift a finger then neither me..

Dont blame me if I can't find a shred of anything but wordy circular reasoning in your explanations. Theology in full flow.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Do you mind if I pass on this effort and wait around for Zombrex?

Please do.

Motopepe

antiskeptic wrote: »

...
Faith in Science to determine the existence of the Creator is necesarily faith in the Creator of Science. When this is forgotten, Science becomes a god.

again I say that you are talking about Theism here in that first part of the quote....it doesn't require forgetting that fact for it to become a fact.

Sertus

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'd plump for the OP a ducking and diving duck, avoiding those oncoming wheels.

Nothing predestination about it - it's mere act of will. Perhaps he'll be run over one day.

Hmm so in order to find/accept God you have to be run over some day and therefore will squeak and turn to God with no choice ? Again it just sounds like more predestination, no free will there, or just another bad analogy.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Do you mind if I pass on this effort and wait around for Zombrex?

I'm here, been here a while

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82507888&postcount=297

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Zombrex wrote: »

I already have. God has already decided we are as we are.

And I was inquiring into how you could be definitive in your opinion (since you are bound to a method for showing how you know things). So let's see:

But you don't decide that, God does.

Indeed. Ergo, the potential exists that he ranks Revelation over empiricism.

Main as in God's creation. All other actions come secondary to his creation, by definition.

By definition, God is the one who decides what is primary and what is secondary. And when what means is primary and when it is secondary. Could you flesh out this assertion with argumentation? Bear in mind God permitted to re-create / re-order.

No, exactly the opposite. I'm pointing out that your argument falls down precisely because we don't control it, God does. You can say the revelation from creation is not important, but that is you attempting to tell God what is or isn't important

I haven't said it's not important (and I don't want to divert into harmony of revelation). Because God controls all forms of revelation, it's for him to decide with is primary.

No, God did (decide that his prime form of self-revelation would only and ever be through empiricism - antiskeptic) It could have been anything, it wasn't. This has been revealed to us through his creation.

Argument to support the assertion?

You are missing the point.

You are diverting from it: you've been insisting that our evaluation (by method) is absolutely necessary in order to be confident our knowledge is indeed knowledge. I'm asking why so, given:

- the confidence attaching to method is God-assigned. Without his doing that, this much-elevated method would produce no confidence

- God needn't be constrained to operate via method.

.. God has given us free will, thus we evaluate everything, including revelation from God. Otherwise we would be robots, unable to think about how we think.

(I'd argue about the precise nature of that free will but for now, the normal understanding will suffice.)

Free will isn't being compromised by God taking the step to reveal himself by revelation, so long as our free will pulled the trigger (as it were) on his deciding to act. Unexpected consequences of a free willed action don't confound the free willed nature of the action.

A person freely surrenders to God's will (and in doing so, fulfills his criterion for turning up). That he turns up in a manner which brings about a level of confidence, greater than they ever could have imagined, doesn't impinge on their initial free willed act. And since the act was one of surrender, God can now do what he likes without confounding the free will which permitted him that latitude.

And again God decided this, not you.

Indeed. But what we're trying to establish is why your view holds sway since it says what is (rather than my view, which says what can be).

And what's preventing God doing otherwise.

Says who? Cause it certainly isn't God saying that.

Fair enough (since this isn't a theological discussion).

Main point stands: I'm not discarding general revelation.

So now you are dictating to God how his own creation should work?

I'm saying that that's how empiricism works now.

God could alter the workings of it so that we could have 100% confidence through empirical means (by giving us infallible senses for example). In which case you'd have SuperEmpiricism. By all means add that to the list of possible options for God revealing himself (I've resolved the effect it would have on a free will for you above )

That the revelation of creation is not true.

In what way(s), specifically?

What lie would God have had to have told in creation were he to demonstrate his existence to a person through revelation? Bear in mind that creation is understood tentatively and so the 'lie' needn't necessarily be a lie, it could be a failure to correctly read the revelation of creation on our part.

Sarky

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

I'm not at all sure you understand how empiricism works. But there's so much waffle in there it's hard to tell for certain.

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But this then makes your argument before an argument against god using one specific means, not humans doing so. Humans use the means they have confidence in. So you can't blame humans for only having confidence in one means, if god only gives them confidence in that means.

And if God gives some of the confidence in other means?

The act of making a claim is not evidence for that claim.

I understand that. The argument at post 19 merely points out potential. And potential:

- undermines the demand of the one who insists that God turn up empirically-or-nothing

- undermines the anti-faith position since faith (properly defined rather than Dawkins-defined) sails in the same boat as empiricism when it comes to the issue of God's existence: both are totally reliant on God to do the confidence-raising.

The medium for confidence giving is important if the means are unequal in the amount of confidence they instil.

What's important is how much confidence the designer of the various means decides to assign to each means. The importance of the means rests on how God has positioned it in his rankings - not in anything intrinsic to the means itself.

The context of post 19 doesn't change the fact that you are conflating two different types of faith. The faith that you describe in post 19 (religious faith in personal revelation) is not the same kind of faith that people have in science or their bicycle brakes.

It's not the same. It could be better.

You said : "there is something seriously amiss in utilising that which the inventor would have created in order to determine whether the Creator exists or not. To the exclusion of any other means the Creator might have at his disposal that is."

If you are now saying that sometimes one means is enough, then you are directly contradicting your previous post. But then again you directly contradict yourself in this post:

I suppose I was pointing out the circularity of the reasoning which supposes man can establish God exists somehow independently from God. Folk are pointing to empiricism - forgetting who it is gives them the confidence of anything through it

There is potential for one means to be enough - it only takes God to assign 100% confidence to that means. Empiricism clearly couldn't be it however, since conclusions there are tentative. Potentially revelation could give 100% confidence.




On contradiction:

"since God is assigning the confidence quotient to all means (empiricism / reasoning / revelation) it doesn't really matter what the medium for confidence giving is"

...all I'm saying here is that the medium through which confidence is instilled in us is irrelevant. The medium (empiricism / revelation / reasoning is a vehicle for carrying confidence, not a generator of confidence itself. Suppose God didn't grant empiricism the confidence raising it gives us - we couldn't be confident using empiricism then - that would be our experience..

"[empiricism] only provides tentative answers (or to put it another way: God has assigned "less-than-fully-certain" to that means of revealing things, him included.)

But if God has a means at his disposal whereby he provides 100% confidence then no other means would be required."

A jump from "all means are equal", to "some are better than others" (personal revelations over empiricism) in just a few sentences. [/quote]

Does the above clarify?

One last thing: you do realise that the amount of confidence you have in something has zero bearing in whether or not it true, right?

True. We could be brains in jars - you included.

There are people who are as certain as you are that they had a personal revelation from their contradictory (in relation to your) god. You can't both be right.

Sure we can't be. But that doesn't get you off the hook placed by the argument at post 19. It's you who is being posed the dilemma. Not me

antiskeptic

None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting him

Sertus wrote: »

Hmm so in order to find/accept God you have to be run over some day and therefore will squeak and turn to God with no choice ? Again it just sounds like more predestination, no free will there, or just another bad analogy.

It's quite a good analogy imo: it introduces a nuanced version of freewill, one which doesn't see us contributing positively to our salvation, yet leaves us able to express choice so as to determine our eternal destinations.

A better reflection, I think, of the biblical view of the will-potential of fallen men.



So:

The 'free will' is exercised in our ability to dodge the truck. Although God works to exhaust you and drive you into a corner where he can squish a squeak out of you, he won't close off every possible avenue of escape. If your will is prepared to contort and twist and wriggle out of the way then escape him it shall.

Out of the frying pan (events leading up to salvation typically aren't very pleasant - sinners (saved sinners like me included) don't like facing the truth head on, especially not about themselves) and into the fires of Hell.

Sarky

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

You certainly don't like facing the truth, that much is plain.