What kind of evidence would prove god ?

Mark Hamill

Sertus wrote: »

I understand you're point of view, and it is the juggling suns/planets examples rephrased again, but again what i'm wondering is how exactly would you confirm that scientifically it was the theistic/dictionary 'God' (i.e. supreme being/spirit, infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient etc.), and not another extremely advanced, but inferior, being/spirit, and not 'God'

Whats the difference between an extremely advanced being who can control the universe (down to altering its creation) and god?

Sertus

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Whats the difference between an extremely advanced being who can control the universe (down to altering its creation) and god?

As Stephen Hawking said, there could be millions of universes.
It might be verging on demonstrating some form of omnipotency (but only from a mere human point of view), but it goes no where near explaining / proving it is the supreme being/spirit, and infinite, omniscient, and omnipresent, as per most dictionary definitions / common beliefs regarding 'God'.

Mark Hamill

Sertus wrote: »

As Stephen Hawking said, there could be millions of universes.
It might be verging on demonstrating some form of omnipotency (but only from a mere human point of view), but it goes no where near explaining / proving it is the supreme being/spirit, and infinite, omniscient, and omnipresent, as per most dictionary definitions / common beliefs regarding 'God'.

If it can control the universe down to altering its creation, then it has access to those other possible universes, no?

Sertus

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If it can control the universe down to altering its creation, then it has access to those other possible universes, no?

Impressive as it might be, but it wouldn't prove it was 'God'. We would still need hard scientific evidence it was the supreme being/spirit, and infinite, omniscient, and omnipresent.

Nervous Wreck

Sertus wrote: »

Hmm, that still wouldn't work for me at all.

You've described the actions of a very impressive super alien/being to be sure, but it would not be scientific evidence that the being is infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent ''God'' .

How about appearing at every moment in time simultaneously and speaking to everyone who has ever lived and will ever live? Omniscience + omnipotence would make that pretty damn easy for god to do.... Innnnnnnn 5..... 4....... 3......


:pac:

Mark Hamill

Sertus wrote: »

Impressive as it might be, but it wouldn't prove it was 'God'. We would still need hard scientific evidence it was the supreme being/spirit, and infinite, omniscient, and omnipresent.

How would what I suggested not show that it was omniscient, infinite and omnipresent?
If it can interact in any way it chooses at any point in space time, to the point of being able to access other universes (or no universe at all) and interact fully with them, then it would be omnipresent (and therefore infinite), omni-powerful and omniscient. What else is it missing?

pauldla

antiskeptic wrote: »

The discussion I'm involved in isn't about proving God - something you'd have noticed if you'd taken the time to start at post 19 rather than jumping mid stream.

Deal with it all. Or expect nothing.

Let's refresh our memories with a look at your earlier post, shall we? It was the night before Christmas, and as I read through the boards before donning my Santa outfit I saw this....

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.

This was written in response to Andrewf20, who had mentioned this in reference to his own skepticism:

Andrewf20 wrote: »

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.

Well, to say I was intrigued is to put it mildy. His wife met personally with the Lord? I must know more about this! Tell me, antisleptic, how did this come to pass!

Alas, my queries go unanswered. So I shall expect nothing (was I foolish to expect anything else?), and I shall deal with it. I must come to my own conclusions on the matter. Which are, in no particular order:

• The story is worth nothing
• antiskeptic does not wish to invite ridicule, or endanger his wifes professional reputation, by elaborating on the story
• There was no meeting with the Lord
• Perhaps, even, there is no wife

It is a pity to be silent on the matter. The early martyrs had the conviction of their faith in the face of mocking atheists like me (and I'm mocking for all I'm worth right now, antiskeptic), and it was through their bravery in such straits that Christianity prospered and the Word spread. But they were of a different kind, I suppose. The Christians on the go these days are nothing in comparison, it seems.

Don't be afraid. Share your story with us. The truth will set you free. For each insult you receive here in His name, a bounty shall await you in His many mansions.

Bannasidhe

pauldla wrote: »

Well, to say I was intrigued is to put it mildy. His wife met personally with the Lord? I must know more about this! Tell me, antisleptic, how did this come to pass!

I met a Laird. A real one mind, not one of these buy a square inch of land in a Scottish estate and call yourself a laird jobbies.

It was on the Isle of Skye in 1989 - he was Laird Macleod, we met in the post office in Portree where his wife Audrey was buying stamps.

I have met a few Lords, Ladies, a Duke or two plus a crown prince who has become a Sultan since then - but you never forget your first time being in the presence of a Lord. Especially when his wife is wearing a tea cosy on her head and they smell very strongly of sheep.

antiskeptic

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

Zombrex wrote: »

Correct

The flaw you are making is then saying that because of this any method God uses to give us confidences in what we believe is as good as any other method.

With the potential that some, e.g. revelation, are better/worse than others should God decide so. What I'm hoping from you is something to point to one method actually better than another.

It isn't, because God has already made us

The only methods that God can use to give us confidence in our beliefs are ones that are consistent with how we are already designed, by him, to function.

With "how we are designed to function" being a matter for God to decide. Or adjust as he sees fit.

You rely on a method that is inconsistent to how you are made...

..the problem that God is hardly going to appear to us using a method that he himself has designed to not work very well.

Revelation isn't necessarily inconsistent with how I'm made. You aren't demonstrating yourself qualified to discuss the well-workings of revelation. For instance: you conflate it with people coming up with the notion that God exists (falsely: under their own steam) which clearly isn't God's revelation (although it might appear to an outsider to be the same).

I'm not.

In so far that you're relying on method (without referencing who'd be giving the method it's worth) you are. I'm sure it'll crop up again soon..

Its not. It is a matter for him to decide. Guess what, he already decided.

One small step ..

If God exists, and made us, and made us a particular way, and we are consistent in how we are made, then we can only have confidence in the various empirical and scientific forms of assessment.

One giant leap ..

You can say you know something of how God has made us (assuming he has made us). You most certainly cannot say you know all of how God has made us. Or how he can remake us (given the Christian position on being born again)

This is the case before we get to the question of God.

The question of God himself is then introduced and you for some reason think we can now throw out all of that because well its God doing it. But you ignore the point that it was always God doing it (which is ironic since that is the central pillar of your initial argument)

I'm not so much throwing it out as positing the ease with which a declared other means slots in.

I've moved from fallible senses aided and abetted by method (giving one degree of God-assigned confidence) to infallible sense for which no method is required (giving another degree of God-assigned confidence). The question of how one knows it's God isn't a relevant question to a system of knowledge impartation that requires no method.

When I look over to a far off city and don't get the distance to the city correct because I'm just using my eye sight while realizing that I have no confidence in my guess that is all God

When I touch a plate just out of the oven and attempt to guess the temperature of the plate, and have no confidence in that result because I'm terrible at assessing temperature through my skin that is all God

When I'm waiting at a train station and think man I wonder how long I've been here, and think it might be 5 minutes but really I can't be all that confident in that assessment because I'm terrible at judging passage of time accurate, particularly when I'm bored, that is all God

So it is ridiculous for you to think that you are suddenly changing something significantly by attempting to introduce God when the does God exist question comes up.

I'm not dealing with does God exist. I'm dealing with the realisation that since all possible methods for God to reveal himself would be assigned confidence levels by God, you have no basis for supposing one method necessarily better than others (which opens up the potential that revelation be better than empirical means)

Remember, this is an argument about comparative merit.

And he certainly hasn't made it so we are perfect at telling he exists.

This you cannot say. You're conflating folk who generate confidence in a god with God who generates confidence in folk. And supposing the existence of the one impinges on the other.

We require empirical assessment for all these questions because God decided we do. If you don't like it, take it up with God. But introducing the "God can do what he likes" argument just for the existence question as if that some how squares the circle is stupid. God can do what ever he likes. But he hasn't. Wishing he had won't change that.

We're dealing with the biblical God who utilises revelation. We're not arguing whether he exists, we're arguing on the basis that he does. Or could.

I am, you are simply ignoring it.

Your argument seems to be made up of:

- assuming you know the extent of how God has made us (because you know something of the extent of how he has made us)

- assuming method is always required (when it's only required when dealing with fallible sense)

- the existence of 40,000 religions impinge in anyway on the truth of one (when the 39,999 false would be a completely different class of thing to the true 1. Conflation, bald and simple)

You think it is important that God can invalidate the need for empirical assessment any time he likes. It isn't, that is not important. God could decide tomorrow that every was perfect at measuring how far things are from us, even up to the stars. But that isn't important.

The important bit is has he invalidated the need for empirical assessment.

The important bit is your confidence that he has. To demand that be empirically demonstrated is to argue in a circle. And conclude, a priori, that empiricism stands uber alles.

When the original argument sees God being the decider of that.

No, that is what you want the focus of the argument to be, because you are getting ready for the greatest jump in magical thinking, the jump all you believers routinely take on instinct, like throwing your hands out beside you when falling on ice. Because something can happen I'm going to assume it did happen

The rest of us are falling over ourselves to get you to realize that the important question is not can God invalidate the need for empirical assessment, but has he already invalidated the need for empirical assessment.

See above.

God decides what you are capable of doing. He already decided what you are capable of doing. You are not capable of doing what you think you are capable of doing.

Non sequitur. God decides on confidence levels applicable. And if he decides to impart knowledge by revelation and attach confidence to that means which is greater than the confidence derived from empiricial alternatives, then know I more surely do by revelation.

Again, you need to remind yourself that your much-loved method isn't what gives you confidence, it's the confidence levels God has assigned to that method that give you whatever certainty you obtain.

Method is a vehicle for confidence delivery. It's not a basis for the confidence. If God packed more or less confidence in the vehicle then more or less confident you would be.

antiskeptic

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

Zillah wrote: »

The problem with this is that it has been shown that the brain has the ability to create a sense of the presence of God just from being stimulated by scientists. People have been falling foul of this trick for millennia. Once it was thunder, or a mountain, or drug induced dream quests, or meditation. You think your feelings about God are special when they are not, and it is your failure as a rational human being to overcome that. You might find your subjective experience to be extremely convincing. So did Mohammed, and countless other prophets for countless other Gods and you're all as mad as a bag of cats.

By immense stature I mean that escape routes like those above, now seemingly solid, will be as transparent to you as they are to the immense stature whose light penetrates all.

You'd have to admit, it'd be a fool who reckon to out-debate a being capable of creating all we see (and beyond).

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

By immense stature I mean that escape routes like those above, now seemingly solid, will be as transparent to you as they are to the immense stature whose light penetrates all.

You'd have to admit, it'd be a fool who reckon to out-debate a being capable of creating all we see (and beyond).

Personally I think it is foolish in the extreme to believe in the existence of a being capable of creating all we see (and beyond).

Andrewf20

A visit from one of God's Angels

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've moved from fallible senses aided and abetted by method (giving one degree of God-assigned confidence) to infallible sense for which no method is required (giving another degree of God-assigned confidence). The question of how one knows it's God isn't a relevant question to a system of knowledge impartation that requires no method.

In relation to your statement in bold above, how did you move? Is this something you feel you can control in any way or is it in the hands of God exclusively? i.e Did you move or did God move you?

One reason for me to doubt God, is because some of those who have struggled to have faith have gone to their graves as athiests as I mentioned previously. If the bible is to be believed, they are in hell. Where was their revelation?

As far as I can tell, we use method and reason in alot of everyday life, however your argument suggests that we should discontinue this when it comes to the question of Gods existence. Its like a cruel game where the hardest of mental gymnastics are demanded for non believers with the threat of infinite punishment for those who cant find the answers that are demanded of us.

antiskeptic

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

Andrewf20 wrote: »

In relation to your statement in bold above, how did you move? Is this something you feel you can control in any way or is it in the hands of God exclusively? i.e Did you move or did God move you?

"I've moved" is a pointer given in argument indicating I'm not dealing in the realms (empiricism / reasoning) Zombrex insists on. Rather I've shifted to a different realm.

This to (attempt to) indicate revelation not a subject of empiricism. It's merely another realm - as self contained and self-referencing as empiricism is.

Zombrex is having trouble recognising the self-referencing of empiricism I think.

-

To answer your question: in retrospect I understand that I had a part to play in God turning up - indeed, it lay ultimately in my hands whether he would or not. But i wasn't in control of it in the sense of being able to decide to press certain buttons and God would turn up.

The mechanism of salvation doesn't require that we be consciously aware of it's working, or being at work on us, in order to work. Everyone is communicating with God all the time as it happens - by thought, word, deed. Irrespective of whether or not they believe.

One reason for me to doubt God, is because some of those who have struggled to have faith have gone to their graves as athiests as I mentioned previously. If the bible is to be believed, they are in hell. Where was their revelation?

a) the thief on the cross is instructive of the fact that the song ain't over until the fat lady sings. No one knows what goes on on a persons deathbed. And it's not as if being saved means a person has a crystal clear understanding of what has happened them. What about someone who is saved who has never heard of Christ - they're not going to come across as believers in the commonly understood sense.

b) The "struggle to have faith" isn't necessarily the criterion God is interested in. If it be true that Christianity is the one true religion and all others false gods then the struggle to have faith (even one labelled Christian) might well be one involving a false god. Much of Catholicism is, in my view, false and so someone aspiring to such faith isn't after God.

As far as I can tell, we use method and reason in alot of everyday life, however your argument suggests that we should discontinue this when it comes to the question of Gods existence.

My argument suggests that if God decides upon a means of revelation that doesn't find it's prime confidence raising in empiricism/reasoning then there is no need to apply that for which there is no longer need.

The insistence around here seems to be that because a spanner works well in spannerland, it should automatically be the tool of choice in screwdriver land.

Its like a cruel game where the hardest of mental gymnastics are demanded for non believers with the threat of infinite punishment for those who cant find the answers that are demanded of us.

You'll note that empiricism and reasoning place reliance on arriving at God in part on us. Whereas God arriving at us by means of revelation places things entirely on him.

Which is pretty much in line with that more central of biblical principles: biblical Christianity places the reliance for our salvation upon God's actions (to which we respond). Every other religion puts our salvation in our hands - we must do the work to get to God.

Who would you trust most to let you know for sure that God exists? God or you? God figures to let God do the heavy lifting.

antiskeptic

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

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Personally I think it is foolish in the extreme to believe in the existence of a being capable of creating all we see (and beyond).

Not as foolish as supposing nothingdidit

The Mad Hatter

Grayditch wrote: »

One simple flower.

Sherlock Holmes, right?

Andrewf20

A visit from one of God's Angels

antiskeptic wrote: »

This to (attempt to) indicate revelation not a subject of empiricism. It's merely another realm - as self contained and self-referencing as empiricism is. Zombrex is having trouble recognising the self-referencing of empiricism I think.

I can see where Zombrex is coming from though. I think you are saying that this realm of revelation cant be measured or quantified as it exists outside the world of what we would consider as tangible, measureable, appealing to logic and the laws of common understanding etc. But how do I know God has revealed himself rather than me simply having a false illusion of God revealing himself? If I ever do have a genuine revelation, I may perhaps doubt its authenticity, especially in a world where illusion, delusion, dreaming or mental health problems are likely alternative possibilites.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The insistence around here seems to be that because a spanner works well in spannerland, it should automatically be the tool of choice in screwdriver land.

Is screwdriverland another way of wording the God of the gaps argument though? The logic-spanner works well in logicland but falls down when it comes to the realm of the supernatural (aka screwdriverland).

antiskeptic wrote: »

Whereas God arriving at us by means of revelation places things entirely on him.

Which is pretty much in line with that more central of biblical principles: biblical Christianity places the reliance for our salvation upon God's actions (to which we respond).

So is there anything that I or other non believers can do or is it entirely up to God to convert us?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Who would you trust most to let you know for sure that God exists? God or you? God figures to let God do the heavy lifting.

The answer to this question would surely include having "me" as part of the answer eitherway as it would be my brain receiving the revelation from God. The problem is that I dont entirely trust my own brain, especially if its dealing with a realm that I dont understand. Ultimately the vehicle needed for revelation is a rickety bag of brain cells that works well most of the time but is prone to error and cant be entirely trusted.

antiskeptic

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

Andrewf20 wrote: »

I can see where Zombrex is coming from though. I think you are saying that this realm of revelation cant be measured or quantified as it exists outside the world of what we would consider as tangible, measureable, appealing to logic and the laws of common understanding etc.

In other words: but one of the means God has at his disposal in order to evidence himself. The one preferred by atheist. Call it the empirical realm (leaving aside logic - there being nothing illogical about revelation)

But how do I know God has revealed himself rather than me simply having a false illusion of God revealing himself?

You're threading well worn turf at this stage in the discussion so briefly (post number 19 in this thread lays out the basic argument)

The issue isn't where/how I gain confidence that it's God and not an illusion - the issue is that God is the one assigning confidence to whatever means he uses to reveal himself.

Which means the answer to the "where/how do you derive your confidence that it's God" is the same whether God reveals himself through revelation or empirically. That is: from God.

What Zombrex is doing is relying on a method God has assigned confidence to (empiricism) for an answer to the "how I know it's God" question. This reasoning in a circle. He forgets who has made it so that confidence can issue forth from empiricism. And on whom he ultimately relies for his confidence, i.e,. God and not empiricism.

Which makes the "how" question redundant in all cases since the means by which confidence is delivered (method such as empiricism or direct such as with revelation) isn't necessarily relevant.

If I ever do have a genuine revelation, I may perhaps doubt its authenticity, especially in a world where illusion, delusion, dreaming or mental health problems are likely alternative possibilites.

Hopefully the above will indicate why this is a groundless position for you to hold. You have to ask youself: is the creator of the universe capable dispelling doubt without having to jump through his own hoops by using method along the way

Is screwdriverland another way of wording the God of the gaps argument though? The logic-spanner works well in logicland but falls down when it comes to the realm of the supernatural (aka screwdriverland).

Hopefully the position is clearer.

So is there anything that I or other non believers can do or is it entirely up to God to convert us?

It might sound like splitting hairs but it's an important distinction I think:

A way to see it is that you can resist being brought to the point where you are saved. But you can't do anything as such to get yourself saved (in the sense of generating something out of self as opposed to God pressing something out of you). God will lead you along the path and questions will be asked of you (without your necessarily knowing who's asking or that you're being asked anything) and you will answer and your hearts desire wrt the things of God and what he stands for will be established.

The answer to this question would surely include having "me" as part of the answer eitherway as it would be my brain receiving the revelation from God. The problem is that I dont entirely trust my own brain, especially if its dealing with a realm that I dont understand. Ultimately the vehicle needed for revelation is a rickety bag of brain cells that works well most of the time but is prone to error and cant be entirely trusted.

The answer does involve you but in the sense of being subject to God configuring you so that you know it's him. You don't have to rely on the brain (primarily) since the transaction occurs by having a previously dead part of (spirit) you brought to life and it's through that element of you that God transmits knowledge of him.

It's not that the brain isn't a part of the whole but the heirarchy changes from mind > body (in the naturalist view) to spirit > mind > body.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

With the potential that some, e.g. revelation, are better/worse than others should God decide so. What I'm hoping from you is something to point to one method actually better than another.

Sure. God points you to one method actually being better than another.

As I keep saying to you, if you have a problem with that you need to take it up with God, there is no point wishing it wasn't the case. You can suppose the things God can do all you like but that isn't going to make him do anything.

antiskeptic wrote: »

With "how we are designed to function" being a matter for God to decide. Or adjust as he sees fit.

Which he already has, wouldn't you agree. God decides, not you. Wishing that you would like to be really good at accurately processing personal revelation will have no bearing on whether you are or not, correct?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Revelation isn't necessarily inconsistent with how I'm made.

Yes it is. Take it up with God. When you meet him feel free to ask him why he made you this way.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You aren't demonstrating yourself qualified to discuss the well-workings of revelation. For instance: you conflate it with people coming up with the notion that God exists (falsely: under their own steam) which clearly isn't God's revelation (although it might appear to an outsider to be the same).

The people cannot tell the difference, or test the revelation independently to their own subjective assessment.

1 theory of electromagnatism, 40,000 religions. Or to put it another way, can you detail someone who was convinced God revealed something to them, but then figured out he hadn't under their own steam.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You can say you know something of how God has made us (assuming he has made us). You most certainly cannot say you know all of how God has made us. Or how he can remake us (given the Christian position on being born again)

Once again you appeal to "God might have..."

We know enough about how God made us (assuming he has made us) to know that he made us to be bad at the type of assessment religious people, including yourself, rely on.

You can pretend otherwise, but that will do nothing to change reality. You can complain about it but I doubt God cares.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've moved from fallible senses aided and abetted by method (giving one degree of God-assigned confidence) to infallible sense for which no method is required (giving another degree of God-assigned confidence). The question of how one knows it's God isn't a relevant question to a system of knowledge impartation that requires no method.

Knowing it requires no method is an unfounded assumption on your part that is inconsistent with how we know God has made us.

Basically you appeal to God while at the same time saying you know better than he does. Rather ironic, don't you think.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not dealing with does God exist. I'm dealing with the realisation that since all possible methods for God to reveal himself would be assigned confidence levels by God, you have no basis for supposing one method necessarily better than others (which opens up the potential that revelation be better than empirical means)

Once again you confuse "God can" with "God has". My basis for supposing one method necessarily better than others comes from creation, which in turn comes from God himself if he exists.

You seem to be one of these Christians who put completely faith in the revelations from the Bible as a message from God while ignoring the message contained in his actual creation (ie the world around us)

antiskeptic wrote: »

This you cannot say.

I certainly can, with a lot more confidence than you can say God has made it so no method is necessary for you personally.

I'm not conflating them, I'm saying for what ever reason God decided that these two groups will look identical, something you are ignoring.

antiskeptic wrote: »

We're dealing with the biblical God who utilises revelation. We're not arguing whether he exists, we're arguing on the basis that he does. Or could.

It is illogical to supposed that the biblical God isn't the God of creation. Appealing to the Bible while ignoring the actual creation of God is nonsensical.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Non sequitur. God decides on confidence levels applicable. And if he decides to impart knowledge by revelation and attach confidence to that means which is greater than the confidence derived from empiricial alternatives, then know I more surely do by revelation.

Yes. But he hasn't done this, we know he hasn't done this, so it is rather irrelevant. I do know the extent of how God has made us. I know this because God made us and reveal to us how we are made through creation.

Are you saying I cannot know this even if God has decided that we can

Zombrex

Let me ask you a simple question, do you believe that if God exists then creation itself is a revelation from God?

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

God decides on confidence levels applicable. And if he decides to impart knowledge by revelation and attach confidence to that means which is greater than the confidence derived from empiricial alternatives, then know I more surely do by revelation. Again, you need to remind yourself that your much-loved method isn't what gives you confidence, it's the confidence levels God has assigned to that method that give you whatever certainty you obtain. Method is a vehicle for confidence delivery. It's not a basis for the confidence. If God packed more or less confidence in the vehicle then more or less confident you would be.

That's the finest religious sophistry I've seen for a long time.

antiskeptic

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

Zombrex wrote: »

Sure. God points you to one method actually being better than another.

I was under the impression it was your arguments cricular reasoning attempting to do that rather than God. The circular reasoning rests on a conflation (1 theory vs 40k religions)

I'm noticing a lot of repetition in our posting. Perhaps its time to either agree to differ or formalise our discussion so that it's clear whose rebutting what aspect and whose turn it is in each segment of the process? Or maybe focus on as aspect such as what I see to be your conflation or something

As I keep saying to you, if you have a problem with that you need to take it up with God, there is no point wishing it wasn't the case. You can suppose the things God can do all you like but that isn't going to make him do anything.

I'm not supposing he can, I'm confident he has. And this discussion, I remind you, has to do with the basis for confidence. My basis is God acting. Your basis is God acting.

It's now for you figure how to raise yours above mine. If you can't then my argument stands. So far, you seem to rely on method as a means to seperate the two things. Which is circular.

Which he already has, wouldn't you agree.

Adjust? In my case yes, in your's apparently not.

God decides, not you. Wishing that you would like to be really good at accurately processing personal revelation will have no bearing on whether you are or not, correct?

At no point in my argument do I place any reliance on my abilities. Both I and you are reliant on God's abilities. Me subject to revelation, you subject to method.

The people cannot tell the difference, or test the revelation independently to their own subjective assessment.

You're dancing around on the head of a pin again. The issue is confidence not the means by which you arrive at confidence. Means is only relevant where God makes it relevant.

1 theory of electromagnatism, 40,000 religions. Or to put it another way, can you detail someone who was convinced God revealed something to them, but then figured out he hadn't under their own steam.

More reliance on the person when the job is God's to instill confidence. What part of bootstrap argument do you not understand. You reliance on means and method in the face of God is a bootstrap argument.

Once again you appeal to "God might have..."

Your raising it shows how poorly you grasp the argument. In the face of the realisation that God is the one who instills confidence (and not method) the demand that he appear empirically and by no other means wilts. Once the possibility exists that revelation a better way that it. Possiblity = might.

The core argument isnt' making any claim as to what he has done.



[quot4e]We know enough about how God made us (assuming he has made us) to know that he made us to be bad at the type of assessment religious people, including yourself, rely on.

You can pretend otherwise, but that will do nothing to change reality. You can complain about it but I doubt God cares.[/quote]

Repitition of your conflation. No new argumentation

Knowing it requires no method is an unfounded assumption on your part that is inconsistent with how we know God has made us.

Overreach. How you know God made you needn't be how I know God made me.

Once again you confuse "God can" with "God has". My basis for supposing one method necessarily better than others comes from creation, which in turn comes from God himself if he exists.

The same conflation as before.

You seem to be one of these Christians who put completely faith in the revelations from the Bible as a message from God while ignoring the message contained in his actual creation (ie the world around us)

Not so. It'd be a diversion to get into how I see consistency with revelation and the world around. It's not core to the original argument.

I certainly can, with a lot more confidence than you can say God has made it so no method is necessary for you personally.

This you can't say either. There are things you can't know (e.g. your conflation is assumes you know something you can't know) and aside from assuming my argument defeated, I can potentially know alot more than you (since revelation would add a string to my bow)

I'm not conflating them, I'm saying for what ever reason God decided that these two groups will look identical, something you are ignoring.

Identical to you perhaps. But not to those on the other end (man creating God and God revealing himself to man are different categories of things)

It is illogical to supposed that the biblical God isn't the God of creation. Appealing to the Bible while ignoring the actual creation of God is nonsensical.

Do you mean what you see of the actual creation or what I see? This is pointless Zombrex - attempting to limit the argument to terms convenient to your viewpoint.

Yes. But he hasn't done this, we know he hasn't done this, so it is rather irrelevant.

How do you know that? Aside from the conflation that is "man creates God vs God reveals God"

antiskeptic

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

robindch wrote: »

That's the finest religious sophistry I've seen for a long time.

May I assume you're not abusing your position in posting this as a mod?

In which case classic, robindch-say-nothing-at-all

Sarky

Archaeological and historical evidence that the bible is literal ?

He's right though. That post was terrible. A stroke victim wouldn't be able to write it with a straight face!

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

In which case classic, robindch-say-nothing-at-all

No, on the contrary. I am pointing out that you are saying nothing at all. The sentences I quoted above mean -- in real terms -- nothing. Absolutely nothing at all. They are pure, unadulterated, meaningless hot air.

They could come from a certain strand of Jesuitical religious philosophy, or perhaps a parallel protestant one, in which the aim of some block of dense prose is not to inform or debate, but simply to bamboozle by the continuous conflation of arbitrary levels; the confused and babbling use of misleading terms which are poorly defined, where they are defined at all; the bald belief that if a string of words sounds good, then whatever meaning the unfortunate and abused reader can cobble together must be good too.

And, in general, a broad sense of a fist being shaken from behind a very solid wall in the direction of an enemy, but not so noisily that anybody could ever hear it.

fitz0

antiskeptic: If what you are saying is true, does that mean god has determined all atheists to have no confidence in revelation or, it would seem, any form of argument for his existence?

Lelantos

This whole thread seems to be an attempt to prove a negative. No matter what evidence is presented, be it simultaneously appearing to each single person in the world, or raising the dead, or whatever absolute a believer puts forward, a non believer can say its the work of an advanced race or mass hysteria/illusion. Can anyone prove otherwise?

seamus

Lelantos wrote: »

Can anyone prove otherwise?

Well yes. A god being a god, would know exactly what evidence would convince everyone and provide it to us all simultaneously.

The question asks for a definition of an actual falsifiable test for a concept which exists outside the boundaries of falsifiability and lacks definition. If the concept is undefinable, then the test is too undefinable.

Therefore the only being which knows the answer to the OP's question is "God". "God" has failed to provide this evidence, ergo, "God" does not exist.

HHobo

If bolts of lightning dart from the heavens to smite my enemies then you'd better beleive I'd be pouring out libations to Zeus before the day was out. And not tesco brand wine either. Only the good stuff for my Olympian overlord!!

HHobo

seamus wrote: »

Therefore the only being which knows the answer to the OP's question is "God". "God" has failed to provide this evidence, ergo, "God" does not exist.

Can God not simply choose not to and yet be extant all the while?

Gumbi

My honest, immediate answer would be "I don't know".

I'm not so sure it would be possible to prove that God objectively exists. So many of people's claims about God simply go against what we know about the universe, or are simply logically impossible. I find so much wrong with people's claims about morality, claims about "a prime mover" etc

Like Dawkins says, the only thing I would consider worth discussing would be some form of deity which has no bearing on our universe whatsoever, but that even that would be a stretch.

It's just that so many religious claims, I not only find them wrong, I find the opposite to be the case.