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

Zombrex wrote: »

I've already explained it many times, so I can only guess you aren't listening. The creation revelation, God's primary revelation, reveals to us not only how humans are but how God has decided they are. To then reveal to you information contradictory to this initial revelation would contradict the first revelation, producing a God that lies.

You keep saying this but duck when questioned on the specifics:

a) How do you conclude it's primary (as in "primary way of revealing his existence to people" - you forget to state).

b) God's revelation reveals how humans are to the levels a person can detect What you can't detect ( a part of who you are too) can't be commented upon by you). You can't talk of what you can't know.

c) What information is contradictory?

Lelantos

antiskeptic wrote: »

You keep saying this but duck when questioned on the specifics:

a) How do you conclude it's primary (as in "primary way of revealing himself to people" - you forget to state).

b) God's revelation reveals how humans are in regard to that which you detect. What you can't detect ( a part of who you are too) can't be commented upon by you). You can't talk of what you can't know.

c) What information is contradictory

I'm beginning to think English isn't your first language.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

a) How do you conclude it's primary (as in "primary way of revealing his existence to people" - you forget to state).

As I keep saying to you, I don't, God does. If God exists it is not my place to tell him what is or isn't his primary revelation.

antiskeptic wrote: »

b) God's revelation reveals how humans are to the levels a person can detect What you can't detect ( a part of who you are too) can't be commented upon by you). You can't talk of what you can't know.

Again you focus on what I'm commenting on, rather than what God is revealing to us. Why? This thread is about revelation from God, not me. It might surprise you to know but I'm not a god

antiskeptic wrote: »

c) What information is contradictory?

That God reveals information directly to your brain in a manner that doesn't require you to conclude anything about the information because you will simply know it is true (ie it by passes your need to think about what you think)

This is contradictory to God's primary revelation to us. He could do it, certainly, but he would produce a lie if he did. Thus a God that lies cannot be considered trust worthy. And given this topic is about confidence in revelations from God a God that lies produces the only logical conclusion that we cannot have confidence in what is revealed to us.

antiskeptic

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

Zombrex wrote: »

As I keep saying to you, I don't, God does. If God exists it is not my place to tell him what is or isn't his primary revelation.

Indeed it wouldn't be.

Yet your argument persistently states that, should he exist, creation is God's primary revelation (on the matter of his revealing his existence, the subject under discussion). Without telling us the basis by which you conclude so.

It's not your place I'm interested in hearing about, it's your arguments claim about what is the case (should God exist) that needs it's trousers to be held up.

Again you focus on what I'm commenting on, rather than what God is revealing to us. Why? This thread is about revelation from God, not me. It might surprise you to know but I'm not a god

I'm focusing on what you say because it's your argument about what God has done or not done (should he exist) that I'm interrogating. You haven't dealt with the counter that:

b) God's revelation (in creation) reveals how humans are to the levels a person can detect What you can't detect ( a part of who you are too) can't be commented upon by you). You can't talk of what you can't know.

And so: what God has revealed to you need not be what God has revealed to me. Talk of 'us' is inappropriate other than what we might commonly share.

That God reveals information directly to your brain in a manner that doesn't require you to conclude anything about the information because you will simply know it is true (ie it by passes your need to think about what you think)

This is contradictory to God's primary revelation to us. He could do it, certainly, but he would produce a lie if he did..

Your back to the same old problems Zombrex:

1) Primacy of revelation is an, as yet, unsupported claim in your argument (which you might have addressed above - although at the 6th or so time of asking I'm beginning to doubt it)

2) Refusal to elaborate on the lie that would have to be told were it that God revealed himself by way of Revelation. Failing that, you would need to elaborate on what the contradiction would be were God to reveal himself so. Contradiction or lie, I'm referring to some specific reference rather than mere repetition of the claim.

If relying other claims in this (such as primacy) then foundations of those should be substantiated by argument before you lean on them.


3) The need for method is implied by you again.

By "doesn't require you to conclude anything.." I take it you mean 'conclude by means of methodology'? If referring back to argument consisting of items 1) and 2) above then nothing need be responded to here. However, if you want to add some other argument for why method is intrinsically necessary (when it's act of God resulting in our knowing in all cases) then by all means

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Indeed it wouldn't be.

Yet your argument persistently states that, should he exist, creation is God's primary revelation (on the matter of his revealing his existence, the subject under discussion). Without telling us the basis by which you conclude so.

I don't "conclude" so. God is the basis, as he is the basis for everything (assuming he exists).

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm focusing on what you say because it's your argument about what God has done or not done (should he exist) that I'm interrogating.

There is no "not done". If God exists he is the creator, that is one of the definitions of God. God cannot exist and not be the source of everything, including his primary revelation and all knowledge we have about that revelation.

antiskeptic wrote: »

b) God's revelation (in creation) reveals how humans are to the levels a person can detect What you can't detect ( a part of who you are too) can't be commented upon by you). You can't talk of what you can't know.

And so: what God has revealed to you need not be what God has revealed to me.

As has been explained to you, that isn't the issue. I'm making no comment on whether God has or hasn't revealed anything to you alone.

He has though revealed something to all of us. You seem to be presciently arguing he hasn't, which seems nonsensical. You don't get to decide what God has or hasn't done, he does.

antiskeptic wrote: »

1) Primacy of revelation is an, as yet, unsupported claim in your argument (which you might have addressed above - although at the 6th or so time of asking I'm beginning to doubt it)

Supported in what way? Creation is creation, how much more supported do you want me to get?

antiskeptic wrote: »

2) Refusal to elaborate on the lie that would have to be told were it that God revealed himself by way of Revelation.

I have explained that 7 times already. Again I don't understand how more you want this explained.

antiskeptic wrote: »

3) The need for method is implied by you again.

God is the method. What other "method" would you find satisfactory if not God?

antiskeptic wrote: »

By "doesn't require you to conclude anything.." I take it you mean 'conclude by means of methodology'? If referring back to argument consisting of items 1) and 2) above then nothing need be responded to here. However, if you want to add some other argument for why method is intrinsically necessary (when it's act of God resulting in our knowing in all cases) then by all means

I don't understand what you are asking here?

Sarky

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

God?

Lelantos

Sarky wrote: »

God?

Yes, what do you want? I've smiting that needs to be done

Bannasidhe

Lelantos wrote: »

Yes, what do you want? I've smiting that needs to be done

Shut up - you don't exist.


:pac:

Lelantos

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Shut up - you don't exist.


:pac:

You've just jumped to the head of my list

Bannasidhe

Lelantos wrote: »

You've just jumped to the head of my list

Take a ticket and wait your turn like all the other gods who don't exist.

Lelantos

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Take a ticket and wait your turn like all the other gods who don't exist.

Ah, tis ok, I'm doing a shots competition with Ganesh & trying to keep up with him is not good, last time we went at it I lost & created the platypus as my forfeit

antiskeptic

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

Zombrex wrote: »

I don't "conclude" so. God is the basis, as he is the basis for everything (assuming he exists).

His being "the basis for everything" says nothing at all about creation being his primary revelation (in the matter of his revealing his existence). Could you support your assertion that:

"The creation revelation, God's primary revelation.."

There is no "not done". If God exists he is the creator, that is one of the definitions of God. God cannot exist and not be the source of everything, including his primary revelation and all knowledge we have about that revelation.

God has either made creation his primary revelation or he has not made it his primary revelation. That is something he has either done or he has not done.

As has been explained to you, that isn't the issue. I'm making no comment on whether God has or hasn't revealed anything to you alone.

He has though revealed something to all of us. You seem to be presciently arguing he hasn't, which seems nonsensical. You don't get to decide what God has or hasn't done, he does.

From whence we came:

Zombrex: "The creation revelation, God's primary revelation, reveals to us not only how humans are but how God has decided they are."

a) You've the issue of showing how you arrive at primary revelation

b) The information you have at your disposal revealing how humans are needn't be the same information that I have at my disposal revealing how humans are. And so..

To then reveal to you information contradictory to this initial revelation would contradict the first revelation, producing a God that lies.

.. the fact that we hold different positions on "how humans are" need not arise out of a contradiction on God's part. More or less information available to people can also be expected to result in their possessing different views.

Supported in what way? Creation is creation, how much more supported do you want me to get?

Primary revelation on the matter of revealing his existence. "Creation is creation" adds nothing by way of support to the claim of primacy.

I have explained that 7 times already. Again I don't understand how more you want this explained.

Following your explanations down the rabbit hole has terminated at "basis for everything" and "creation is creation" They're not explanations, they're impossible things before breakfast.

God is the method. What other "method" would you find satisfactory if not God?

It appeared as if the method itself - not the decision of he who designed the method, and how much and what you could know by that method, and how much confidence you would have in your knowledge as a result of method - was where you place your faith. Wood for trees.

If agreeing that you are reliant on God for knowledge of his existence - whatever means he decides to utilise (e.g. method or direct revelation) and that he is the one to assign confidence to whatever means he uses, then we are done.

I don't understand what you are asking here?

Failing support for the claim "primacy of revelation" and

Failing support for "lie/contradiction" and

Failing some other way by which you can show that method is always necessary for God to impart knowledge and confidence in our knowledge

..we would appear to be done.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Following your explanations down the rabbit hole has terminated at "basis for everything" and "creation is creation" They're not explanations, they're impossible things before breakfast.

What to your mind would be an explanation?

antiskeptic wrote: »

It appeared as if the method itself - not the decision of he who designed the method, and how much and what you could know by that method, and how much confidence you would have in your knowledge as a result of method - was where you place your faith. Wood for trees.

I don't understand what you mean by that. Are you saying I shouldn't have confidence in creation? At which point we are just back to the lying part.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If agreeing that you are reliant on God for knowledge of his existence - whatever means he decides to utilise (e.g. method or direct revelation) and that he is the one to assign confidence to whatever means he uses, then we are done.

You accept what I'm saying to you? Awesome.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Failing support for the claim "primacy of revelation" and

Failing support for "lie/contradiction" and

Failing some other way by which you can show that method is always necessary for God to impart knowledge and confidence in our knowledge

Support in what way? How is God not all the support you need.

I'm the atheist, you are the Christian and yet we find you are the one telling me that God is not good enough.

Odd

antiskeptic

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

Zombrex wrote: »

What to your mind would be an explanation?

Clearly it would contain argument supporting your view that creation is God's primary means of self-revelation. Other than you repeating the view (as if it were self-evident) I've not seen any yet.

I don't understand what you mean by that. Are you saying I shouldn't have confidence in creation? At which point we are just back to the lying part.

By all means have confidence. Your being asked to recognize where that confidence comes from. Not from method applied but from God making you so that your applying method would produce confidence in you.

The argument is that God is not confined to having to utilise method to produce confidence in you.

Support in what way? How is God not all the support you need.

It's not God telling me that creation is his prime means of revealing his existence. It's you. Mortals have to support their claims by something other than Goddidit

#:)

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Clearly it would contain argument supporting your view that creation is God's primary means of self-revelation. Other than you repeating the view (as if it were self-evident) I've not seen any yet.

But what relevance would that have? We established ages back that God is the source of all knowledge. You saying isn't the primary revelation is irrelevant, you don't control the basis of reality

antiskeptic wrote: »

By all means have confidence. Your being asked to recognize where that confidence comes from.

Like everything, it comes from God.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not from method applied but from God making you so that your applying method would produce confidence in you.

Then why are you asking me for an argument supporting my position?

antiskeptic wrote: »

The argument is that God is not confined to having to utilise method to produce confidence in you.

I thought the argument was that Creation is not the primary revelation and therefore God is not lying to you when he gives you a contradictory second revelation.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's not God telling me that creation is his prime means of revealing his existence. It's you. Mortals have to support their claims by something other than Goddidit

How do you know it isn't God telling you and you are just not listening? Creation is after all creation for everyone.

antiskeptic

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

Zombrex wrote: »

But what relevance would that have? We established ages back that God is the source of all knowledge. You saying isn't the primary revelation is irrelevant, you don't control the basis of reality

Nor do you. You're claiming to control it via declarations of primacy and any counter claim is issued merely to stalemate your position with equally unsupported assertion.

The argument at post 19 doesn't rely on my claiming Revelation prime. It talks only of potential.

Then why are you asking me for an argument supporting my position?

Because we are agreed that God has made it so that method is a way for us to access knowledge. In so far as we share common ground we can utilise method to arrive at the knowledge posited by post 19

I thought the argument was that Creation is not the primary revelation and therefore God is not lying to you when he gives you a contradictory second revelation.

The argument at post 19 merely talks of potential. So you need to bear in mind my assertions involve what would be the case were that potential realised.

So, if Revelation is prime then the extra information available to me could explain our differing takes on creation. And so, not necessarily a God-sourced contradiction

How do you know it isn't God telling you and you are just not listening? Creation is after all creation for everyone.

See above.

Also: the argument is that if method not a requirement for knowledge impartation/confidence than I can know (and know I know) once God acts to make it that I know. "I know" and "I know I know" occur in us all because of act of God

Which means that whilst I myself can know Revelation is prime, the argument at post 19 must limit itself to describing for you the potential (from your perspective) that I can know Revelation is prime.

Sarky

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

You keep referencing post 19 as if it's some world-beating argument. But it's utter nonsense. Are you sure you haven't gotten the numbers mixed up or something?

robindch

Sarky wrote: »

But it's utter nonsense.

Technically, the argument, such as it is, isn't quite "nonsense".

It does usefully describe the pointlessness of discussing anything with somebody who's prepared to do the epistemological equivalent of dividing by zero in order to balance his books.

In this case, it's fairer to describe the argument as "satirical".

sephir0th

antiskeptic = William Lane Craig x Deepak Chopra?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Nor do you. You're claiming to control it via declarations of primacy and any counter claim is issued merely to stalemate your position with equally unsupported assertion.

You seem to be claiming that we cannot know that God's revelation is primary. Surely that is decided by God, not you.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The argument at post 19 doesn't rely on my claiming Revelation prime. It talks only of potential.

Are you saying it is not possible that God's creation is primary? On what grounds are you making that argument?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Because we are agreed that God has made it so that method is a way for us to access knowledge. In so far as we share common ground we can utilise method to arrive at the knowledge posited by post 19

So you are arguing that we can only know what God has the potential to do, not what he has actually done?

antiskeptic wrote: »

So, if Revelation is prime then the extra information available to me could explain our differing takes on creation.

You mean the potential that you have extra information? Or are you asserting you know you actually do have extra information?

[Jackass]

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

I think this whole debate is going nowhere lads...

Never argue over politics or religion, as you're never going to change someones fundamental values, nor should you try.

Gordon

OT, but I chuckled at the ad on this page, attached!

Mahogany

An extraordinary event/miracle, like raising someone from the dead, creating a new planet etc. etc.

Thing is, many people will have preached that THEY are indeed God, even religious people won't believe them, same goes for Jesus.

Funny thing happened in town once, was walking through the beautiful(hah) streets of Dublin with my friend who happens to look like Jesus(or the cultural depiction of him) and we came across what was quite obviously a man sick in the head who was ranting and raving about the coming of jaysus. My friend, cheeky guy btw, walks up and proclaims that he is infact Jesus, and he got abuse from yer man haha.

So, if he looked like Jesus, why didn't the guy believe him?

antiskeptic

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

Zombrex wrote: »

You seem to be claiming that we cannot know that God's revelation is primary.Surely that is decided by God, not you.

What is prime surely is decided by God.

But what's that got to do with you supporting your claim as to the primacy of creation-as-revelation? Could you address that question? You've been asked often enough.

Are you saying it is not possible that God's creation is primary? On what grounds are you making that argument?

The argument says there exists potential that Revelation is prime. What part of that says Creation can't be prime?

So you are arguing that we can only know what God has the potential to do, not what he has actually done?

No. I'm arguing that anyone who supposes God can reveal himself empirically has to acknowledge that God has the potential to reveal himself by Revelation. With the latter having to be accepted as being as valid a means as the former.

You mean the potential that you have extra information? Or are you asserting you know you actually do have extra information?

The argument at 19 only talks of potential (in which case your "God contradicting or lying") is countered by "it need not be the case since Creation need not be God's prime revelation regarding his existence".

A consequence of the argument at 19 is the effect it has on atheist responses to my claiming I know God exists by Revelation. Consider:

- the atheist must accept that this is potentially what has occurred (and accepting he has no means of commenting on the likelihood of it having occurred)
- the atheist must accept that I can potentially know it is God who has revealed himself (otherwise he must take refuge in a jar)
- the atheist must desist from shouting 'proof??' since Revelation is as valid a means of God's self revelation as any other means He might employ
- the atheist must himself desist from demanding how it is God should reveal himself "otherwise I'll never believe"

The atheist is rendered pretty much silent in fact. Now it's not that I expect silence to occur, but at least the atheist doing otherwise can be shown to be acting irrationally

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

A consequence of the argument at 19 is the effect it has on atheist responses to my claiming I know God exists by Revelation. Consider:

- the atheist must accept that this is potentially what has occurred (and accepting he has no means of commenting on the likelihood of it having occurred)
- the atheist must accept that I can potentially know it is God who has revealed himself (otherwise he must take refuge in a jar)
- the atheist must desist from shouting 'proof??' since Revelation is as valid a means of God's self revelation as any other means He might employ
- the atheist must himself desist from demanding how it is God should reveal himself "otherwise I'll never believe"

The atheist is rendered pretty much silent in fact. Now it's not that I expect silence to occur, but at least the atheist doing otherwise can be shown to be acting irrationally

Alternately, the atheist can pretty quickly realise that post 19 is utter nonsense consisting of circular arguments and ignore it.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

The argument at 19 only talks of potential (in which case your "God contradicting or lying") is countered by "it need not be the case since Creation need not be God's prime revelation regarding his existence".

A consequence of the argument at 19 is the effect it has on atheist responses to my claiming I know God exists by Revelation. Consider:

- the atheist must accept that this is potentially what has occurred (and accepting he has no means of commenting on the likelihood of it having occurred)
- the atheist must accept that I can potentially know it is God who has revealed himself (otherwise he must take refuge in a jar)
- the atheist must desist from shouting 'proof??' since Revelation is as valid a means of God's self revelation as any other means He might employ
- the atheist must himself desist from demanding how it is God should reveal himself "otherwise I'll never believe"

Ok, let me apply that to what you asked me

But what's that got to do with you supporting your claim as to the primacy of creation-as-revelation?

God has the potential that creation is his primary revelation.

As such you cannot ask that I support the assertion that he has, you must simply accept it. Because God.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The atheist is rendered pretty much silent in fact.

As apparently is a Christian. I must remember how much easier it is to get you to argue my position for me

Zombrex

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Alternately, the atheist can pretty quickly realise that post 19 is utter nonsense consisting of circular arguments and ignore it.

Actually atheists realised that post 19 means you can argue anything and say that it doesn't need to be supported by any method using the justification "Because God".

This was actually pointed out a while back, not by myself I might at. It is just taking antiskeptic a little while to catch up.

antiskeptic

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

Zombrex wrote: »

Actually atheists realised that post 19 means you can argue anything and say that it doesn't need to be supported by any method using the justification "Because God".

What justification are you going to use when pointing to God's empirical demonstrable existence (in the event he decides to reveal himself so)? If not utilising "because God" that is...

This was actually pointed out a while back...

..way back at post 19 in fact.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

What justification are you going to use when pointing to God's empirical demonstrable existence (in the event he decides to reveal himself so)? If not utilising "because God" that is...

What argument do you need other than "because God"? All your arguments are "because God", so I'm not sure why you would need something else?

What justification would you find satisfactory?

antiskeptic

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

Zombrex wrote: »

What argument do you need other than "because God"?

Any argument that doesn't necessarily terminate back at "because of act and decision of God" would do fine for a start. If accepting that all arguments will terminate so then by all means attempt to support primacy of Creation (in the matter of God's self revelation).

All your arguments are "because God"

Have you seen The Life of Pi?