Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/
What kind of evidence would prove god ?
Comments
-
antiskeptic wrote: »And if God gives some of the confidence in other means?
Then it wouldn't make a difference anyway, as the mere feeling of confidence in something is no measure of its validity.
Does this question mean you agree with my point? That your argument to use one means at the exclusion of any other means is an argument against personal revelation as sole means for believing in god?antiskeptic wrote: »I understand that. The argument at post 19 merely points out potential.
No, you clearly do not understand that. A guess has the potential to be correct, but that does not make guesses as reliable as empirical evidence.antiskeptic wrote: »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.
This contradict itself (god creates means, therefore the importance of means rests on something god intrinsically put in them), and is also contradicted by reality. God doesn't put confidence in means, we do. Hence the amount of confidence you put in a specific means, like personal revelation, is different to the amount of confidence I put in it.antiskeptic wrote: »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
If empiricism is a means devised by god, then the use of empiricism to prove god would not be done independently from god.antiskeptic wrote: »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.
No matter how much confidence you have in your personal revelation, no-one else can have 100% confidence in your claim of it, because it is personal to you. Everyone can have 100% confidence in an empirical claim, simply by repeating the impersonal test.antiskeptic wrote: »On contradiction:
...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..
Does the above clarify?
No, you are still making the same contradiction. If the amount of confidence we get from a "means" is what's important, and that "means" is set by god, then what that "means" is, is important.antiskeptic wrote: »True. We could be brains in jars - you included.
Or you could think that you car brakes will stop you in 10 metres, but it actually takes 20.antiskeptic wrote: »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
It shows your dilemma to be invalid. Your dilemma takes no account for the simple fact that confidence can come from humans themselves, without any act from god, and that we can be confident in things that are entirely false.
Even if we accept that a particular personal revelation is 100% from god, and that receiver is right to be 100% confident in it, it still would be of 0% use to anyone else. All any observer of that receiver can see, is someone 100% confident of their revelation. But that someone is completely indistinguishable from every other person who claims revelations from different, contradictory gods (that can't exist). The only way for personal revelation to be of any use to observers, is if everyone were to receive an identical revelation from god. But only because everyone could confirm with everyone else the nature of the revelation. I.e. because they can empirically confirm it.0 -
-
None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting himMark Hamill wrote: »Then it wouldn't make a difference anyway, as the mere feeling of confidence in something is no measure of its validity.
If your not confident in the validity of something - say empiricism, then what other measure do you use? Before answering, take time to ensure that you don't go in a circle and end up relying on confidence.Does this question mean you agree with my point? That your argument to use one means at the exclusion of any other means is an argument against personal revelation as sole means for believing in god?
I think we've crossed wires so let me reboot. Post 19 says in effect, that to exclude, a priori, any means God may decide to use to reveal himself to you is unreasonable.
So naturally I'm not saying one should exclude any means. If God turns up empirically to your satisfaction, fine. On the other hand, if God turns up to you by Revelation, then also fine.No, you clearly do not understand that. A guess has the potential to be correct, but that does not make guesses as reliable as empirical evidence.
What does reliablity do but instill ...confidence
Revelation isn't a guess. Revelation is God revealing himself by means of his own choosing. By definition (should he assign a high confidence levels to that means) revelation is reliable. The potential is that it is more reliable than empiricism. I'm not arguing that it is so, I'm just arguing it's potentially so.This contradict itself (god creates means, therefore the importance of means rests on something god intrinsically put in them), and is also contradicted by reality. God doesn't put confidence in means, we do.
Who made us so that we do this (remembering that we're looking at what the consquences are for empiricism vs. revelation should God exist)?Hence the amount of confidence you put in a specific means, like personal revelation, is different to the amount of confidence I put in it.
Would your view change if God used Revelation to make himself known to you and assigned a high level of confidence such that you felt confident?If empiricism is a means devised by god, then the use of empiricism to prove god would not be done independently from god.
Indeed not - the conclusion "God exists" relies on God to enable that revealing-via-empiricism. Since knowledge of God's existence depends ultimately on an act of God, the means is rendered irrelevant. Should he chose means X then X is good, if Y then Y is good. There is no independent of God means to decide he does exist.No matter how much confidence you have in your personal revelation, no-one else can have 100% confidence in your claim of it, because it is personal to you. Everyone can have 100% confidence in an empirical claim, simply by repeating the impersonal test.
No matter to me.
I would imagine a persons primary concern with respect to the existence of God should be that they know he does.No, you are still making the same contradiction. If the amount of confidence we get from a "means" is what's important, and that "means" is set by god, then what that "means" is, is important.
Only because of the level of confidence attaching to it. No confidence instilled, then the means is useless.It shows your dilemma to be invalid. Your dilemma takes no account for the simple fact that confidence can come from humans themselves, without any act from god, and that we can be confident in things that are entirely false.
Confidence from humans, but not independently of God. If you're more confident because other humans view something as you do then it's only so because God made it to be so. So it's not humans you're getting your confidence but from a system devised by God involving humans. If God hadn't devised it so then confidence from humans you wouldn't have.
The fact we can be confident and wrong has no bearing on the argument. This is about God acting and about God assigning confidence to any means he reveals himself by: empricism and Revelation. You have no way to decide that one way he uses is better than another since your subject to what he decides confidence levels should be.Even if we accept that a particular personal revelation is 100% from god, and that receiver is right to be 100% confident in it, it still would be of 0% use to anyone else.
Directly I agree. But would point out that the conviction of those who've met God thus has caused the spread of Christianity - which has been a fundamental piller in bringing about Western society.All any observer of that receiver can see, is someone 100% confident of their revelation. But that someone is completely indistinguishable from every other person who claims revelations from different, contradictory gods (that can't exist). The only way for personal revelation to be of any use to observers, is if everyone were to receive an identical revelation from god. But only because everyone could confirm with everyone else the nature of the revelation. I.e. because they can empirically confirm it.
Understood and agreed. And no worries.
This argument is addressed at something within individuals: pride before God. Folk are telling their Creator what hoops he has to jump through before they will believe.
By sustaining the argument of post 19, pride is forced to retreat. The reasoned position is to say "Yes .. God can use any means he likes to reveal himself to me and if he does so, then I'm subject to his doing so and would know he exists because he made it so"
The person concluding so has bowed a little before the God he doesn't believe in. 0 -
-
antiskeptic wrote: »If your not confident in the validity of something - say empiricism, then what other measure do you use? Before answering, take time to ensure that you don't go in a circle and end up relying on confidence.
You examine why you are confident in something before you accept or disregard it. The act of feeling confident should come after recognising the reliability of a means, not before.antiskeptic wrote: »What does reliablity do but instill ...confidence
Reliability leads to confidence, but that doesn't mean that confidence leads to reliability.antiskeptic wrote: »Revelation isn't a guess. Revelation is God revealing himself by means of his own choosing. By definition (should he assign a high confidence levels to that means) revelation is reliable. The potential is that it is more reliable than empiricism. I'm not arguing that it is so, I'm just arguing it's potentially so.
It doesn't matter how you try to twist the argument, its still wrong. Revelation, to anyone but the receiver is indistinguishable from a guess, and given that there are receivers with contradicting revelations, we can't even say if the receiver's own assessment of their revelation is going to be accurate. Your confidence in your revelation is only a measure of your own confidence, it does not relate to its reliability or its veracity.antiskeptic wrote: »Who made us so that we do this (remembering that we're looking at what the consquences are for empiricism vs. revelation should God exist)?
Should god exist, then god did it. But then, should god exist, that means he put different confidence quotients, not just in different means, but for different people too. You and I do not share the same confidence in revelation. Which means that you can't say that a personal means gives 100% confidence, only that you, yourself, have 100% confidence in it. Its only with impersonal means that we can say how much confidence should be obtainable, and thats because it doesn't matter who is using the means, the confidence of a sincere observer would be the same.antiskeptic wrote: »Would your view change if God used Revelation to make himself known to you and assigned a high level of confidence such that you felt confident?
You are asking if god did something to my brain, would I have the same opinion? If my brain is compromised, then I am likely to have differing opinions.antiskeptic wrote: »No matter to me.
I would imagine a persons primary concern with respect to the existence of God should be that they know he does.
Given that there are multiple contradictory personal revelations of different gods, this would mean that personal means are useless for a sincere observer to know anything. A sincere observer would have to ask "How can I know that my confidence in my revelation is genuine, seeing as another observer has equal confidence in their contradictory personal revelation?". Its only with an impersonal means that an observer can verify if what they know is accurate.antiskeptic wrote: »Confidence from humans, but not independently of God. If you're more confident because other humans view something as you do then it's only so because God made it to be so. So it's not humans you're getting your confidence but from a system devised by God involving humans. If God hadn't devised it so then confidence from humans you wouldn't have.
The fact we can be confident and wrong has no bearing on the argument. This is about God acting and about God assigning confidence to any means he reveals himself by: empricism and Revelation.
The fact that all confidence, in your argument, comes from god is what is irrelevant. What is relevant is that false confidence and true confidence are not distinguishable by personal means (your personal revelation and my contradictory personal revelation give us both 100% confidence, despite at least one of us having to be wrong).
Historically we have seen people with equal amounts of (ultimately god given) false and true confidence (geocentricism vs heliocentrism, creationism vs evolution etc.) but it was only with impersonal means that we determined the valid position to take. Why would this be the case for every piece of human discovery, but not for god?antiskeptic wrote: »You have no way to decide that one way he uses is better than another since your subject to what he decides confidence levels should be.
But we can recognise why we assert confidence on things. God may be the ultimate source, but we still (in our own eyes) gain confidence from sources like reliability, verifiability or bias reinforcement. Every single means we use, and every single subject we use it on, can be evaluated in terms of whether or not the confidence we get is true or false confidence. That is how we can say if one means is better than another.antiskeptic wrote: »Directly I agree. But would point out that the conviction of those who've met God thus has caused the spread of Christianity - which has been a fundamental piller in bringing about Western society.
And the conviction of the mosquito causes the spread of malaria, a disease which has killed more people than any war humans have waged on each other. Conviction is not an indicator of veracity, benevolence or betterment.antiskeptic wrote: »Understood and agreed. And no worries.
This argument is addressed at something within individuals: pride before God. Folk are telling their Creator what hoops he has to jump through before they will believe.
By sustaining the argument of post 19, pride is forced to retreat. The reasoned position is to say "Yes .. God can use any means he likes to reveal himself to me and if he does so, then I'm subject to his doing so and would know he exists because he made it so"
The person concluding so has bowed a little before the God he doesn't believe in.
But our pride is based on our confidence, which is god given. Therefore our current pride is exactly as god intends, meaning we do not need to bow, for to do so would be to reject confidence that god had given us already.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting himMark Hamill wrote: »You examine why you are confident in something before you accept or disregard it. The act of feeling confident should come after recognising the reliability of a means, not before.
And who made it so that all these links would result in confidence? God. SO why are you confident, ultimately? Because God made it so.
You are reliant on God to prove God empirically.It doesn't matter how you try to twist the argument, its still wrong. Revelation, to anyone but the receiver is indistinguishable from a guess, and given that there are receivers with contradicting revelations, we can't even say if the receiver's own assessment of their revelation is going to be accurate. Your confidence in your revelation is only a measure of your own confidence, it does not relate to its reliability or its veracity.
a) We're not concerned what others think
b) See aboveShould god exist, then god did it. But then, should god exist, that means he put different confidence quotients, not just in different means, but for different people too. You and I do not share the same confidence in revelation.
That would be perfectly understandable had you not had personal revelation from God. I know plenty that do and whilst there is all sorts of disagreement about theological points there isn't about God's existence. We know we know.You are asking if god did something to my brain, would I have the same opinion? If my brain is compromised, then I am likely to have differing opinions.
Technically it's your spirit he interfaces with but no matter..
Your brain wouldn't be anymore compromised than had it been altered by empirical evidence (your sense of confidence, reliability being but an arrangement of the neural network)
God stands at the root of all the brain alteration - which underlines the irrelevancy of 'means whereby'
Thanks for bringing that point up!Given that there are multiple contradictory personal revelations of different gods, this would mean that personal means are useless for a sincere observer to know anything. A sincere observer would have to ask "How can I know that my confidence in my revelation is genuine, seeing as another observer has equal confidence in their contradictory personal revelation?". Its only with an impersonal means that an observer can verify if what they know is accurate.
By now the problems are mounting:
1) Means are irrelevant since God lies behind them all
2) Knowledge is but an alignment of neural networks. How they are aligned by God is irrelevant
3) That there are 100,000 religions added to the world everyday has no bearing on God realigning your neural network.The fact that all confidence, in your argument, comes from god is what is irrelevant.What is relevant is that false confidence and true confidence are not distinguishable by personal means (your personal revelation and my contradictory personal revelation give us both 100% confidence, despite at least one of us having to be wrong).
"means" are irrelevant. You keep on pointing to them as if somehow you can escape God being the one to give them any weight. When you lean on them to differentiate yourself from me you lean on an act of God.
Once you do that you're bunched!Historically we have seen people with equal amounts of (ultimately god given) false and true confidence (geocentricism vs heliocentrism, creationism vs evolution etc.) but it was only with impersonal means that we determined the valid position to take. Why would this be the case for every piece of human discovery, but not for god?
I think your objection boil down to a reliance on the need for method so maybe we'll focus on that? If method can't be shown to be necessary then all the above falls.But we can recognise why we assert confidence on things. God may be the ultimate source, but we still (in our own eyes) gain confidence from sources like reliability, verifiability or bias reinforcement. Every single means we use, and every single subject we use it on, can be evaluated in terms of whether or not the confidence we get is true or false confidence. That is how we can say if one means is better than another.
This particular means of revelation (empiricism) consists of components working together the output of which ultimately, is confidence. The need for a why? along the ways but one of the components of this particular means. It's there because fallibility of senses is a component of the means called empiricism
But there is no reason why all means utilized by God need consist of 'fallible senses'. If if no fallible senses then no why is required. The question just wouldn't arise should God go that route.
[God acts] > [means (including fallible senses)] > [confidence in you].
Ultimately it boils down to God's act instilling confidenceAnd the conviction of the mosquito causes the spread of malaria, a disease which has killed more people than any war humans have waged on each other. Conviction is not an indicator of veracity, benevolence or betterment.
But it is of use to other people. They say.But our pride is based on our confidence, which is god given.
Our pride is based on our sin. Unless you can circumnavigate some of the problems facing you, then bow you must 0 -
-
Ah you'll just upset him now, say 2 decades of the rosary & he'll forgive youBannasidhe wrote: »
There is no God.
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
antiskeptic wrote: »Indeed. Ergo, the potential exists that he ranks Revelation over empiricism.
The potential exists for God to do anything, by definition. But again he hasn't, so it is a moot point.antiskeptic wrote: »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.
Correct, which is why it is odd that you are arguing against what God has already revealed to us.antiskeptic wrote: »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.
Again correct, so why are you arguing that? You know better than God?antiskeptic wrote: »Argument to support the assertion?
Er, if God exists then God isn't wrong. That should be a strong enough argument for you.antiskeptic wrote: »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 not asserting that, God is. And you seem to be insisting on arguing against God under the grounds that God could do something else.
God - I did this
You - Ah but you could have done something else
God - Yeah but I didn't
You - Ah but you could have
God - But I didn't ...
You - Ah but
etcantiskeptic wrote: »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.
You are missing the point. I'm discussing how we are, how God made us, how God has revealed us to be.
You are arguing about how we might have been if God had made us differently and arguing that he could have done that because he is God and can do anything.
All that is true, but he didn't. We aren't robots. We think about how we think.antiskeptic wrote: »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).
Because God decides what is, not you. You can ponder what might have been, but that doesn't do anything.antiskeptic wrote: »And what's preventing God doing otherwise.
I don't know, why does God do anything?antiskeptic wrote: »I'm not discarding general revelation.
What you do or don't do has some what limited effect on reality, I'm sure you would admitantiskeptic wrote: »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).
That would require God to lie. That doesn't seem to fit the Christian description of God, but then since when has the Christian description of God ever forced God to be anything.antiskeptic wrote: »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.
We cannot fail to read the revelation of creation correct if God chooses otherwise.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »Let me add "...we see today" to "..Western Society". And let me underline "a" in " a fundamental pillar"
Does that help?
Ah, so you can be coaxed out of your stall?
Let's add your modifications, shall we?
Nope, it's still pretty much nonsense: contemporary Western society has not come about because of the conviction of those who have met God.Originally Posted by antiskeptic
......
Directly I agree. But would point out that the conviction of those who've met God thus has caused the spread of Christianity - which has been a fundamental piller in bringing about Western society we see today.
......0 -
None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting himI'm not asserting that, God is. And you seem to be insisting on arguing against God under the grounds that God could do something else.
God - I did this
You - Ah but you could have done something else
God - Yeah but I didn't
You - Ah but you could have
God - But I didn't ...
You - Ah but
etc
If I might step in at line 1?
You say: "God says I did this" based on what he has revealed to you.
I say "God says I did this and this" based on what he has revealed to me
I can't prove to you that God said "..and this" which is why I pose but the potential for you in argument. But potential is sufficient for my purposes so I'm not too worriedYou are missing the point. I'm discussing how we are, how God made us, how God has revealed us to be.
You are arguing about how we might have been if God had made us differently and arguing that he could have done that because he is God and can do anything.
Is it clearer from the above? Your claim as to how Goddidit vs my claim. With the problem lying either in my being wrong or your not being able to detect.
Which brings stalemate. Which essentially what the argument at post 19 does (if I don't know which ways God could reveal himself then I need be open to all ways God might reveal himself)I don't know, why does God do anything?
It's not why he does it it's what prevents him doing it. I take your answer to be ' nothing'What you do or don't do has some what limited effect on reality, I'm sure you would admit
Sure. But the point had to do with my not discarding general revelation. Which you now accept?That would require God to lie.
What would? Giving us infallible empirical senses?We cannot fail to read the revelation of creation correct if God chooses otherwise.
There was a question there for you to answer. And I'm not sure if what you say above makes sense - could you check?0 -
-
antiskeptic wrote: »a) We're not concerned what others think
b) See above
a) we are, if we want confidence in what we claim.
b) You are ignoring the problem of false confidence, the confidence (god given, if you wish) that people have in things that are wrong. The only way to eliminate to possibility of false confidence is independent confirmation through impersonal means.antiskeptic wrote: »That would be perfectly understandable had you not had personal revelation from God. I know plenty that do and whilst there is all sorts of disagreement about theological points there isn't about God's existence. We know we know.
You are ignoring those whose contradictory revelations have given them contradictory doctrine (sufficient to send them to hell under your beliefs) and contradictory notions of gods. The Hindu notion of gods is not just a few theological points away from the christian notion of god, they are fundamentally different. Even the islam notion of god (generally an impersonal, very inhuman being) is fundamentally different to christian notion of god. Which leads to the question of why? Why would god, should there exist one single god who is the source of all true and false confidence, force people to be confident in contradictory gods and doctrine?antiskeptic wrote: »Technically it's your spirit he interfaces with but no matter..
Your brain wouldn't be anymore compromised than had it been altered by empirical evidence (your sense of confidence, reliability being but an arrangement of the neural network)
God stands at the root of all the brain alteration - which underlines the irrelevancy of 'means whereby'
Thanks for bringing that point up!
It would have been compromised because the means is important, despite your claims to the contrary. I require a line of impersonal logic to achieve confidence (regardless of where it comes from) in something, hence I have confidence in empirical means. This is part of who I am. I can change naturally over time, but that requires natural stepwise changes in my personality (and ultimately, who I change to would not be me anymore). To have sudden confidence in personal means would require a sudden fundamental change in my brain.antiskeptic wrote: »By now the problems are mounting:
1) Means are irrelevant since God lies behind them all
2) Knowledge is but an alignment of neural networks. How they are aligned by God is irrelevant
3) That there are 100,000 religions added to the world everyday has no bearing on God realigning your neural network.
1) They are relevant. God, should one exist, is also behind all religions (religion being the means to get into heaven). Despite giving people 100% confidence in different religions (means), its only with the right one that you can get into heaven. Therefore god gives value to means, regardless of confidence people have in them.
2) No, knowledge is not an alignment of neural networks, belief (confidence) is. And given that god gives us belief (confidence) in things that are wrong, it is important to determine the means of that confidence, as some means are more reliable than others, as demonstrated in every piece of human discovery and invention.
3) It does, because each of those who receive revelation of any of those 100,000 religions has 100% confidence in their revelation too. YOu can't all be true, so how does any of them, or you, know that god has aligned your neural network to the truth?antiskeptic wrote: »"means" are irrelevant.
You keep saying this without backing it up. God doesn't give weight to means, he makes people give weight to means, and he makes people give differing weight to the same means. Meaning the weight one person attaches to a means is of no use whatsoever to determine its veracity. We need to examine means other ways.antiskeptic wrote: »I think your objection boil down to a reliance on the need for method so maybe we'll focus on that? If method can't be shown to be necessary then all the above falls.
Do you mean "scientific method" when you say "method"? If so, the answer is yes. Ever piece of human discovery and invention is reliant of that method, that impersonal means, for verification and reliable application. Why would god make that the case for everything we do, but not god himself? Why would he punish us for forcing us, to the point of death and destruction, to rely on something that he doesn't want use on him? Why the massive inconsistency?antiskeptic wrote: »But there is no reason why all means utilized by God need consist of 'fallible senses'. If if no fallible senses then no why is required. The question just wouldn't arise should God go that route.
There is no route without the problem of fallible senses. Any route that god uses still ultimately acts on a person through their senses. And given that different people have contradictory personal revelations, it must be possible for any of the senses involved in revelations to be fallible. God may have omnipotently and perfectly sent a revelation to you, but you are a fallible human.antiskeptic wrote: »But it is of use to other people. They say.
Conviction is very useful when you want to have a war.antiskeptic wrote: »Our pride is based on our sin. Unless you can circumnavigate some of the problems facing you, then bow you must
Pride may be a sin, but it is based on over-confidence. You are only proud of something you have confidence in. The rest of that paragraph stands:
Therefore our current pride is exactly as god intends, meaning we do not need to bow, for to do so would be to reject confidence that god had given us already.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
None of the above, and even if its proved he exists, I'll still be rejecting himGod doesn't exist[/B - There is no God so you cannot trust the revelation.
God does exist and hasn't revealed to you - You cannot trust the revelation as it does not come from God.
God does exist and revealed to you - He lies, you cannot trust the revelation.
What about the option that he exists and doesn't lie? And if he doesn't require methodical means to impart knowledge, then he can impart knowledge of the fact he doesn't lie also. That we can't know that God isn't lying about is not lying is brain in jar territory.God does exist and revealed to you - He lies, you cannot trust the revelation.
As ever, I await what the lie God would have had to have told is. Are you actually going to get around to saying what it might be. Your position hinges on it.Saying he cannot lie is again just Christian assertion, modelling this supposed being on what you find emotionally pleasing. It would be easier for you if he couldn't lie, but that has nothing to do with reality.
The argument at post 19 is addressed (and has been announced at being addressed numerous times) at those who suppose that God could (in principle) demonstrate himself empirically. If he can lie via revelation then he can lie via empiricism. In which case you're not one who supposes God can demonstrate himself empirically.
And so don't belong in the discussion. Best get your brain back to it's jarGod decides if we fail to correctly read revelation or not, not you. Asserting we have simply to make your position more tenable again has no effect on reality.
I'm not asserting you have read general revelation incorrectly. I'm pointing out that the evidence of your own and everyone else's eyes demands you include the possibility that you have done so. In which case your contention that God has to have lied in Revelation (given, presumably, that you hold it contradicting what general revelation reveals) flounders.
You can't say "God hasn't" when it could very well be people coming to erroneous conclusions in their reading comprehension.Only if creation was personal revelation. It isn't so it is a moot point.
General revelation available to many doesn't mean the combined reading of it hits the nail on the head. Or comes anyway close when it concerns the issue of God's existence or no.Creation is God's central revelation. It is, by definition, flawless. Saying there is something wrong with it is nonsensical.
In summary:
a) What is your argument that Creation is God's central revelation (about revealing his existence). If reverting to previously presented arguments such as ' "he hasn't" then ignore this question and answer the objections already made to those responses.
a) Could you tell me what the lie God must have told is.
b) Whilst God's revelation through Creation might be flawless (he exists and doesn't lie?) it says says nothing about the ability of folk to correctly read what he is revealing. Empiricism tells us about the ability of folk to incorrectly read - even if they improve the odds by huddling up and sharing observations0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
![[Jackass]](https://w3.vanillicon.com/v2/3178d191648ad5d2fb7722b96c5c616c.svg)
Advertisement