Faith necessarily irrational and unjustified?

MrPudding

antiskeptic wrote: »

Philosophically perhaps but not logically.

The swiftest way to see this would be to answer the conundrum presented you - the one which asks you where your confidence brought about by empirical evidence would be coming from (in the case of God's existence)

First, philosophy is not really my strong point, so forgive me if I am missing some point. The question in the OP strikes me as being a little pointless, along the lines of 'if my aunt had balls...' etc.

I am still confused as to how you know what you beleive is correct and not a delusion, or simply you being mistaken. You beleive that god exists, and therefore the feelings you have about that god are correct, they are validated by your belief that the god exists.

If you reverse your suggestion and work on the basis that your god does not exist, then where does that leave your belief in your god? Given the number of mutually exclusive religions that are in existence, and given that the followers of those religions know that their god exists, in much the same way you claim yours does, is it not more likely that god does not exist and you are simply mistaken?

So when asking if faith in necessarily irrational and unjustified I think that answer has to be yes. That other people believe in other gods, or believe that they are someone they are not, or believe that something is happening that is not, and they do so with a level of confidence equal to yours, should be an indication that there is a possibility that something else might be going on.

Whilst it might be correct to allow that, if god exists, he would be capable of convincing a person in his existence, and switching on some, presumably, undetectable part of you brain, it still seems more rational and justified to assume that the person is simply mistaken.

MrP

antiskeptic

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

very much so logically

IF God makes man with propensity for subjective error both in his reasoning and his evaluation of empirical reality THEN empirical method is a way of helping circumvent this problem

IF God makes man without propensity for subjective error regarding the existence of God, on God's demonstration of self to mans spirit THEN no other method is required in order that man be sure God exists.


No new kind of logic is required here.

Penny 4 Thoughts

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not at all since you don't go on to describe where your ability to reason logically would be coming from or how it is you are equipped to experience the empirical world in a way that produces in you a satisfaction that truth has been arrived at via the empirical method combined with reasoning.

The source of it all would be God in the case of his existence. Had God constructed you another way then you would place no value/less value on empirical evidence+reasoning.

And because you would be relying on God at all points even if he were to evidence himself empirically, you have no basis for not relying on him should he choose to reveal himself by alternate means.

Have we not already discussed this? I have no issue if you want to claim that God created logic, or that God can change logic to some other logic system if she wants to. But I hope it should be clear from our earlier discussion that supposing such a possibility doesn't provide any further clarify.

antiskeptic wrote: »

There are other ways to dismantle this logical conclusion (not system) of yours but perhaps the above will suffice.

if you explain how I can logically distinguish between a delusional experience and a real event without relying on empirical evidence that would help.

Penny 4 Thoughts

antiskeptic wrote: »

IF God makes man with propensity for subjective error both in his reasoning and his evaluation of empirical reality THEN empirical method is a way of helping circumvent this problem

IF God makes man without propensity for subjective error regarding the existence of God, on God's demonstration of self to mans spirit THEN no other method is required in order that man be sure God exists.


No new kind of logic is required here.

it is not that one is delusional or not, it is that one needs to know they are not delusional. this principle holds far beyond man and women trying to understand God. Imagine a mathematical problem where X is a real number. If I suppose X is 5, can you logically determine if that is a true of false statement, without a method to determine what X is independently to my statement that it is 5? I can say but I'm overwhelmed by the truth of this statement, but that is not a logical path to demonstrating that the statement is true or false. Logically, without any further information, you cannot determine the truth of the statement that X is 5.

antiskeptic

MrPudding wrote: »

First, philosophy is not really my strong point, so forgive me if I am missing some point. The question in the OP strikes me as being a little pointless, along the lines of 'if my aunt had balls...' etc.

Pointless as you may think it, if you addressed the problem so constructed, it might provide answers to your later questions. It's not that complicated a question.

I am still confused as to how you know what you believe is correct and not a delusion, or simply you being mistaken.

If you examine your question you will see in it the onus being placed on the person themselves to arrive at the truth of the matter. This stems from the fact we're familiar with the subjective errors that can be made by us - whether at our own or by others instigation. And so, we're familiar with demanding of ourselves and others how it is they arrive at the conclusions they arrive at. We demand that they show their work, as it were. It's so common place a demand as to be automatic.


If the instigator is God however then there need be no reliance on the person themselves to figure out for themselves how it is they know what they know to be true. This, because God can ensure that neither he is mistaken in the information he issues out nor we mistaken in our receipt of it.

I'd be interested in your response to a related question. It might help add to the above. The question presupposes that you would, in principle, be capable of being satisfied as to God's existence where he just to demonstrate himself empirically to your satisfaction (whatever empirical hoops that might involve him jumping through)

The (significant) value you place on God demonstrating himself to you empirically, obtains that value by God having assigned empiricism that level of value. You value it because he's designed you and it to have that value for you.

If he chooses to assign another means of revelation a still higher value than he has empiricism, then that means of His self-demonstration would have greater value to you - in the case you are exposed to it.

In other words: you are subject to the value God assigns his means of revelation, you don't get to decide that value for yourself. And so, IF he assigns spiritual revelation a higher confidence-giving value than he does empirical demonstration THEN you will find yourself more convinced by spiritual revelation than you would be by empirical revelation.

If you reverse your suggestion and work on the basis that your god does not exist, then where does that leave your belief in your god?

I'm not sure what you mean. I know he does so can't work on the basis that he doesn't

Given the number of mutually exclusive religions that are in existence, and given that the followers of those religions know that their god exists, in much the same way you claim yours does, is it not more likely that god does not exist and you are simply mistaken?

I've no issue with the fact I would be wrong. But I consider that possibility to lie in the "I could be a brain in a jar" territory and beyond the point of examination. What others think or do isn't my concern and raises no concern for me:

Indeed, "God" explains the other gods (religious and secular) and his "system" is like a good theory in that regard - what I observe on the ground about the nature of these gods matches how they are described in an ancient book written long before some of these gods ever appeared

So when asking if faith in necessarily irrational and unjustified I think that answer has to be yes.

I'm not sure at which point in your post to date you've provided argument for that. That there certainly must be false gods (given mutual exclusivity) doesn't necessitate no God.

Whilst it might be correct to allow that, if god exists, he would be capable of convincing a person in his existence, and switching on some, presumably, undetectable part of you brain, it still seems more rational and justified to assume that the person is simply mistaken.

Again, I'd like to see direct argument supporting that notion

antiskeptic

Not at all since you don't go on to describe where your ability to reason logically would be coming from or how it is you are equipped to experience the empirical world in a way that produces in you a satisfaction that truth has been arrived at via the empirical method combined with reasoning.

The source of it all would be God in the case of his existence. Had God constructed you another way then you would place no value/less value on empirical evidence+reasoning.

And because you would be relying on God at all points even if he were to evidence himself empirically, you have no basis for not relying on him should he choose to reveal himself by alternate means.

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

Have we not already discussed this?

I don't recall you dealing with this issue, no. I have asked it a number of times of you how you deal with this conundrum. You point to "logical reasoning" as if it hangs from sky hooks. Your being asked to face the consequences of attaching things back to God-as-source of this particular system (empiricism) of arriving at knowledge.

I have no issue if you want to claim that God created logic,

Let's agree that logic is an attribute of God and something that flavours his creation.

or that God can change logic to some other logic system if she wants to.

No change in logic system is proposed by me. I disagree with your conclusions being called logical necessities since competing alternatives can be constructed which are logically possible. Meaning your logical necessities aren't necessarily necessary.

But I hope it should be clear from our earlier discussion that supposing such a possibility doesn't provide any further clarify.

Are you referring to alternative logical possibilities? All mine does is falsify the conclusion you suggest is logical (that empirical evidence is necessary to know God exists). Logically it can't be necessary both need empirical evidence to know God exists and not need empirical evidence to know God exists.

if you explain how I can logically distinguish between a delusional experience and a real event without relying on empirical evidence that would help.

IF God creates an aspect of you not prone to subjective error and reveals himself to that aspect THEN the question of subjective error doesn't arise.

oscarBravo

antiskeptic wrote: »

From the God-delivered consequences of your sin (where sin is better considered an umbrella term for the produce of a life lived in rebellion against God than simply a list of bold things you've done)

So God wants to save mankind from the consequences (which he imposes) of sin (which he defines), but is choosy as to which individual humans are granted the ability to even know he exists?

This doesn't strike you as a rigged game?

Isn't the atheist explanation - that there is no god, there is no game, there are no consequences of a rebellion against a non-existent god, there is no need for salvation, and we should be nice to other people because that makes us not assholes - altogether a more economical and elegant one?

antiskeptic

oscarBravo wrote: »

So God wants to save mankind from the consequences (which he imposes) of sin (which he defines),

Yup. Better said, his love for us wants to save us from his wrath against unrighteousness.

but is choosy as to which individual humans are granted the ability to even know he exists?

He has criteria for saving a person. It's not rigged since each person is presented with equal opportunity to meet that criteria or not. It's essentially a matter of the persons will and what it decides it will have.

Isn't the atheist explanation - that there is no god, there is no game, there are no consequences of a rebellion against a non-existent god, there is no need for salvation, and we should be nice to other people because that makes us not assholes - altogether a more economical and elegant one?

The trouble with atheism is that it wants the absolute morality but doesn't want the God required to undergird that morality. I've seen it here with the clamour for civil rights (as if these be inalienable) and have seen it now with the clamour for folk to "be nice" when atheism extinguishes any absolute reason to be so.

More honest to desire that folk act as they want and to hell with the consequences..

oscarBravo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yup. Better said, his love for us wants to save his from his wrath against unrighteousness.

So why doesn't he change us so that we can't sin?

He has criteria for saving a person. It's not rigged since each person is presented with equal opportunity to meet that criteria or not. It's essentially a matter of the persons will and what it decides it will have.

You claim to have had your "eyes opened"; to have been graced with a "god detector" that allows you to know that god exists. I haven't.

How is that an equal opportunity? It's like saying that men and women are given equal opportunities to apply for a job, when the job ad is only posted in the men's toilets.

The trouble with atheism is that it wants the absolute morality but doesn't want the God required to undergird that morality.

God's morality isn't absolute. It shifts with the zeitgeist, albeit at a glacial pace.

There isn't an absolute morality. The pretence that there is one, and that it comes from an imaginary deity, is disingenuous at best.

I've seen it here with the clamour for civil rights (as if these be inalienable)...

If your god requires you to deny civil rights, why don't you think that makes god an asshole?

...and have seen it now with the clamour for folk to "be nice" when atheism extinguishes any absolute reason to be so.

I don't need an "absolute" reason to be nice, and anyone who's only nice to other people because they're afraid they'll be punished by a deity otherwise is inherently an asshole.

More honest to desire that folk act as they want and to hell with the consequences..

If you thought that god wouldn't punish you for hurting other people, would you then have no incentive not to hurt them?

gaynorvader

antiskeptic wrote: »

You said of an omnipotent God

"Seriously? How can the Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth be constrained by anything?"

The wikipedia article says of omnipotence (one version):

"thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie"

You say he can't be constrained, wikipedia say he can be (in this case by logic)

Why is he constrained by logic? What part of God's description anywhere states that he needs follow laws of logic?

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's not illogical. It might be irrational.

It was logical for me to spend 15 minutes trying to pick up the remote rather than 15 seconds? How, pray tell.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've no idea which, if any, of those Egyptians went to Hell. God kills everyone eventually: the righteous and the unrighteous alike.

I'm not sure God's chief goal is life enhancement (which sounds very much like the product of the consumerist age). Salvation of mankind is one goal (and if pain can be utilised in pursuit of that goal so be it). Justice and punishment of unrighteousness another (and if pain can be...)


I don't see a problem with punishment for unrighteousness myself. With pain, by definition, being involved. So perhaps all those Egyptians are in hell now.. what of it?

They were never given a chance, according to the bible. They were never told of God until Moses asked the Pharaoh to release the Israelites, at which point God stepped in, removed his free will and made him doom his people.

Penny 4 Thoughts

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't recall you dealing with this issue, no. I have asked it a number of times of you how you deal with this conundrum. You point to "logical reasoning" as if it hangs from sky hooks. Your being asked to face the consequences of attaching things back to God-as-source of this particular system (empiricism) of arriving at knowledge.

I don't understand where the conundrum is, what consequences?

The question isn't of subjective error but rather how one knows they are not in error in their belief, what is the logical justification for that belief. After all we are not talking about does God exists, but whether belief that she does based on a personal demonstration is rational or not. That demonstration may have taken place, but you would still need to logically arrive at the conclusion that it was really God in order to be acting rationally.

All you have said is that when she reveals herself to you you are overcome with certainty that she exists. That is not as far as I can see a logical argument for your experience being caused by God rather than simply a trick of the mind, and is thus irrational.

If you have the logic at hand can you simply map out the logical argument? That might save some back and forth.

antiskeptic

oscarBravo wrote: »

So why doesn't he change us so that we can't sin?

Sin (a.k.a. unrighteousness) is utilised as part of the mechanism of choice. The choice presented (although we might not be aware of it or even our being presented a choice) being "do I want righteousness or not".

Sin is the opposite of righteousness and serves as the other option until such time as the choice is made. I don't see how one can choose between 1 item on the menu and so 2 items are offered.

If he changes you without your "say so" then he has taken away the choice. Once you make your choice then you are saved and eventually will be made such as to be unable to sin again.

You claim to have had your "eyes opened"; to have been graced with a "god detector" that allows you to know that god exists. I haven't.

How is that an equal opportunity?

I made my choice 12 or so years ago and because I did I was saved and as a consequence of that God opened my eyes. That's the sequence:

1) I choose for the things of God. Rather, I rejected "in the depth of my being" the works of unrighteousness (even if not actually able to resist the works of unrighteousness). I didn't do this because I thougt God would turn up - I had no interest or belief in God. I was just sick and tired of my unrighteousness and things that were dark and had come to loath both them and me for engaging in them

2) In the above I fulfilled God's criteria for saving me

3) God saved me

4) God then rebirthed me .. as it were. I was 'born again" with a now-live instead of dead spiritual side to me. I could now detect God clearly.

5) This new information spread over my worldview like spilled oil over flat ground. And I found infinitely more harmony in that "theory of everything" than in the piecemeal confusion that is mans best attempt to harmonize everything.

.

God's morality isn't absolute. It shifts with the zeitgeist, albeit at a glacial pace.

You might be mixing up Christianity (which is, unsurprisingly, diverse and changing) and God (who doesn't change)

There isn't an absolute morality. The pretence that there is one, and that it comes from an imaginary deity, is disingenuous at best.

I remember trudging through The God Delusion when new atheism was all the rage. Just before throwing it down finally (Dawkins beating up strawmen becomes tedious after a while) I read of some or other sociological experiment which found that human morality at root was the same the world over. Strip away the cultural, religious, educational influences and people were more or less the same morally - even folk in remote tribes who'd little exposure to Western/Eastern values.

This points to a common ancestor - something both Dawkins and Christianity can agree on.

I note your assertion that there isn't absolute morality. The only trouble is atheist don't act as if there isn't absolute morality. They feel as rightfully wronged when someone burgles there house as I do. God only knows that what they would appeal however, since burglary isn't absolutely wrong in your view.

If your god requires you to deny civil rights, why don't you think that makes god an asshole?

You'd have to be specific: God's Laws align with civil rights at some points and don't at others (thou shalt not steal vs gay marriage .. for example)

I've no issue being against a civil right which is against God's Law. Such civil rights are unrighteous.

I don't need an "absolute" reason to be nice, and anyone who's only nice to other people because they're afraid they'll be punished by a deity otherwise is inherently an asshole. If you thought that god wouldn't punish you for hurting other people, would you then have no incentive not to hurt them?

Au cointreau! I'm saved and can't be damned anymore so I've nothing to fear from God in that regard. The reason I want to be nice to people and why it troubles me when I'm not is that I want more of what God is about. More righteousness. There's a nice feeling to be had when you act righteously - something everyone experiences irrespective of whether they are believers or not.

antiskeptic

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

I don't understand where the conundrum is, what consequences?

Here is the conundrum again:

The (significant) value you place on God demonstrating himself to you empirically, obtains that value by God having assigned empiricism that level of value. You value it because he's designed you (and it) to have that value for you.

If he chooses to assign another means of revelation a still higher value than he has empiricism, then that means of His self-demonstration would have greater value to you - in the case you are exposed to it.

In other words: you are subject to the value God assigns his means of revelation, you don't get to decide that value for yourself. And so, IF he assigns spiritual revelation a higher confidence-giving value than he does empirical demonstration THEN you will find yourself more convinced by spiritual revelation than you would be by empirical revelation.

The core issue you need deal with here is the word value and where it comes from ultimately. I stress the focus on value instead of "it's logical" or it's reasonable" because it's the source of value that prove a conundrum not the things you find valuable.

It would be worth focusing on resolving this puzzle because it might help us resolve the discussion.

Akrasia

Objective morality does not exist because morality involves values, and values are completely subjective

If there were no sentient beings in the universe, then there would be no morality.

The only reason why the vast majority of people agree that rape and murder are morally wrong, is because the vast majority of people value human happiness, and disvalue suffering.

Christian apologists think like this 'Child rape is abhorrent, nobody could possibly think that raping a child is morally good, therefore objective morality must exist'

A more open minded person might be tempted to think about what exactly makes child rape so abhorrent to so many people. Rather than saying 'god did it' we can learn a lot about how we evolved and how human psychology works by questioning how the base instincts behind our feelings of disgust and revulsion actually work.

The other point that antiskeptic has raised about knowledge and the nature of truth and certainty just begging the question. Truth about knowledge is that we can never be certain of anything. We evolved to have a 'good enough' model of the world, not a perfect model of the world.
Our entire experience of existing is within a model constructed by our brain.

The brain constructs a reality that is good enough to allow us to survive and re-produce. We know that this model must be a reasonablly accurate representation of the world because it allows us to interact with the world. If our model of the universe was unreliable, we would not be able to function and would never have evolved.

Beyond our evolved model of the universe, humans have learned how to use tools to expand our understanding of the universe. Tools like maths, logic, language as well as physical tools that allow us to conduct experiments to test the properties of the universe we inhabit.

These tools have given us access to aspects of reality that were completely divorced from the model of the universe which we evolved to experience. How can we trust that these tools are reliable? We should only trust the tools that have predicable behaviour, and in practise, predictability is the fundamental property of any useful tool. And in practise, we only use tools that we can trust to behave in a predictable manner.

Science and engineering have given us access to understanding parts of the universe that our natural senses have no access to. If god is supposed to be the guardian of the truth, why did he hide so much of the universe from us?

antiskeptic

Akrasia wrote: »

Objective morality does not exist because morality involves values, and values are completely subjective

Objective morality merely points to something immovable and unchanging (a.k.a. God) as a reference point. His values don't change.

If there were no sentient beings in the universe, then there would be no morality.

But there would be God and his values.

The only reason why the vast majority of people agree that rape and murder are morally wrong, is because the vast majority of people value human happiness, and disvalue suffering.

You say. Christianity says it stems from people having been made in the image and likeness of God. Fallen but not utterly disconnected.

Christian apologists think like this 'Child rape is abhorrent, nobody could possibly think that raping a child is morally good, therefore objective morality must exist'

The simplistic level of your understanding of Christian apologetics allied to your post being a series of proclamations devoid of argumentation makes me think I'll bail from discussing further with you!

oscarBravo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Sin (a.k.a. unrighteousness) is utilised as part of the mechanism of choice. The choice presented (although we might not be aware of it or even our being presented a choice) being "do I want righteousness or not".

Sin is the opposite of righteousness and serves as the other option until such time as the choice is made. I don't see how one can choose between 1 item on the menu and so 2 items are offered.

If he changes you without your "say so" then he has taken away the choice. Once you make your choice then you are saved and eventually will be made such as to be unable to sin again.

That doesn't answer the question. If god wants me to be saved, why does he give me the option of not being saved? What does he gain by me being damned? What's the point of the exercise?

I made my choice 12 or so years ago and because I did I was saved and as a consequence of that God opened my eyes. That's the sequence:

1) I choose for the things of God. Rather, I rejected "in the depth of my being" the works of unrighteousness (even if not actually able to resist the works of unrighteousness). I didn't do this because I thougt God would turn up - I had no interest or belief in God. I was just sick and tired of my unrighteousness and things that were dark and had come to loath both them and me for engaging in them

2) In the above I fulfilled God's criteria for saving me

3) God saved me

4) God then rebirthed me .. as it were. I was 'born again" with a now-live instead of dead spiritual side to me. I could now detect God clearly.

5) This new information spread over my worldview like spilled oil over flat ground. And I found infinitely more harmony in that "theory of everything" than in the piecemeal confusion that is mans best attempt to harmonize everything.

So your salvation came from a dark place in your life, which caused you to decide to seek god.

My life isn't dark. I feel no need of god. I am generally nice to people because the alternative is being an asshole. Given the choice between doing good things and doing bad things, I strive to do good things.

On which basis, according to your personal morality, I'm damned. Not because of any specific bad things I do to other people, but because a capricious god who has chosen not to reveal himself to me demands that I make an unjustified leap of faith in order to earn salvation from a punishment that's arbitrarily applied.

It's not exactly calling out to me.

You might be mixing up Christianity (which is, unsurprisingly, diverse and changing) and God (who doesn't change)

So god's morals are absolute and have never changed? What you currently believe to be right and wrong is what has always been right and wrong, and always will be right and wrong?

Would you accept that, on that basis, the old testament is wedged to overflowing with unrighteous people?

I note your assertion that there isn't absolute morality. The only trouble is atheist don't act as if there isn't absolute morality. They feel as rightfully wronged when someone burgles there house as I do. God only knows that what they would appeal however, since burglary isn't absolutely wrong in your view.

Ah, the old false dichotomy that there are either absolute morals, in which case goddidit, or there are no morals, in which case nothing is wrong.

I reject your premise.

You'd have to be specific: God's Laws align with civil rights at some points and don't at others (thou shalt not steal vs gay marriage .. for example)

Why has god got such hangups about sexuality? The idea of the omnipotent creator of the universe getting all hot under the collar about bedroom antics is, frankly, rather pathetic.

I've no issue being against a civil right which is against God's Law. Such civil rights are unrighteous.

God's law as revealed, presumably, to the chosen few such as yourself.

I'm assuming you Just Know what god's law is - or are you going to cite the bible as the source of that law?

Au cointreau! I'm saved and can't be damned anymore so I've nothing to fear from God in that regard. The reason I want to be nice to people and why it troubles me when I'm not is that I want more of what God is about. More righteousness. There's a nice feeling to be had when you act righteously - something everyone experiences irrespective of whether they are believers or not.

Just so I'm clear: you could murder someone now, and you wouldn't be punished by god, because you're saved? Don't get all hand-wavy about how you don't want to murder anyone; I'm asking a hypothetical question.

Penny 4 Thoughts

antiskeptic wrote: »

It would be worth focusing on resolving this puzzle because it might help us resolve the discussion.

Lets take this piece by piece

- "The (significant) value you place on God demonstrating himself to you empirically, obtains that value by God having assigned empiricism that level of value. You value it because he's designed you (and it) to have that value for you."

The value of empiricism is the conclusion reached at the end of a logical process, that process being that if I have external support for an experience then that experience cannot be local to my mind. If you want to say that God is the source of all that, that is fine as it matters not.

- "If he chooses to assign another means of revelation a still higher value than he has empiricism, then that means of His self-demonstration would have greater value to you - in the case you are exposed to it."

Ok, again the value of empiricism is that is provides a solution to the logical problem of being unable to determine a real event from a delusion. That is the source of its value. An alternative system thus will only have equal or higher value to me if it also provides a solution to the logical problem of being unable to determine a real event from a delusion. As you would say value does not just hang from the sky on a hook. The value comes from the ability to solve the logical problem.

- "In other words: you are subject to the value God assigns his means of revelation, you don't get to decide that value for yourself.

And as we have discussed in previous posts for this value to change God would have to change the system of logic, since the value of empiricism only comes from its ability to solve the logical problem. Change the system of logic, you change the value of any process that solves the logical problem.

- "And so, IF he assigns spiritual revelation a higher confidence-giving value than he does empirical demonstration THEN you will find yourself more convinced by spiritual revelation than you would be by empirical revelation."

I would if spiritual revelation solves the logical problem as empiricism does, and would thus have been given value by God. But can see no way in the current logical systems that it can. And neither do you seem to know how it does. It is illogical to suppose that something that will not provide a solution to a problem can also solve the problem.

There seems to be no conundrum here. Empiricism is valuable because it allows us to solve the logical puzzle of differentiating real from delusion or imagination. Personal demonstrations of God don't.

antiskeptic

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

Lets take this piece by piece

A good idea, thanks..

- "The (significant) value you place on God demonstrating himself to you empirically, obtains that value by God having assigned empiricism that level of value. You value it because he's designed you (and it) to have that value for you."

The value of empiricism is the conclusion reached at the end of a logical process, that process being that if I have external support for an experience then that experience cannot be local to my mind. If you want to say that God is the source of all that, that is fine as it matters not.

"Logical process", "exernal support" and "the experience not being local to my mind" are but sub-components of the system of evaluation called empiricism. It doesn't matter which sub-component you describe in fact, it has a value (by way of part to play in the whole) assigned to it by God.

- "If he chooses to assign another means of revelation a still higher value than he has empiricism, then that means of His self-demonstration would have greater value to you - in the case you are exposed to it."

Ok, again the value of empiricism is that is provides a solution to the logical problem of being unable to determine a real event from a delusion. That is the source of its value.

With God being the one to design you to have that concern of that particular system of evaluation. And so the value experienced by you having a solution is a function of the concern he caused the problem to raise in you. If he didn't raise a problem then you would have no concern (and would find yourself walking under buses). And if there wasn't a problem you would have no concern - in the case that direct revelation wasn't subject to the kind of error the physical side of ourselves is both faced with and made aware of by God.

- "In other words: you are subject to the value God assigns his means of revelation, you don't get to decide that value for yourself.

And as we have discussed in previous posts for this value to change God would have to change the system of logic, since the value of empiricism only comes from its ability to solve the logical problem. Change the system of logic, you change the value of any process that solves the logical problem.

The value assigned to the empirical system when applied to the solely empirical dimension and only involving the physical and mental aspect of the person doesn't change one whit. I evaluate that realm just as I've always done and value it as I always have.

The point, however, is your not being in a position to determine value. You are, rather, subject to what value level God assigns.


-

That's probably enough for now. The essential thrust of your response doesn't take account of the fact that all aspects of the evaluation scheme called "empirical method" are part and parcel of a particular way of evaluating with value assigned as God see's fit.

Penny 4 Thoughts

antiskeptic wrote: »

"Logical process", "exernal support" and "the experience not being local to my mind" are but sub-components of the system of evaluation called empiricism. It doesn't matter which sub-component you describe in fact, it has a value assigned to it by God.

The value is that it allows for the differentiation between delusion and reality. If you want to say that value is assigned to it by God that is fine. I guess everything is assigned by God at some level, isn't it? Where the value comes from isn't all that important, what is relevant is that it helps solves the problem of determining delusion and reality.

That problem is the central issue we are having here, not the value of any solution to that problem.

antiskeptic wrote: »

With God being the one to design you to have that concern of that particular system of evaluation. And so the value experienced by you having a solution is a function of the concern he caused the problem to raise in you. If he didn't raise a problem then you would have no concern (and would find yourself walking under buses).

That is just another way of saying God can make us irrational if she wants to. I think we have gone over this enough that it really shouldn't be necessary to go over it again, don't you think? God can do anything. We don't need to establish that over and over.

antiskeptic wrote: »

And if there wasn't a problem you would have no concern - in the case that direct revelation wasn't subject to the kind of error the physical side of ourselves is both faced with and made aware of by God.

I mentioned early the problem isn't whether there can be an error in judgement. It is that we must logically determine that there isn't an error in judgement in order to be acting rationally. That is true even if there cannot be an error in judgement.

Again we have been over this many times. You don't really seem to be following the central point of why empirical evaluation is needed. You seem to simply believe that God has made your perceptions perfect and thus you do not need to logically assess the conclusions you made from these perceptions.

I would ask how you logically determined that actually is what happened to you, rather than simply a delusion you are under. Can you actually answer that, it really really would help things along, or at the very least help you understand the problem with that kind of thinking, a problem that empiricism helps to deal with.

antiskeptic

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

The value is that it allows for the differentiation between delusion and reality...

..in an environment where that particular problem:

a) exists

b) is something you're aware of.

If neither of a) nor b) were the case then 'value' wouldn't exist for you. Value would be thrown to one side like a internal combustion engine without fuel.

(NB: both a) and b) being the design of God and included as sub-components in the empirical system of evaluation)

Where the value comes from isn't all that important, what is
relevant is that it helps solves the problem of determining delusion and reality.

Where the value comes from is vital and so are all the components of the system the value overarches. Value withers where it has no relevance and you walk under buses where value is doesn't match the problems faced. Value and problems are bedfellows. Intimately related bedfellows.

That problem is the central issue we are having here, not the value of any solution to that problem.

If there was no value attaching to the solution of a problem then the problem wouldn't exist for you. You might walk under a bus for want of value.

Value is central. And like every other component in the system, is assigned it's worth and impact by God.

That is just another way of saying God can make us irrational if she wants to. I think we have gone over this enough that it really shouldn't be necessary to go over it again, don't you think? God can do anything. We don't need to establish that over and over.

I'm concerned that you address the substance of the point: "the problem" is as much a part of the system of empiricism as are the values assigned to each element of it.

Up to now you've acted as if the problem is external thing, not having to do with the system of evaluation and not at all stemming from the design of God.

I mentioned early the problem isn't whether there can be an error in judgement. It is that we must logically determine that there isn't an error in judgement in order to be acting rationally. That is true even if there cannot be an error in judgement.

I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion:

You've heard of the dodo surely: he had no reason to suppose a problem and got "whacked" for his trouble. Similarly, if God doesn't install trouble in the system (e.g. possibility of delusion) then you've no reason to suppose trouble. I mean, why would you suppose trouble unless God a) designed it in b) raised the notion of trouble in your consciousness

"Objects at rest.." and all that..

Again we have been over this many times. You don't really seem to be following the central point of why empirical evaluation is needed.

It's only needed by projection. A projection of the empirical realm (designed by God with it's need to suppose delusion) onto all possible realms designed by God. But there is no requirement for God to design all possible realms of interaction with us such that they include the possibility of delusion.

If he doesn't design a realm to include the possibility of delusion then there would be no need for those subject to that design to suppose delusion possible.

You seem to simply believe that God has made your perceptions perfect and thus you do not need to logically assess the conclusions you made from these perceptions.

Indeed.

I'm as subject as you are to his designs. This mean I don't have to question, no matter how much you object from the confines of experience of the empirical-only realm, his existence revealed in another realm.


If he makes it that way then so is it. Neither you nor I can help it.

I would ask how you logically determined that actually is what happened to you, rather than simply a delusion you are under.

The answer will be contained in the above. I'm as subject to God's design as you are. He can as easily force us to question as he can prevent us from being able to question.

For what it's worth: the theology (mechanics of God's realm) seems to me to indicate a sort of one-way-valve working. Once you are saved then that's it, you can't be lost. Once you come face to face with God then stray as you might, you can't doubt his existence again. Blue pill/Red pill stuff

Penny 4 Thoughts

antiskeptic wrote: »

This mean I don't have to question, no matter how much you object from the confines of experience of the empirical-only realm, his existence revealed in another realm.

Let me be clear -

- Even if God exists,
- Even if she has revealed herself to you
- Even if she has made it physically impossible for you to have a similar delusion
- Even if she has made you 100% certain of her existence

You must still rule out delusion in order to be acting rationally and logically.

Why that is should be obvious, you could simply be deluded about all the 4 conclusions above. Even if in actuality delusion has been made impossible by God Almighty herself, it must still be ruled out.

So, having established that, how do you rule out delusion?

antiskeptic

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

Let me be clear -

- Even if God exists,
- Even if she has revealed herself to you
- Even if she has made it physically impossible for you to have a similar delusion
- Even if she has made you 100% certain of her existence

You must still rule out delusion in order to be acting rationally and logically.

Why that is should be obvious, you could simply be deluded about all the 4 conclusions above. Even if in actuality delusion has been made impossible by God Almighty herself, it must still be ruled out.

So, having established that, how do you rule out delusion?

It would be better to stick within the confines of the discussion and provide narrow-point-by-narrow-point rebuttal to those points which you disagree with. Rebuttal would take the form of rational and logical argumentation on each point. You need to find the rational or logical error in what I say in order to prevent my points standing.

oscarBravo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Simply asserting things without showing your work doesn't work...

Seriously? This from the person who asserts that god exists, but can't offer any actual evidence?

antiskeptic

oscarBravo wrote: »

Seriously? This from the person who asserts that god exists, but can't offer any actual evidence?

Asserts as a by-the-by. In order to add the necessary colour. I could make this same argument as an atheist.

It would pay to pay attention to the argument - one which doesn't at all involve itself in "proving God exists". That has been pointed out to you already yet you raise the objection again? One wonders at folk who thank this kind of post..baa-baa...

Delirium

antiskeptic wrote: »

As a by-the-by. To add the necessary colour. I could make this same argument as an atheist.

How's that work?

Theist:"God exists."
Atheist:"Got any proof?"
Theist:"Where's your proof God doesn't exist?"
Atheist: *headdesk*

antiskeptic

SW wrote: »

How's that work?

Theist:"God exists."
Atheist:"Got any proof?"
Theist:"Where's your proof God doesn't exist?"
Atheist: *headdesk*

Ho-ho-ho..


Watch the 'thanks' roll in

:rolleyes:

Pherekydes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Asserts as a by-the-by. In order to add the necessary colour. I could make this same argument as an atheist.

It would pay to pay attention to the argument - one which doesn't at all involve itself in "proving God exists". That has been pointed out to you already yet you raise the objection again? One wonders at folk who thank this kind of post..baa-baa...

One wonders at folk who make this kind of post...

oscarBravo

antiskeptic wrote: »

It would pay to pay attention to the argument - one which doesn't at all involve itself in "proving God exists".

I'll confess that I'm at a loss as to what the argument actually is, but when I take a step back and realise that I'm arguing with someone who rejects empiricism in order to rationalise a belief in something that's functionally indistinguishable from a figment of his imagination, I realise that banging my head against a wall would be a marginally more productive use of my time.

Delirium

antiskeptic wrote: »

Ho-ho-ho..


Watch the 'thanks' roll in

:rolleyes:

I wasn't joking. That's pretty much what you just did.

Akrasia

antiskeptic wrote: »

Objective morality merely points to something immovable and unchanging (a.k.a. God) as a reference point. His values don't change.

I don't accept the claim that objective morality even exists. I think it is a circular argument to claim that objective morality both proves god and god proves objective morality

But there would be God and his values.

That's not objective. It's still subject to god's values. If god decided that torture was good, would that make it objectively good?

In order to support the idea of objective moral values, you are forced to posit contrived scenarios where god is both the source of morality but still bound by morality (ie god would never decide torture is good)

You say. Christianity says it stems from people having been made in the image and likeness of God. Fallen but not utterly disconnected.




The simplistic level of your understanding of Christian apologetics allied to your post being a series of proclamations devoid of argumentation makes me think I'll bail from discussing further with you!

I have seen countless debates involving Christian apologists and their sole defence for why we should believe in objective moral values is by appeal to emotion. They give examples of the worst moral crimes and suggest that all normal people agree that these things are immoral therefore they must be objectively immoral. If you have a different justification I'd like to hear it