You know God exists. Now thats either true or its not. Your opinion matters.

Timberrrrrrrr

antiskeptic wrote: »

Whatever god that man creates to in order to ..

a) sustain his self directed life

b) compartimentalise his need to deal with his wrongdoing, his need for meaning and his need to deal with his impending death...

..exists.If only in the mind of the god-inventor.

You'll say the truth is materialism and include God in this list of gods above

I'll say the truth is God and include materialism in this list of gods above.

-

Regarding your bolded piece. Point? You insist as I outline. I insist on evidence however it arrives. Since the gods above (and materialism) haven't evidenced themselves AND because they are explained by God, who has evidenced himself, I have no reason to suppose they are real.

What you think of you saying how a possible God ought evidence himself? You say 'jump' and God says 'how high'

Think you have things the wrong way around.

Might I suggest that you will believe, if you are brought to belief, in any way God chooses you believe. It would be a little difficult to argue then, that you don't believe because you haven't the empirical evidence that would satisfy an unbeliever. A believer arguing that he doesn't believe?

There is as much evidence for leprechauns and unicorns as there is for your (or any other) "god". Why would you dismiss other peoples beliefs while simultaneously arguing that your beliefs are right?

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

My opinion is that a large number of unbelievers, previously driven to utilize a them-serving god have exchanged that god for one with a lower bar to surmount. Namely, secularism.

Who wouldn't plump for an option that made it easier to do as you please? Seems a no brainer to me.

Most religious people in this country and many others are also secularists, as evidenced by recent election results. Even within the microcosm that is the boards Christianity forum, this is the case. I set up an open poll some years back asking those who were Christian whether they were also pro secularism, where 73% were. Remember that secularism aspires to freedom of religion and freedom from religion. The only religious people who this doesn't suit are those who would seek to impose their religion on others, which is a small minority of those who identify as Christian.

antiskeptic

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

There is as much evidence for leprechauns and unicorns as there is for your (or any other) "god". Why would you dismiss other peoples beliefs while simultaneously arguing that your beliefs are right?

It was in the section you bolded. Because God has evidenced himself??

Back to the God you have created. The one who must dance to your empirical evidencing tune. Anything to say?

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

Back to the God you have created.

The irony. You are the lone keyholder to the palace of wisdom. And others must grovel accordingly.

Timberrrrrrrr

antiskeptic wrote: »

It was in the section you bolded. Because God has evidenced himself??

You claim he has, maybe to you? But there are BILLIONS of people, In fact the vast majority who have no evidence, In fact i would go as far to say that your evidence is nothing more than mass brainwashing.

Back to the God you have created. The one who must dance to your empirical evidencing tune. Anything to say?

What "god" are you talking about? I don't believe in any "god" never mind have I created one in my mind to fill some void as you seem to have done.

smacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think her wife might want a word with you.

Off topic, but looking back, the last three gigs I went to were all lesbian lead singers or solo artists, and have to admit to getting the feel-good shivers in all of them at some point or another. There's some dubious correlation in there somewhere that I ain't gonna touch :pac:

antiskeptic

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You claim he has, maybe to you? But there are BILLIONS of people, In fact the vast majority who have no evidence,

So what. Since when did relative quantity matter?

What "god" are you talking about? I don't believe in any "god" never mind have I created one in my mind to fill some void as you seem to have done.

The God who can't exist (to your thinking) because you have decided the boundaries for his existence. The hand that rocks the cradle .. as it were.

That God, by not being permitted to exist, supports the god that does exist: materialism

That is: by eliminating any competition, your god, materialism, is left intact.

It is the process whereby you eliminate the competition that is suspect. It's almost childlike in its transparency. Define existence in such a way that isn't met by God and hey presto!, God doesn't exist.

Ever see a child bury their head in a cushion, thinking that by doing so, you can't see them. You're doing that.

antiskeptic

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The irony. You are the lone keyholder to the palace of wisdom. And others must grovel accordingly.

Hardly lone.

Timberrrrrrrr

antiskeptic wrote: »

So what. Since when did relative quantity matter?





The God who can't exist (to your thinking) because you have decided the boundaries for his existence. The hand that rocks the cradle .. as it were.

That God, by not being permitted to exist, supports the god that does exist: materialism

That is: by eliminating any competition, your god, materialism, is left intact.

It is the process whereby you eliminate the competition that is suspect. It's almost childlike in its transparency. Define existence in such a way that isn't met by God and hey presto!, God doesn't exist.

Ever see a child bury their head in a cushion, thinking that by doing so, you can't see them. You're doing that.

Jesus you spout some waffle to try and get a on-point over! Materialism is not my "god" as I have stated, I have no "god"! I don't pray at any alter, i don't pray for things, i don't pray end of story.

What makes you think i am a materialistic person when you have no clue about me?

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Off topic, but looking back, the last three gigs I went to were all lesbian lead singers or solo artists, and have to admit to getting the feel-good shivers in all of them at some point or another. There's some dubious correlation in there somewhere that I ain't gonna touch :pac:

The added allure of the unobtainable?

It's a function of sin to desire, most of all, that which is seen as 'holy'. When something is barred, sin within is stimulated the most.

Do not walk on grass

Eat everything but that fruit

Any lover you like (even of all only fantasy) but not a lesbian lover

.. that kind of thing

antiskeptic

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Jesus you spout some waffle to try and get a on-point over! Materialism is not my "god" as I have stated, I have no "god"! I don't pray at any alter, i don't pray for things, i don't pray end of story.

What makes you think i am a materialistic person when you have no clue about me?

Materialism. As in all explainable materalistically. By natural processes.

Not a propensity to spend Sundays in Dundrum Shopping Cathedral. (Although something can be said about people's stuffing themselves with material goods. Howard Hughes being a case in point of someone who folowed that rabbit down the rabbithole.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

That God, by not being permitted to exist, supports the god that does exist: materialism

That is: by eliminating any competition, your god, materialism, is left intact.

Assuming you're referring to materialism in the philosophical sense, i.e. the theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications, you are quite wrong that being an atheist makes you de facto a materialist. There are very many non-material things in this universe that do not rely on a belief in the supernatural. Knowledge, emotions such as a strong sense of wonder, imagination, pure abstracts such as mathematics, philosophy, folk lore etc... None of these thing are material, nobody disputes they exist, and none of them rely on your god nor anyone else's. The same holds true for empiricism where we can clearly imagine things well beyond the bounds of our own experience, whether it be the magic in Harry Potter or, dare I say it, your god.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

The added allure of the unobtainable?

It's a function of sin to desire, most of all, that which is seen as 'holy'. When something is barred, sin within is stimulated the most.

Do not walk on grass

Eat everything but that fruit

Any lover you like (even of all only fantasy) but not a lesbian lover

.. that kind of thing

You seem to be projecting just a bit there. What is it with overly zealous Christians and being obsessed with sex? Always seems to be inversely proportional to their knowledge of it.

I'm all for desire and erotica too for that matter, but the type of music that moves me emotionally doesn't tend to fit that category by and large. Your notions of sin are your own.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Assuming you're referring to materialism in the philosophical sense, i.e. the theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications, you are quite wrong that being an atheist makes you de facto a materialist. There are very many non-material things in this universe that do not rely on a belief in the supernatural. Knowledge, emotions such as a strong sense of wonder, imagination, pure abstracts such as mathematics, philosophy, folk lore etc... None of these thing are material, nobody disputes they exist, and none of them rely on your god nor anyone else's. The same holds true for empiricism where we can clearly imagine things well beyond the bounds of our own experience, whether it be the magic in Harry Potter or, dare I say it, your god.

All those things are encompassed by the material. If no material or products of material processes then none of the things you mention.

Wonder, for example, is a product of a materialistic process which produced us: beings capable of wonder. Doubtlessly, there is an evolutionary advantage to it. No?

I wouldn't focus to tightly on the term in any case. Whether materialistic, rationalist, empiricist, we are talking of facets of the same god. A god without any woo!

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

You seem to be projecting just a bit there. What is it with overly zealous Christians and being obsessed with sex? Always seems to be inversely proportional to their knowledge of it.

I don't see anything sexy about desiring to walk on grass you are told you can't walk on.

No focus on sex per se. More a remark about extra desiring the forbidden/unobtainable/holy

I'm all for desire and erotica too for that matter, but the type of music that moves me emotionally doesn't tend to fit that category by and large. Your notions of sin are your own.

It was the singers you were mentioning. Not the music. And so my comment on your remark about the singers.

High emotion + forbidden fruit. Well a powerful mix.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wouldn't focus to tightly on the term in any case. Whether materialistic, rationalist, empiricist, we are talking of facets of the same god. A god without any woo!

A god without woo? No special powers at all? Not sure that would meet with anyone's notion of a god other than your own. If you're talking about any object or idea which is the focus of blind worship and mindless adoration, you again need to evidence this happening. All I see is and rather weak attempt to construct a non-existent god that is comparable to your god for the sake of argument, but is in fact no more than a poorly constructed straw man.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

No focus on sex per se.

Sure.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Any lover you like (even of all only fantasy) but not a lesbian lover

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

My opinion is that a large number of unbelievers, previously driven to utilize a them-serving god have exchanged that god for one with a lower bar to surmount. Namely, secularism.

Who wouldn't plump for an option that made it easier to do as you please? Seems a no brainer to me.

Secularism doesn't serve anyone, that's the point. It is also specifically a-religious. Not atheist or anti-theist, just a-religious. Maybe before you try to bait people with such nonsense, you should learn the meaning of simple words?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Folk around here insist empirical, verifiable evidence is the only way this being can demonstrate himself. All else is delusion and imaginary friends.

All else is indistinguishable from delusion. We've been through this several times before, there are theists equally sure of all kinds of fundamentally contradictory beliefs, purely for subjective emotional reasons. You can't all be right, so how do you tell who is right? How do you tell you are right, without all the arrogance of assuming your subjective emotional experience is automatically better than anyone else.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'll say the truth is God and include materialism in this list of gods above.

Do you have any evidence for this?

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Secularism doesn't serve anyone, that's the point. It is also specifically a-religions. Not atheist or anti-theist, just a-religious. Maybe before you try to bait people with such nonsense, you should learn the meaning of simple words?

The meaning of word depends on the perspective you are coming from. And you are coming from an atheist perspective.



Secularism serves the individual in the process being described by me. For the process beingdescribed sees a 'pressure' installed in the individual by God. A "push back" against the tendency of a person to want to go their own way, to do their own thing, to set their own standard (which can, of course, flex to suit own needs). A push back against the desire to be own god.

The god of cultural Christianity (or any other rule imposing system) forced a certain constraint on a persons desire to be own god. The person had to go to Mass, for example. They had to give up things for Lent. They had to follow the rules and when they broke them, had to go to confession. In short, their desire to be own god had to bow.

The whole point of self-creating or aligning oneself with a false god is to reconcile the inner sense of push back with something that one can express a degree of control over. "I bow here and there (because I feel I ought to bow), but for the rest I am free"

But there is always a desire to get away with less. To reconfigure the god to allow oneself more freedom (for the tension of self as god is to want no constraint, even if sensing constraint). The pro-abortion Catholic, anyone?




Secularism (all views tolerated) helps dismantle the god of cultural Christianity (or any other constraining system) and so diminishes the culturally enforced need to bow. The person is supported in getting up off their knees by the fact that others around them are doing it. There is safety in numbers. Result: the bow need not be as pronounced.

And that's a result!




I've no issue with the dismantling of the god of cultural Christianity. Bowing less and self directing more is sure to bring more trouble and trouble is the stuff of salvation. I'm merely noting the shifting from one god to another god, from the perspective of the workings of the aforementioned process.

All else is indistinguishable from delusion.

In that case, one would imagine you holding an agnostic position. But you do not. You are positive in your statements. It is delusion. Not indistinguishable from delusion

For example here:

We've been through this several times before, there are theists equally sure of all kinds of fundamentally contradictory beliefs, purely for subjective emotional reasons. You can't all be right, so how do you tell who is right? How do you tell you are right, without all the arrogance of assuming your subjective emotional experience is automatically better than anyone else.

Subjective. That's a positive statement. Not an agnostic one.

You are right: we, including you, can't all be right. But that doesn't mean I am not right. You can't tell. But you can't tell doesn't render my experience subjective emotional.

Do you have any evidence for this?

It fits within the workings of the process as outlined, is all. I'm not evidencing the process as true. Just building an consistent process that accomodates the observations. Materialism is the ultimate god in that event.

Is there evidence that materialism encompasses reality? For that you would have to know what reality is.

If it's a case of materialism fitting what we can see, then I would point you to a time when observations supported a flat earth.


-



I have noted an objective: the Bible says that the first sin was the obtaining of self directed, independent-of-God life. Whether you think the Bible fairytale or not, that is what it objectively says.

You can look at the world and decide whether the world conforms to that statement. In other words, would a world full of self directed beings (who are subject to some constraint in their self direction, but who are allowed to sow and reap and develop on the original sin) look much like the world we have today?

I would argue that it would. It would be bad but not as bad as it could be. It would also be evolving sin, taking it to ever new depths.

Consider God's constraint applied to a particular people for a particular purpose. The year of Jubilee every 50 years resetting ownership of the land (a.k.a. resources) back to original position. This to avoid mans natural desire to concentrate wealth (i.e. express his selfishness).

Outside that specifically purposed constraint, "God gave them over in the desires of their hearts". In other words, we're free to run. And what we see when man is allowed to run free is the desire to concentrate and hold onto wealth. So much so, that there is much "old money" around today - wealth that was concentrated from sin centuries past (imperialism). Now we have concentration of wealth gone exponential.

Or the ways in which we seek to dull pain and fill the void left by our departure from intended source of wholeness - connection to God. Consumerism gone mad, drug use of every kind. Distracting entertainment of the most banal kind ("16 channels of sh1t on the TV to chose from" Pink Floyd might have guessed it would become 1600 channels of sh1t. It no longer being possible to chose from, we require algorithms to help us figure out what we might want to watch).

And sex - the holiest of relational connections is naturally the bullseye of sin's targetting. Gradually stripped teased, we've hit the rev limiter, figuring we need some bodily coverage to work titilation. Upskirting, pap photos of women emerging from cars, fashion design to cover just enough. This year more coverage of body to prime the desire for uncoverage. Next year uncoverage to grant that desire. Endless to and fro cycles. Just like a rev limiter.

And what about porn for kids? Spoiling innocence: the fruit most desired by the father of sin, the fruit first stolen back in the garden, the fruit yearned for by paedophiles everywhere (and the many more who haven't, as yet, silenced their God-restraint and who would warn such fruit: "Don't stand, don't stand, don't stand so close to me") is now subject to a full frontal assault.

And we who love going our own way, look into the faces of our innocent kids, saddened and terrified at the knowledge that we can't protect them from a world full of those who, like us, also love going their own way. There's a hint in there somewhere: we find most beautiful that which Fell. And that which we seek and destroy within ourselves. Innocence.

Funny, self-contradicting old thing, the human being.

And our planet. We were given dominion and told to subdue. But the subjection was intended to be a holy subjection and we've have been so unholy (or unwholesome). We have subjected it all right. We've brought it utterly to its knees - insisting it serve our never ending and ever increasing need. For addiction to the consumption drugs that stave off our emptiness are as any drug. The addiction will only ever require more. "More" isn't just the nickname for cocaine. Its the fact behind every bigger and better. Better homes, better cars, better life, more stuff.

We even have a name for it: growth. A.k.a. more. We've built the whole world economy on More.

Now if this last overarching reality and all the ways it expresses ain't evidence, then I don't know what is.

But of course, there is only so fast we can race to the bottom before we fall over. Fast food can only be so fast. Fast fashion can only create new desire so quickly. We can only change kitchen styles: ripping out shaker for gloss finish so quickly. New smartphone design has met the brick wall of inability to offer sufficient kick to a hungry world - something big and new is required. Hey! the fold out phone. But the price of this particular drug might have become too high. No worry, there is a void and someone will think if something to fill it. You can bet a chip in your head, running off your bodies battery will trundle on down the line. Internet straight to brain. Why not?

The process outlined earlier: man, his position before God and the problems he has is theoretical. The question is whether the observations match the theory.

Onward and upward just doesn't cut it for me, even if it does you. The evidence is there for each man to assess. He will assess it in most personal fashion: whether his own race to the bottom is evidence enough for him. Or he can do as you will probably do in response to this post, suppose there is "nothing to see here folks - we will sort it out in time" and insist his free fall off the side of a cliff is a controlled, if somewhat careening road to somewhere.

"They refused to believe the truth and so be saved".

The contention of the verse in the OP is that man is capable of seeing that the kinds of things I have been talking about are patently true. And that if refusing to be brought to belief about truth (whether now or finally, as truth assembles and manifests in his own life), then he is without excuse.

You won't have proof of the truth until such time as you believe the truth, naturally. To believe is to have the matter proven to your own satisfaction, beyond any doubt. Belief is a final destination.

No matter that you don't have proof now, for as C.S. Lewis found out, you are only required to be led. And you are led to belief, if allowing yourself to be led there, not by what the evidence proves but by where the evidence points.

In this post I have pointed. I point you only because he pointed me via this same way. I am but a messenger.

Each mans answer on the matter will be his own. And if that answer is a refusal then there will be no hiding behind a religion ("the priest told me so"). No hiding behind a philosopy ("Plato told me so"). No pointing the finger at anyone but himself.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

The meaning of word depends on the perspective you are coming from.

Nope, the meaning of the word is the same regardless of who is saying it, that's how words work.

antiskeptic wrote: »

In that case, one would imagine you holding an agnostic position. But you do not. You are positive in your statements. It is delusion. Not indistinguishable from delusion

For example here:

Subjective. That's a positive statement. Not an agnostic one.

You are right: we, including you, can't all be right. But that doesn't mean I am not right. You can't tell. But you can't tell doesn't render my experience subjective emotional.

It is because your experience is only subjectively emotional that I can't tell if your worldview, based on that experience, is accurate. So, if that applies to everyone (and it does), then to repeat myself:
You can't all be right, so how do you tell who is right? How do you tell you are right, without all the arrogance of assuming your subjective emotional experience is automatically better than anyone else.
It's almost as if we need something non-subjective to raise one proposed worldview above any other.
And I am agnostic to any proposed worldview that I have yet to be told of. But if a novel worldview fails that simple test then I am gnostic that they are indistinguishable from delusion and therefore there is no reason to hold to them.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Mark Hamill wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'll say the truth is God and include materialism in this list of gods above.

Do you have any evidence for this?

It fits within the workings of the process as outlined, is all. I'm not evidencing the process as true.

:rolleyes: Lets try this again:
Do you or do you not believe your claim that your god is truth?
Do you or do you not believe your claim that materialism is not?
Do you or do you not have any evidence for this?

antiskeptic wrote: »

If it's a case of materialism fitting what we can see, then I would point you to a time when observations supported a flat earth.

And I would point out that the reason we do not hold to a flat earth anymore (bar a few outliers) is because of more materialism (further empirical observations and scientific experiments). That is the strength of materialism (empiricism and science) - we can continue working on something we think is true to confirm if it is true and refine it if it needs to be.

Zubeneschamali

Mark Hamill wrote: »

(to antiskeptic) You can't all be right, so how do you tell who is right?

And given that most of you must be wrong, you'll understand why I think it is reasonable to believe all of you are wrong until someone produces some actual evidence that one or more of you is right.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Nope, the meaning of the word is the same regardless of who is saying it, that's how words work.

The meaning of the word 'malaria' is one thing. The effect (and therefore meaning of the word 'malaria') is another thing.

I was talking about that 2nd kind of meaning. What secularism achieves from a perspective. If God then..

It is because your experience is only subjectively emotional that I can't tell if your worldview, based on that experience, is accurate

You not being able to tell whether God exists and manifests to a person doesn't mean the experience, in the event it occurs, is subjective or emotional.

One person may have one response to God turning up, another another. That would be a subjective and perhaps emotional.

An objective event isn't rendered a subjective event just because you aren't there to view it happening or the person can't prove it happened to you, Mark.

I stub my toe and break it. No one is there. I objectively broke my toe (because I can show it to you) but the manner in which I broke it is subjective emotional? Really?

So, if that applies to everyone (and it does)

See above

then to repeat myself:
You can't all be right, so how do you tell who is right? How do you tell you are right, without all the arrogance of assuming your subjective emotional experience is automatically better than anyone else.
It's almost as if we need something non-subjective to raise one proposed worldview above any other.
And I am agnostic to any proposed worldview that I have yet to be told of. But if a novel worldview fails that simple test then I am gnostic that they are indistinguishable from delusion and therefore there is no reason to hold to them.

That's fine. I don't mind that you can't hold my worldview for the reasons you mention. You weren't there to see me stub my toe either so if you are not satisfied with my claim then fine.

I'm glad you say 'indistinguishable from' rather than actually delusion though. That's a more consistent position given all your not in a position to know.

Now lets see if you can maintain that position 'going forward' rather than calling people deluded. You might even take some of you colleagues here to task if they err in that way.

Last point. It would be proper to include your own unprovable worldview into the mix of possible deludeds. 'We' rather than 'you'. Sure, you have strands of evidence presented to you and you conclude as you do. So does everyone.

:rolleyes: Lets try this again:
Do you or do you not believe your claim that your god is truth?
Do you or do you not believe your claim that materialism is not?
Do you or do you not have any evidence for this?

Yes/yes/yes. That you can't see the latter yes (no more than you can't see my toe stub) merely means you too can't know as I know.

But as I was saying, the point wasn't so much to prove but to fit materialism in with all the other false gods. I was looking at the commonalities.

When it comes to evidence, the post contains evidence. You can, for example, decide whether or not you believe rampant consumerism the result of man's need to fill a void. Or you can decide its the result of something else. Or that the void is a naturalistically occurring one. Or something that conveys advantage. Or whatever.

See it as an argument submitted in evidence. It is for you, your own, personal, jury .. to decide in whether it this explanation is that best fit or not.

It doesn't matter what you say to me. It matters only what you say.

And I would point out that the reason we do not hold to a flat earth anymore (bar a few outliers) is because of more materialism (further empirical observations and scientific experiments). That is the strength of materialism (empiricism and science) - we can continue working on something we think is true to confirm if it is true and refine it if it needs to be.

A treatise on scientific method misses the point. The point was you only know what you know. You don't know what you don't know. You don't know whether you are blind to aspects of reality and all the scientific method in the world won't solve that problem for you. All that need be is that an aspect of reality isn't open to scientific method and you're done in.

You consider the argument for materialism encompassing all reality a best fit. The argument is evidence submitted to you, the jury. And you decide.

Given I've a different view, which sees how materialism is encapsulated in the general need for false gods, I come to a different view.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

The meaning of the word 'malaria' is one thing. The effect (and therefore meaning of the word 'malaria') is another thing.

I was talking about that 2nd kind of meaning. What secularism achieves from a perspective. If God then..

The possible effects of malaria (I think you mean symptoms) do not change it's meaning. Malaria is still one specific things.
Similarly, secularism is one specific thing. It doesn't serve any one person, it is a-religious.

antiskeptic wrote: »

An objective event isn't rendered a subjective event just because you aren't there to view it happening or the person can't prove it happened to you, Mark.

It is a subjective event because you cannot objectively prove it happened in the way you are claiming it did. And if you can't prove it happened in the way you claim (or at all) then it is indistinguishable from not having happened.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I stub my toe and break it. No one is there. I objectively broke my toe (because I can show it to you) but the manner in which I broke it is subjective emotional? Really?

That depends on what evidence you use to support your claims about how you broke your toe.
If you show me the hammer you dropped one your toe to brake it- objective claim with objective evidence.
If you claim god broke it by making you drop the hammer - subjective emotional claim based on subjective emotional evidence.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm glad you say 'indistinguishable from' rather than actually delusion though. That's a more consistent position given all your not in a position to know.

Now lets see if you can maintain that position 'going forward' rather than calling people deluded. You might even take some of you colleagues here to task if they err in that way.

Last point. It would be proper to include your own unprovable worldview into the mix of possible deludeds. 'We' rather than 'you'. Sure, you have strands of evidence presented to you and you conclude as you do. So does everyone.

I make a point to say "indistinguishable from delusion" to make sure readers understand why such a belief is then treated as delusion.

And to you last point, I am happy to discuss my world view (I already have in previous posts to you, in explaining what I see as the problems with yours). However, I have asked for explanation and justification of yours, specifically not in terms of my world view, and you have yet to present any. To repeat -
There are theists equally sure of all kinds of fundamentally contradictory beliefs, purely for subjective emotional reasons. You can't all be right, so how do you tell who is right? How do you tell you are right, without all the arrogance of assuming your subjective emotional experience is automatically better than anyone else.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yes/yes/yes. That you can't see the latter yes (no more than you can't see my toe stub) merely means you too can't know as I know.

What is the difference between your claim, which has some evidence I can't see, and a claim which has no evidence? Without any evidence, how do I determine which one to belief?

antiskeptic wrote: »

A treatise on scientific method misses the point. The point was you only know what you know. You don't know what you don't know.

It doesn't miss your point, it contradicts it. You don't know what you think you know. You think you know something, but without external review, you can't confirm if you know it. You can act like something you think and like to be true is true, but then you get situations like the Flat Earth, where you arrogantly assume that you know all there is needed to know about your subject and reject further observations based on the emotional desire that it your comforting belief is true as-is.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You don't know whether you are blind to aspects of reality and all the scientific method in the world won't solve that problem for you. All that need be is that an aspect of reality isn't open to scientific method and you're done in.

How do I tell the difference between what I don't know because I simply don't have the evidence and what I don't know because there is no evidence?
How do I tell the difference between the claims of two equally convinced people presenting their fundamentally contradictory and non-scientifically verifiable beliefs to me?
How do I tell the difference between my experiences and theirs, if mine are also fundamentally contradictory and non-scientifically verifiable?

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The possible effects of malaria (I think you mean symptoms) do not change it's meaning. Malaria is still one specific things.
Similarly, secularism is one specific thing. It doesn't serve any one person, it is a-religious.

It serves in the manner described. If you contend with the manner described (society shifting from the constraint imposed by a formerly theocratic society) then by all means contend

It is a subjective event because you cannot objectively prove it happened in the way you are claiming it did. And if you can't prove it happened in the way you claim (or at all) then it is indistinguishable from not having happened.

Then you ought look up the word. My not being able to prove I stubbed my toe doesn't render the expererience a subjective one

That depends on what evidence you use to support your claims about how you broke your toe.
If you show me the hammer you dropped one your toe to brake it- objective claim with objective evidence.
If you claim god broke it by making you drop the hammer - subjective emotional claim based on subjective emotional evidence.

My pointing to where I say I stubbed my toe demonstrates nothing. You.might use subjective feelings to assess whether you think I am telling the truth or not, but my claim is not demonstrable. It could be utterly false

Rather than continue, we might as well resolve this. When you look up the word.

Whilst the word does mean 'based on own feelings' you need to show

non-demonstrable event = event must be based on feelings.

As you read this word right now (note the time) you are saying your reading the word was a subjective experience. One based on feelings and emotions. You cannot demonstrate to anyone that the event (your reading the word at the noted time) happened.

I think we might be at a resolution to part of our longstanding problem: you don't know what the word "subjective" means.

antiskeptic

smacl thanks Mark.

You too believe that if an event isn't demonstrable as having occurred, the event was subjective/emotional.

Good grief!

antiskeptic

One of the reasons for assembling a mechanism of mans fall/salvation in recent posts is to dispel a few atheist tropes. My intent isn't to so much evidence that this is the way it is (although I have posited aspects of the way mankind operates for you to decide for yourself whether this is the way you operate and why). Nor am I concerned with folk pointing to alternative theologies and finding that their tropes fit there. The aim is to posit a theology which would negate a number of classic objections to the Christian faith.

1. I need to worship God / God is a big bully who wants us to subject ourselves cravenly at his feet

Response: there is no need to worship God if you don't want to. It makes no difference to your salvation or no.

2. What about all the other religions? Are they all wrong.

Response: other religions (and philosophies) are false gods (for reasons given). But they can contribute to a persons salvation. There are many paths to the summit.

3. I have to believe something for which I have no evidence.

Response: Not so. If arriving at belief, you will be in that state because you have all the evidence you require for belief. You are not required to believe anything without evidence.

4. I have to do something to be saved.

Response. You don't have to lift a finger to be saved. You will be saved by default, unless you reject salvation. You don't have to be good, or go to church, or listen to me. There isn't one thing you have to do.

5. God is a crutch

Response: God is indeed a crutch. For people who realise they cannot walk by themselves.

6. The Bible is a crusty old book. We've moved on.

Response: the problem of man is as old as the hills: the desire for self sufficiency. From Adam right up to the present day, that desire hasn't changed and the evidence is all around us. Truth doesn't age so objection based on age isn't a sound objection.

7. If God can't be evidenced, God is subjective.

Response: let's see if Mark Hamill can square his reasoning with the definition of subjective.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

smacl thanks Mark.

You too believe that if an event isn't demonstrable as having occurred, the event was subjective/emotional.

Good grief!

Nope. It the assertion that an event occurred that is neither demonstrable nor has any evidence that is subjective. Your assertions are both hypothetical and subjective. To the onlooker they appear to be products of your imagination until something more substantial suggests otherwise.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Nope. It the assertion that an event occurred that is neither demonstrable nor has any evidence that is subjective. .

The event itself isn't necessarily subjective.

The assertion (as in the words used to express it on the screen on front of you isn't subjective ( we can see it written on the screen).

Which part is left? Which part is feelings/emotional.

The content of the claim (in the event I stubbed my toe today) and the words that assert the claim ("I stubbed my toe today") aren't subjective.

Whats left?

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

The event itself isn't necessarily subjective.

The assertion (as in the words used to express it on the screen on front of you isn't subjective ( we can see it written on the screen).

Which part is left? Which part is feelings/emotional.

The content of the claim (in the event I stubbed my toe today) and the words that assert the claim ("I stubbed my toe today") aren't subjective.

Whats left?

An assertion is a claim that something is factual. An assertion demands proof to actually become a fact. An assertion without any proof is no more than a statement belief or opinion and hence subjective.

If you assert you stubbed your toe for example, you might have stubbed your toe, you might just be having a whinge or you might even be grabbing some random hypothetical event out of the air to support your argument. Choosing to believe you without any evidence comes down to whether I consider you trustworthy in these things and whether it is something people lie about in general. Either way it becomes a subjective choice because we don't know if you stubbed your toe. I'd probably believe you on that one. If however the assertion was outrageous, such as the nonsense about gods and whatnot, I'd dismiss the assertion outright because outrageous claims demand proper evidence.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

An assertion is a claim that something is factual.

The definition you gave uses the term "declaration that something is the case". We might as well stick to that definition, seeing as you provided it. It doesn't change things much in any case.

An assertion demands proof to actually become a fact.

better said: requires a proof in order to become something that is taken by others to have been the case.

An assertion without any proof is no more than a statement belief or opinion and hence subjective.

The word subjective refers to the source of the contents of the assertion: the source defined as arising from personal feelings and emotions. If something is sourced in the objective reality then it is not subjective. There is nothing about subjectivity that says something need be provable in order to be objective. It merely needs not be the product of personal feelings or emotions.

That it is objective doesn't mean others need suppose it the case. They weren't there to observe, whilst you were. This is where you err. Something can be the case without being demonstrable to others as being the case. The thing happened, but can't be shown to others to be the case.

If I stub my toe and assert I stubbed it but can't prove it, I cannot show all that it is the case. But it is not my belief or opinion that I stubbed my toe - since that objectively happened.



(unless you are saying that everything that happened you today, which isn't proveable by you to others, is merely an belief you hold about what happened? That none of it objectively happened?

You believe you scanned the items on a McDonalds menu. You believe you admired the figure of a woman walking by (that it was a nice figure is, of course, subjective). You believe you heard a car horn paarp. You believe that you stubbed your toe in the breaking of it. These, being mere beliefs and opinions of yours, may not actually have happened at all. Until and unless you can prove them to everyone* else?

In which case: Phew!)


*which supposes there is anyone else. Why you would suppose it to be the case that there is anyone else by which to arrive at objectivity, when you can't suppose it to be the case that you admired the attractive figure of a woman walking by (a.k.a. someone else), is anyone's guess.