What kind of evidence would prove god ?

Zillah

Zillah wrote: »

This is the most elaborate non sequitur I have ever seen. Therefore aliens.

tdv123

If he made this chair I'm sitting on move up & down - that would be a amazing.

Andrewf20

A visit from one of God's Angels

Apologies if I didnt pick up what you were getting at originally. Anyhow, in response to your questions:

antiskeptic wrote: »

a) In a word: what was the core feature of the attempt at receptiveness?

Up to a few years ago, specifically prayer, going to Mass and just looking for some hint or trend of something going on that flicks a switch in my head.

antiskeptic wrote: »

b) Whose clock counted down the time until the effort was given up on?

Tbh, the effort hasnt been given up and continues to this day. But as I get older I feel more distant than ever because the more I dig the more doubt unfolds. Im begin to learn a bit about the physcology of the mind and this new area fills me with more skepticism.

I suppose my skeptical nature means that readings of scripture alone would not suffice to convincing me of a deity - I believe some sprititual experience would be required in order for me to believe. It hasnt happened yet and may never. The fact that people have gone to their graves never getting "a sign" that converts them to believe leads to me to questions of the motives of God here.

This is the kind of thinking that runs through my mind...

- I try to lead a good life.
- I try to be receptive to God in anyway I can.
- My natural skepticsim leads me to doubt (along with the knowledge of others who went to their graves this way).
- He decides to not help the doubt of mine and others by any means possible or in a language / way we dont understand.
- Why is he creating so much complication, resulting in mass dissonance and argument?
- Will God punish me and others forever despite our attempts to be receptive and still not believing? Scripture suggests so.

Sertus

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

Ok, we all know that theists have no evidence and they need to go off and get some if they want to convince atheists.

Thing is, what kind / type of evidence is needed ?

Can anyone think of any examples of what would be evidence for "God", and that could not be disputed ?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're wrong . What I'm getting at is purely and simply a means of demolishing the sacred cows of atheism (empiricism and rationalism) insofar as they are exclusively applied to the narrow question of proving God's existence.

You aren't demolishing them, you are merely abandoning them because they are inconvenient.

Take an example of empiricism. Two men on a hill are looking at a city. They pick a landmark and decide to see if they can see how far away that landmark is.

Both make a judgement, one says 1.4km the other 2.3km. Both these judgements are simply based on rough visual assessment.

As it turns out the first judgement is accurate, it is 1.4km away. Excellent you say, the guy got it "right".

Well no. As important as the answer is the method used to determine the answer (which is why Maths Leaving Cert papers have large space for how you worked out the answer to the sum).

One needs to differentiate between a guess and a determination, and then assess the merits of the method used in the determination. Why? Because this effects the confidence one can have in the answer, after all we never know for sure something is the right answer.

You largely ignore this and focus instead purely on the answer and whether the guy is happy with the answer, side stepping the assessment of the method used to determine the answer.

Your justification for this is well God decides if something is good enough or not. Well ok, lets see. Lets introduce God.

So 1.4km is what the guy basically guessed at just by looking. But lets say instead that God popped this answer into his head. Well that changes everything, doesn't it. I mean its God. God is always right, God doesn't make mistakes. Surely this makes the answer far more robust than previous?

Well no again, because very little has changed. The guy still doesn't have a solid methodology. It is again just a guess, something that popped into his head. Yes God popped it into his head, but that doesn't make the method of determination any more robust.

Your basic argument is If God exists and you think he exists then it doesn't matter the robustness of the method you used to determine this because God exists and therefore you are "correct" in what ever method you used.

Which is like saying if you have a maths problem and you simply guess the answer it doesn't matter so long as you are right. In fact it does. It matters even if you are right. Being "right" without showing the robustness of the method used to determine you are right is considered pretty much worthless. You are in fact "wrong".

In fact even if God does exist I very much doubt a being of that intelligence would actually be all that happy with us simply guessing he exists on the off chance we might be right. Even if we are right, even if God simply popped the notion into our heads, what does that say about our belief in him. He has made all these methods of determining things accurately, but when it comes to his own existence he is going to abandon them and just start popping notions into our head.

Its like inventing mathematics, watching as your students learn the beauty of it, watching as they learn the methods of proving from axioms, supporting statements, discovering logic systems. And then just saying "Meh, just guess on the final exam, I don't care"

Newaglish

Sertus wrote: »

Ok, we all know that theists have no evidence and they need to go off and get some if they want to convince atheists.

Thing is, what kind / type of evidence is needed ?

Can anyone think of any examples of what would be evidence for "God", and that could not be disputed ?

Giant talking face in the sky that everyone could see and hear would do it for me

Bannasidhe

Sertus wrote: »

Ok, we all know that theists have no evidence and they need to go off and get some if they want to convince atheists.

Thing is, what kind / type of evidence is needed ?

Can anyone think of any examples of what would be evidence for "God", and that could not be disputed ?

I'm a bit puzzled as to what you actually want tbh.

I have examined all the evidence available which theists state prove the existence of a God/Gods and not only found it lacking but implausible, contradictory, circular and largely reliant on 'faith' . Having faith that something exists does not mean it does exist - just that the holder of that belief believes it exists -often despite the evidence to the contrary.

I have been thinking about what evidence would 'convince' me but cannot think of a thing as I really believe God/Gods do not exist and were formed by the human mind to make us feel less alone in a big scary world, to give us a sense of purpose, meaning and hope at a time when life was usually short and brutal.

I believe God is a fairystory made up by humans to comfort us when we didn't know much beyond the daily struggle to stay alive and safe from the toothy clawed 'monsters' who dwelt in the dark outside our caves, tents, wicker abodes.

Religion developed when some clever bastards worked out that if they were the conduit for communication between humans and Gods they would gain a very prestigious place in society - and be regularly fed without having to do any of the dangerous/backbreaking getting the food malarky.

You may as well ask me what evidence would I need to accept the existence of the Tooth Fairy, or Santa, or Leprechauns or Trolls, or Nymphs, or Driads or the Bogeyman - If any of these 'appeared' to me I'd be checking myself in a psychiatric unit asap demanding brain scans!

I mean - which God is meant to exist?
Is it the current big Cheese? But which 'incarnation' - Jewish? Christian? Muslim?

What about all the Gods people used to believe existed but turns out they were wrong...perhaps they were wrong about being wrong and any day now Odin or Apollo or the Dadga or Jupiter or Venus or the Mórrigan or Horus is going to appear to smite us....:eek:

Bannasidhe

Newaglish wrote: »

Giant talking face in the sky that everyone could see and hear would do it for me

See - I would be wondering who spiked my drink if that happened.
If lots of people saw it - I'd be wondering who spiked the water supply.

Zombrex

Newaglish wrote: »

Giant talking face in the sky that everyone could see and hear would do it for me

Yup. Perhaps constantly altering the laws of physics as well. That would help.

It always amuses me that theists say "look at all he has already done, oh you wouldn't accept it no matter what God did". I might not accept some things (you run into logical problems with believing anything an omnipotent being says, see devil pretending to be god problem), but I would happily accept this being was of immense power and ability.

Sertus

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

Newaglish wrote: »

Giant talking face in the sky that everyone could see and hear would do it for me

Wouldn't work for me at all, to give an equally extreme explanation, it could just as easily be some alien pretending to be "God", or even the start of some radical, extremely annoying and invasive new corporate advertising technology. . . . . or just too much / too few drugs.

Personally, I'd need something far more scientific and provable, and not something subjective open to dispute or opinion.

antiskeptic

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

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Up to a few years ago, specifically prayer, going to Mass and just looking for some hint or trend of something going on that flicks a switch in my head.

Okay..

Tbh, the effort hasnt been given up and continues to this day. But as I get older I feel more distant than ever because the more I dig the more doubt unfolds. Im begin to learn a bit about the physcology of the mind and this new area fills me with more skepticism.

For what it's worth, my wife is a psychologist and a Christian who has met personally with the Lord (in other words, there isn't a doubt in her mind about God's existence). The two aren't mutually exclusive.

I suppose my skeptical nature means that readings of scripture alone would not suffice to convincing me of a deity - I believe some sprititual experience would be required in order for me to believe. It hasnt happened yet and may never. The fact that people have gone to their graves never getting "a sign" that converts them to believe leads to me to questions of the motives of God here.

I'd agree that you need more than mere words on a page. Even if those words contain a wisdom beyond what men seem able to come up with the belief of a supernatural being behind those words would remain but head assent. We're more than that and so a true belief must speak to the whole of us. And so, as you say, you need a greater experience.

The bible shares your view indicating time after time that God has direct interaction man and that it's only on the back of that that men really believe.

I suppose the core question is this: what criteria must be met (if any) by us in order that God would do that which is necessary in order that we would believe. You would accept that if we're barking up the wrong tree then we could indeed go to our grave without ever being able to believe.

This is the kind of thinking that runs through my mind...

- I try to lead a good life.

This, for example, might well be barking up the wrong tree. It most certaintly is when it comes to the Christian God. That said, the sense that we ought to try to lead a good life, whilst not being the criteria for God turning up might well be a hint. We have that sense... but why? What is it telling us?

The bible might be but words on a page, but many have gone before you having come to a realisation of God's view on good doing so as to see the futility of the attempt to do so (if finding God was the motivation). And that revelation has been transformative.

- I try to be receptive to God in anyway I can.

Could you elaborate? For example: how much of your effort places faith in God that God would turn up to those who were genuinely seeking him. For it must lie with him since there is nothing you can do to force the issue

Is..

- My natural skepticsim leads me to doubt (along with the knowledge of others who went to their graves this way).

...not contrary to faith where faith is a rational response in the light of your reliance on God rather than own (blind) effort?

- He decides to not help the doubt of mine and others by any means possible or in a language / way we dont understand.
- Why is he creating so much complication, resulting in mass dissonance and argument?
- Will God punish me and others forever despite our attempts to be receptive and still not believing? Scripture suggests so.

From my position (on the other side) I would say that God will ensure none who desire him (and what he stands for) will be lost. The means whereby God saves delves into the hearts of men and seeks out whether their hearts desire him.

This world, and your activity in it, is the stage on which all our ultimate response to God, are played out.

It's less about you finding him and more about him finding you.

antiskeptic

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

Zombrex wrote: »

In fact even if God does exist I very much doubt a being of that intelligence would actually be all that happy with us simply guessing he exists on the off chance we might be right. Even if we are right, even if God simply popped the notion into our heads, what does that say about our belief in him. He has made all these methods of determining things accurately, but when it comes to his own existence he is going to abandon them and just start popping notions into our head.

At what point in proceedings are you going to take up the argument presented and deal with the fact that all the processes you've described would not produce an iota of confidence in us were it not for the fact we've been wired so by God (we're assuming God exists for the sake of argument - as previously pointed out).

Given that, there is nothing more to his popping the knowledge of his existence into our head (revelation) than there is wiring us up to obtain confidence via empiricial and reasoning means. Confidence is his work in us - not something arrived at under own steam.


And so, there is no intrinsic reason to trust the one means over the other (other than perhaps, feeling more confident this way than that - which is purely personal)

pauldla

antiskeptic wrote: »

For what it's worth, my wife is a psychologist and a Christian who has met personally with the Lord (in other words, there isn't a doubt in her mind about God's existence). The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Your wife met the Lord? Really? She met Jesus?

Andrewf20

A visit from one of God's Angels

antiskeptic wrote: »

Could you elaborate? For example: how much of your effort places faith in God that God would turn up to those who were genuinely seeking him. For it must lie with him since there is nothing you can do to force the issue.

A large part of me feels that if God does exist, then he would give those who genuinely seek a helping hand in whatever form thats required to change a persons beliefs, be it a spiritual experience or whatever. Its my idea of what a loving and compassionate God would be more likely to do.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is.. "x" not contrary to faith where faith is a rational response in the light of your reliance on God rather than own (blind) effort?

Im not sure what you question is exactly? Do you mean faith in God is a rational response and so too is the subsequent belief in ones reliance in him?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

At what point in proceedings are you going to take up the argument presented and deal with the fact that all the processes you've described would not produce an iota of confidence in us were it not for the fact we've been wired so by God (we're assuming God exists for the sake of argument - as previously pointed out).

That is precisely the point. If God exists and made us he made us in a particularly way that we are very bad at accurately assessing the very method Christians say God decided to reveal himself to us. How likely do you think that is?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Given that, there is nothing more to his popping the knowledge of his existence into our head (revelation) than there is wiring us up to obtain confidence via empiricial and reasoning means. Confidence is his work in us - not something arrived at under own steam.

Er no. No no no a million times no. The methodology for arriving at a conclusion is not the same as the conclusion. How you arrive at the conclusion that God exists is not the same as concluding God exists.

You consistently ignore this point, I suspect because you know the methodology you arrived at the conclusion God exists is pretty flawed by most standards.

Again see the example above about maths problems. Guessing the answer and being right is not the same as determining the answer through a rigorous methodology and also being right.

You seem to think the important thing is that you are right. It isn't. The important thing is that you reach the conclusion in a manner that is robust and sound and that methodology itself can stand up to critical analysis independently to the conclusions you arrive at using it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

And so, there is no intrinsic reason to trust the one means over the other (other than perhaps, feeling more confident this way than that - which is purely personal)

Yes there is, the reason comes from the examination of the methodology.

Again using maths, there is a reason to trust the formula for working out division over simply guessing at that 5 divided by 2 is, or writing down the first answer that pops into your head even if that answer happens to be right

Zillah

Sertus wrote: »

Wouldn't work for me at all, to give an equally extreme explanation, it could just as easily be some alien pretending to be "God", or even the start of some radical, extremely annoying and invasive new corporate advertising technology. . . . . or just too much / too few drugs.

Personally, I'd need something far more scientific and provable, and not something subjective open to dispute or opinion.

I gave a pretty thorough answer earlier.

Zillah wrote: »

There is no way we could ever be sure God wasn't an alien. Then again, we can never be sure we're not brains in jars. I'd lean towards belief if God spelled out YAHWEH with blackholes in intergalactic space. Encoding the entirety of The Bible into the cosmic background radiation would probably do it, too. Changing some universal constants would do it, I'd imagine. Maybe change one back and forth in morse code to signal CHRIST IS LORD.

There's a million ways he could do it. He won't though, because he isn't real. If God existed then there wouldn't be any issue around his existence. People don't sit around questioning if the Taoiseach is real. It's a given. Can you imagine the absurdity of people insisting that it is essential that we have FAITH in Enda Kenny, even if no one could see or interact with him? We've completely lost sight of the forest for the trees around the topic of God's baffling absence.

Sertus

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

Zillah wrote: »

I gave a pretty thorough answer earlier.

Scientifically, it still doesn't work for me personally. As I said, for me, personally, it would need to be something scientifically provable that the being that caused any such 'miracle' is in fact "God", i.e. uncreated, infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and therefore then we might then be able to believe "God" scientifically exists, rather than just holding subjective opinions on the subject. Personally, I don't question the reality of Enda Kenny temporarily holding the office of Taosaigh because it is a scientifically provable fact.

Lelantos

pauldla wrote: »

Your wife met the Lord? Really? She met Jesus?

There may have been a flagon or 2 of Linden Village consumed before the meeting I'd think

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

NEXT!!

Antiskeptic --

Here in A+A, we do enjoy christians and other religious dropping by to expound as best they can the profundities of religious thought, especially when it attempts to apply its own creaky self to its own creaky self. From our perspective, there are few better means of recruiting people to our cause than the unfortunately, unhappy sight of the religious bubbling away, if not actually drowning, in their own religious effluent.

However, you are expected to stick to the Forum Charter which discourages soapboxing.

Do cut out the one-word responses and try to engage.

antiskeptic

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

Zombrex wrote: »

That is precisely the point. If God exists and made us he made us in a particularly way that we are very bad at accurately assessing the very method Christians say God decided to reveal himself to us. How likely do you think that is?

Who says we're bad at assessing it's God. The fact that some assess "it's God" (when it isn't God) says nothing at all about folk assessing "it's God" when it is God. God revealing himself and people thinking God is revealing himself are two completely different things. The one is sourced in the person, the other in God.

The problem lies with YOUR inability to discern any difference between the two claims. Which is an entirely different matter.

Er no. No no no a million times no. The methodology for arriving at a conclusion is not the same as the conclusion. How you arrive at the conclusion that God exists is not the same as concluding God exists.

You consistently ignore this point, I suspect because you know the methodology you arrived at the conclusion God exists is pretty flawed by most standards.

What use methodlogy if God hasn't wired it so that methodology has value in the overall means of coming to a confident conclusion. You're dancing around on the head of a pin: the whole method only has a confidence giving quotient because God has ordained it so.

You're pointing to the methodology as if it stands apart from he who gave it worth. It doesn't (or wouldn't, in the case of God existing). If God took that confidence-giving attribute away from methodology ( (or wired you differently so that you couldn't experience it) the methodology would have the same worthlessness you're suggesting revelation has.

You need to factor in God assigning the worth

Again see the example above about maths problems. Guessing the answer and being right is not the same as determining the answer through a rigorous methodology and also being right.

Knowledge can be arrived at via method. But if implanted directly then it isn't a guess.

You seem to think the important thing is that you are right. It isn't. The important thing is that you reach the conclusion in a manner that is robust and sound and that methodology itself can stand up to critical analysis independently to the conclusions you arrive at using it.

Which merely insists that there must be method. Without showing your method for arriving at that conclusion.

antiskeptic

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

robindch wrote: »

Do cut out the one-word responses and try to engage.

Smart ass responses to smart ass responses doesn't add much, I suppose.

I'll ignore folk posting what I consider off-the-point comments from now on.

Sarky

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

You've been doing a good job ignoring the points everyone's been making so far, why narrow down your ire at this stage?

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

Who says we're bad at assessing it's God. The fact that some assess "it's God" (when it isn't God) says nothing at all about folk assessing "it's God" when it is God. God revealing himself and people thinking God is revealing himself are two completely different things. The one is sourced in the person, the other in God.

The problem lies with YOUR inability to discern any difference between the two claims. Which is an entirely different matter.

No, the problem is there is no way to tell those two things apart.
If there is one, please outline it and explain how it is able to objectively tell when it's god and when it's not.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Who says we're bad at assessing it's God.

The billions of other people through out history who have believed in other gods, other supernatural beings, other supernatural events etc that are all mutually exclusive to the Judo-Christian notion of a god.

As I like to say, one theory of electromagnetism, 40,000 religions.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The fact that some assess "it's God" (when it isn't God) says nothing at all about folk assessing "it's God" when it is God.

That depends on the methodology they are using to assess "it's God", a discussion you keep wanting to ignore.

For example, if the folks assessing "it's God" when it is God are using the same methodology as the folks assessing "it's God" when it isn't God, then that matters a great deal, in the same way that a methodology for solving maths problems that is wrong 99.9% of the time doesn't become a good methodology the odd time it gets it right.

antiskeptic wrote: »

God revealing himself and people thinking God is revealing himself are two completely different things. The one is sourced in the person, the other in God.

That's irrelevant. Its like saying that guessing the right answer to a maths question is completely different to guessing the wrong answer to a maths question. They aren't. In both cases the methodology (ie guessing) is inherently flawed.

Again what matters is the methodology used to determine the answer, not the answer itself.

antiskeptic wrote: »

What use methodlogy if God hasn't wired it so that methodology has value in the overall means of coming to a confident conclusion. You're dancing around on the head of a pin: the whole method only has a confidence giving quotient because God has ordained it so.

Correct.

Which again makes God appearing to us in a manner that is counter to how he himself ordained humans to good at assessing, seems rather unlikely does it not?

You seem to be wholesale ignoring this point.

Take the light analogy again. God for some reason decided that humans can only see in a certain narrow spectrum of light, and that outside of the spectrum we have trouble or flat out cannot see.

What you are suggesting is perfectly reasonable to conclude is equivalent to God choosing to only ever appear outside the spectrum of visible light that he himself decided we could only see in.

Saying something like Well its God he can do what he likes who are we to question, is not a reasonable answer to that. It is in fact an unreasonable answer to that, it suggests that God will act counter to his own design. Anything is possible with God, but does that seem likely when contrasted with the alternative, in an area of visual perception we are particular bad at people have made visual mistakes?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Knowledge can be arrived at via method. But if implanted directly then it isn't a guess.

Yes it is. It is a notion that simply happens to be in your head, and you have no idea why or if it has an sound argument behind it.

Take a magic trick where you are shown a complicated mathematical puzzle and told the answer is between 1 and 100 and you are asked the answer. 79 simply pops into your head, so you pick 79. Unknown to you the magician has implanted this number in your head, and it is in fact the correct answer to the mathematical puzzle.

Now, did you "solve" the puzzle? No, of course not. Do you understand the puzzle? No, of course not. Do you even know that the answer is actually correct? No, of course not. You don't know anything about the puzzle or the number 79 that you didn't before the trick began. Saying its the right answer is utterly missing the point, particularly because you don't even know it is the right answer.

Contrast that with actually understand the puzzle and working out the answer in a manner where you can arrive at the answer in a repeatable fashion. You can't honestly say that those two things are the same thing simply because the magician has implanted the answer in your head.

antiskeptic

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

King Mob wrote: »

No, the problem is there is no way to tell those two things apart.
If there is one, please outline it and explain how it is able to objectively tell when it's god and when it's not.

You've joined in a bit late in the day. You need to go back to the start, look at the argument originally posted and work from there. This isn't a discussion about how one differentiates between imagining it's God and it being God.

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

You've joined in a bit late in the day. You need to go back to the start, look at the argument originally posted and work from there. This isn't a discussion about how one differentiates between imagining it's God and it being God.

Unfortunately, since it's central to your point, it is.
If you can determine which person is right when they claim it's god, you must have a method for doing this.
If you cannot demonstrate this method or it relies on subjective experience, then you cannot actually determine the difference between it being god and it not being go. And if you cannot do this, you point is invalid as then your god is no more real than the thousands of others you don't believe.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

You've joined in a bit late in the day. You need to go back to the start, look at the argument originally posted and work from there. This isn't a discussion about how one differentiates between imagining it's God and it being God.

Yes actually that is exactly what this discussion is about. You are saying it doesn't matter how you arrive at the conclusion that God exists so long as you do because if he does exist then any method he uses is as good as any other since you arrive at the conclusion he wants you to.

The problem with that (as the maths analogy hopefully demonstrates) is that simply arriving at a conclusion is not the same as arriving at a conclusion with a methodology that you can critically assess as sound.

Even. If. God. Exists.

Guessing the answer is 79 is not the same as working out the maths puzzle so that you know the answer is 79, even if the answer is 79.

Sertus

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

Poll added for the craic

antiskeptic

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

Zombrex wrote: »

The billions of other people through out history who have believed in other gods, other supernatural beings, other supernatural events etc that are all mutually exclusive to the Judo-Christian notion of a god.

As I like to say, one theory of electromagnetism, 40,000 religions.

You're conflating those who would be coming up with a god under own steam with those exposed to God under God's steam. It doesn't matter now many zeros you add on, the latter don't fall under your attempt at an umbrella.

But this you know.

That depends on the methodology they are using to assess "it's God", a discussion you keep wanting to ignore.

We'll see what you have to say about the need for a methodology later...

For example, if the folks assessing "it's God" when it is God are using the same methodology as the folks assessing "it's God" when it isn't God, then that matters a great deal, in the same way that a methodology for solving maths problems that is wrong 99.9% of the time doesn't become a good methodology the odd time it gets it right.

I'm not suggesting sameness since it is man coming up with god under own steam vs. God revealing himself to man.

That's irrelevant. Its like saying that guessing the right answer to a maths question is completely different to guessing the wrong answer to a maths question. They aren't. In both cases the methodology (ie guessing) is inherently flawed.

Again what matters is the methodology used to determine the answer, not the answer itself.

There need be no guesswork involved in God revealing. But let's see what you have to say about God's provision of confidence through method.

Correct. Which again makes God appearing to us in a manner that is counter to how he himself ordained humans to good at assessing, seems rather unlikely does it not?

We could argue the merits this way and that way but it would lead to digression.

Point is: the demand for method (or the claim that method lies above revelation) is a bridge too far since method itself relies, at the end of the day, on the confidence quotient God happens to assign to it. Whatever that happens to be

It could be that revelation trumps method. If so, then the revelees will know so. That doesn't help you but the point of the argument was bring about silence rather than prove revelation better.

Take the light analogy again. God for some reason decided that humans can only see in a certain narrow spectrum of light, and that outside of the spectrum we have trouble or flat out cannot see.

What you are suggesting is perfectly reasonable to conclude is equivalent to God choosing to only ever appear outside the spectrum of visible light that he himself decided we could only see in.

Interesting choice of analogy given the bibles contention of "blind now I can see". All that revelation is, is a widening of the bandwidth of sight.

Saying something like Well its God he can do what he likes who are we to question, is not a reasonable answer to that. It is in fact an unreasonable answer to that, it suggests that God will act counter to his own design.

Again, you'd be aware of Christian orthodoxy about rebirth. Or God putting the fallen creation back together again. Our not being able to detect God is a flaw he's working to rectify in us.

Yes it is. It is a notion that simply happens to be in your head, and you have no idea why or if it has an sound argument behind it.

Sorry to cut this off straight away but it falls to me to remind you again that all the confidence arising as a consequence of the methodology you describe only exists because God assigned methodology to raise it so.

"God assigns" is what matters ultimately. Routes taken (eg: method) might well be a reflection of him (order, logic, etc) rather than being a willy nilly thing. But he is not limited to method anymore than he needs method himself to work out what the square root of 3241.2 is - and know he's right.




Happy Christmas Zombrex, before the "Xmas'," "festive" and "holiday seasons" finally swamp our little island.

antiskeptic

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

Zombrex wrote: »

Guessing the answer is 79 is not the same as working out the maths puzzle so that you know the answer is 79, even if the answer is 79.

What if the answer is the square root of 199695883.114566. Would one be so sure that method was the only way to know things? And know that you know things.