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

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

What about a God who exists and has no interest in evidencing itself. How would you know that doesn't exist?

What difference would it make if such a god did exist?

antiskeptic wrote: »

By verifiable evidence I assume you mean empirically demonstrable and testable?

Assuming verifiable evidence is a threshold needing surmounting in order that you be satisfied, wouldn't it be sufficient that you merely be satisfied, however satisfied?

Ockhams Razor would see empirical verification as as a superflous step, if you can be equally satisfied without it

And we are back to problem in the question I've repeatedly asked and you have repeatedly failed to answer. Simply being satisfied is something shared by a great many contradictory theists (and atheists). They can't all be right, therefore simply being satisfied does not guarantee the veracity of a belief, and therefore is no reason by itself to hold to a belief. I think Occams Razor would agree with me more than you on this.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

You believe that empiricism as a supreme mode of arriving at knowledge.

Proof? There is none

If something cannot empirically be demonstrated then how is it indistinguishable from not existing in the first place? Empricism can demonstrate that things exists, regardless of who is experiencing them. That alone makes it a supreme mode of arriving at knowledge.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You might stand outside the national concert hall and enquire of patrons why it is they paid so much money for tickets to a concert when there was no proof that the performance wasn't rubbish.

But the concert is there, can be empirically tested and the quality of its performance determined. The same cannot be said of your god.

looksee

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

It's not true. I don't know if he does, or if he doesn't, either way it is not true to say that I know god exists.

That is not an opinion, its a fact.

Other more analytical heads than mine have attempted to penetrate the meaning of the OP, it reads like waffle to me, with excessive use of the word 'empirically', which more often confuses than clarifies sentences; I don't think there is anything deep and meaningful about it, or even a point, beyond a bit of fairly poor proselytising

Cabaal

antiskeptic wrote: »

Proof? There is none

So no proof of your god,
grand so.

So given the lack of proof you also believe in Odin right?

You are so confined in your thinking. We don't operate in our lives leapfrogging from proof to proof.

You might stand outside the national concert hall and enquire of patrons why it is they paid so much money for tickets to a concert when there was no proof that the performance wasn't rubbish.

They will look at you oddly. You have to prove you know it is?

An inaccurate example.
If I stood outside the NCH and looked for proof of if a performance was actually on this could be proved or not.

God cannot be proved by your own admission, you can't even prove if god is a him but yet you constantly refer to god as a he.

You might as well believe in giant dragon that once had a fight with the giant turtle that flys through space with elephants on its back with the earth resting on them.

It makes as much sense, is as logical as and has as much proof as what you believe in now.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

I see you banging an objection drum. "I can't believe without evidence and I am told to believe without evidence". You are then faced with a description of a process that deals with that objection.

The point isn't to provide evidence. The point is to silence that route of objection.

But you haven't silence it. You have ignored the inherent problems raised to you about your argument.
If you have no evidence to support your argument, why should anyone need evidence to disregard it? (and if they don't need evidence to disregard then why shouldn't they disregard it?)
If you have no evidence to support your argument, why should anyone accept it over any other contradictory claim that also has no evidence?

This is not about us being atheists, or scientists or empiricists, this applies to anyone you present your argument to. You must provide something non-subjective (relative to you) to convince someone with a non-subjective (relative to you) viewpoint.

Cabaal

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This is not about us being atheists, or scientists or empiricists, this applies to anyone you present your argument to. You must provide something non-subjective (relative to you) to convince someone with a non-subjective (relative to you) viewpoint.

Might as well be beating your head off a wall.

It';s like trying to have a discussion with a flat earther

Hotblack Desiato

Cabaal wrote: »

Believing in something with no proof is less then childish, even kids believe in Santa based on the presents they believe they are getting from Santa and the same for the easter bunny and eggs.

That's why Santa is better than Jesus - Santa delivers!

BTW there was no such thing as an easter bunny in Ireland when I was a kid, which isn't THAT long ago. (I'm not even sure as to the doctrine - are kids really expected to believe that a bunny delivers the eggs? We knew our parents/relatives bought them from the get-go, didn't make them any less tasty.)

A good example of how a myth was invented out of whole cloth, became folklore, and then became a 'true' belief (at least for kids!)

But to believe in a god with zero proof seem to suggest a maturity level equal to a very suggestable 3/4 year old who accepts everything they are told without question.

Yes and we all know why religions like to get started on the suggestions as early as possible, they are extremely improbable after all, so the foundations must be laid early!

Not working out too well these days though, the Irish RCC is by now painfully aware that there's no point in trying to brainwash kids from age 4-5 years onwards in the education system when adult society is no longer backing up their doctrine as absolute truth as it used to. All they're doing is wasting everyone's time, but they just can't let it go.

Mortelaro wrote: »

Ah here now
If the above is the basis for childish ness,we are all fooked
I believe I'll be sleeping with the love of my life eventually
I don't know who that is and I've no proof it will happen
But I do believe it will happen

That's fervent hope, not belief, though, but you'd be far from alone in confusing the two...

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That's fervent hope, not belief, though, but you'd be far from alone in confusing the two...

As an optimist I resemble that remark Nothing wrong with believing something that might reasonably (or even possibly) come to pass, which you would like to come to pass, actually will come to pass. My opinion is that optimism by and large has a positive influence on both the desired outcome and life in general, specifically where you use optimism as an excuse for action rather than inaction.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But you haven't silence it. You have ignored the inherent problems raised to you about your argument.

If you have no evidence to support your argument, why should anyone need evidence to disregard it? (and if they don't need evidence to disregard then why shouldn't they disregard it?)

Nozz was objecting to a mechanism of salvation that involved his being required to believe without evidence.

He doesn't believe that there is any mechanism of salvation but can still object to the one proposed. You ought know about thought experiments.

I gave him another proposal. He doesn't have to believe it in order to consider whether that circumvents his original objection.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No protection is absolute. And "smarts and education" are not an absolute either, people tend to be smart and educated in specific fields, with little to no knowledge in many others. But that doesn't mean that smarts and education can't reduce the likelihood of self delusion, if applied consistently.

So the smart, educated believers aren't applying their smarts and intelligence consistently?

Could you show this without going in a circle?

antiskeptic

Cabaal wrote: »

So no proof of your god,
grand so.

Empirical proof.

Emprical proofs are nested within a larger framework of belief. It is beliefs about reality, ourselves and the interaction of the two which give proofs their value.

There is no proof regarding our larger beliefs.

You are bootstrapping when you elevate proofs about the beliefs that give them worth.

An inaccurate example.
If I stood outside the NCH and looked for proof of if a performance was actually on this could be proved or not.

That doesn't answer the question of how one decides a performance is good or bad.

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

My doubt was more along the lines of encountering somone who said they didn't breathe air.

If you do not want to accept peoples description of their own subjective experience when relating to nothing but their own subjective experience, then thats fine for you. It is not my problem, nor do I intend to make it my problem.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You don't seem to want to engage in the substance

You have not provided a SHRED of argument, evidence, data or reasoning that suggests there is a god. Until you provide the substance, accusations I am not engaging with it are about as meaningful as me claiming my kids refuse to eat vegetables if I have never actually put any on their plate.

A for "my take on how a god might evidence itself".... I did not offer one. So you are just making stuff up, shoving it my mouth on my behalf, and then faulting me for it. Strawman galore. It is YOUR claim there is a god, so it is YOUR problem to provide the evidence and tell me how it evidences itself. I offer no guidelines on how you sctructure YOUR evidence. At least not until such time as you actually bother, for once, offering any.

antiskeptic wrote: »

At least not with me.

I will say what I like thanks. You worry about the content of your posts, I will busy myself with mine thanks. If you do not like what I say to you, stop conversing with me. No one is compelling you to.

Your anti scepticism manifesto, your derision of the sceptic, and your trying to bypass the need for evidence because you frankly HAVE none, are not things that are likely to lead me to a belief in any god.

Mortelaro

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That's fervent hope, not belief, though, but you'd be far from alone in confusing the two...

You're probably expecting this,but I'd have to be in fervent disagreement with you there on that distinction stemming from the observation you can hope and believe in the same outcome at the same time without proof it will ever happen
In possibility even if its thought improbable

Anyhow, I respect your take,I believe I came in here from the front page,regrettably for me,(the Santa and childishness thing invited my opinion)as I've a tiredness of belief questioning despite being an awful contrarian

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Nozz was objecting to a mechanism of salvation that involved his being required to believe without evidence.

He doesn't believe that there is any mechanism of salvation but can still object to the one proposed. You ought know about thought experiments.

I gave him another proposal. He doesn't have to believe it in order to consider whether that circumvents his original objection.

But you still haven't silenced it, even in your thought experiment where salvation happens regardless of demonstrable evidence for it, as the point is for Nozz to believe in the salvation without evidence. All you have is the weakest of circular arguments, a full stop:
1) Premise: Salvation happens without perceivable evidence.
2) Proof: Therefore, no evidence can prove salvation (or disprove).
3) Conclusion: Salvation happens without perceivable evidence.

And you still run into the problem I described:
If you have no evidence to support your argument, why should anyone accept it over any other contradictory claim that also has no evidence? Why should anyone accept any such non-evidenced claim? Why do you accept it?

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

So the smart, educated believers aren't applying their smarts and intelligence consistently?

Could you show this without going in a circle?

Cognitive dissonance.

Hotblack Desiato

smacl wrote: »

As an optimist I resemble that remark Nothing wrong with believing something that might reasonably (or even possibly) come to pass, which you would like to come to pass, actually will come to pass. My opinion is that optimism by and large has a positive influence on both the desired outcome and life in general, specifically where you use optimism as an excuse for action rather than inaction.

But a pessimist is never disappointed :cool:

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Cognitive dissonance.

Presumably applied to smart intelligent believers?

That is circular: they believe because of cog diss. Because they believe it must be cog diss

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

But a pessimist is never disappointed :cool:

Quite the opposite. A pessimist will often not make the attempt because they're convinced the negative outcome is a foregone conclusion. Then they regret not trying when the opportunity passes and are prone to playing that lousiest of games asking themselves "what might have been?" An optimist will try and fail or succeed but not be left with the disappointing doubt.

No doubt there are fine and occasionally blurred lines between optimism, realism and self-delusion.

Hotblack Desiato

smacl wrote: »

Then they regret not trying when the opportunity passes and are prone to playing that lousiest of games asking themselves "what might have been?" An optimist will try and fail or succeed but not be left with the disappointing doubt.

A true pessimist would be in no doubt that they would have failed

The No True Pessimist line of argument...

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But you still haven't silenced it, even in your thought experiment where salvation happens regardless of demonstrable evidence for it, as the point is for Nozz to believe in the salvation without evidence.

In the process described nozz (assuming the process was to result in salvation in his case) would be:

- exposed to evidence.
- believe what the evidence attempts to have him believe
- be saved because he believes
- God would evidence himself to Nozz to Nozzs' satisfaction
- Nozz would now believe in God
- Nozz would be on here saying the same things I'm saying:)
- you guys would all be saying Nozz is deluded.

I'm not trying to prove this mechanism exists.

Lets take an example. Say Nozz was an alcholic and reached the bottom of the barrel. Nozz would be convinced by evidence that he was at the bottom of the barrel. He believes it. He doesn't believe in God

Now lets suppose Nozz figures he cannot escape his predicament under own steam. That too is something he believes based on evidence of however many failures to quit drinking

Now lets say Nozz comes to the realisation that he has reached end of self, that his own way of living life has resulted in his destruction. He realizes he has destroyed the lives of loved ones. He is consumed by fear, by regret, by shame, by guilt. There is nothing he himself can do to escape this consumption. Yet he yearns to be free of it. And isn't prepared to take his oen life, one option to be free of it. In desperation and because he has nowhere else to turn to escape the belief (knowledge) brought about by the evidence he turns to a higher (as yet unbelieved in) power.

Satisfying God's requirement: Nozz is in a state of belief about what God has been telling him (for without law on heart and conscience(God's voice) Nozz wouldn't be as desperate as he is), God saves Nozz.

Now that he is saved, God evidences himself and Nozz believes in God.

His being saved wouldn't prove the mechanism to you. Nevertheless he is saved by it. It is proven to him

looksee

antiskeptic wrote: »

In the process described nozz (assuming the process was to result in salvation in his case) would be:

- exposed to evidence.
- believe what the evidence attempts to have him believe
- be saved because he believes
- God would evidence himself to Nozz to Nozzs' satisfaction
- Nozz would now believe in God
- Nozz would be on here saying the same things I'm saying:)
- you guys would all be saying Nozz is deluded.

I'm not trying to prove this mechanism exists.

Lets take an example. Say Nozz was an alcholic and reached the bottom of the barrel. Nozz would be convinced by evidence that he was at the bottom of the barrel. He believes it. He doesn't believe in God

Now lets suppose Nozz figures he cannot escape his predicament under own steam. That too is something he believes based on evidence of however many failures to quit drinking

Now lets say Nozz, in desparation, turns to a higher (as yet unbelieved in) power. And is saved.

God evidences himself amd Nozz believes in God.

His being saved wouldn't prove the mechanism to you. Nevertheless he is saved by it. It is proven to him

Can you not see the humongous flaw in that argument, the non-sequiturs, the lack of logical thinking?

Apart from anything else, you have produced a solution to a problem that did not exist, and a problem that has not found a solution.

Mick_1970

How does god evidence himself to Nozz? This is the critical piece of information I would like to know.

Cabaal

Honestly, its like trying to talk to a zealot from a cult.
There is no reasonsing or logic, everything is twisted to try justify their unproven belief and saying people will be saved.
Even the majority of catholics don't go on about being saved and such nonsense.

Scary stuff

antiskeptic

looksee wrote: »

Can you not see the humongous flaw in that argument, the non-sequiturs, the lack of logical thinking?

It would help greatly if you could point things out.

antiskeptic

Mick_1970 wrote: »

How does god evidence himself to Nozz? This is the critical piece of information I would like to know.

Who cares? The question is whether God can. And whether God does. If he can and he does then that's what's critical. The how is irrelevant to born again Nozz (although he will know how)

antiskeptic

Cabaal wrote: »

Honestly, its like trying to talk to a zealot from a cult.
There is no reasonsing or logic, everything is twisted to try justify their unproven belief and saying people will be saved.
Even the majority of catholics don't go on about being saved and such nonsense.

Scary stuff

The only "proof" involved is showing a mechanism which sidesteps the objection "I have to believe without evidence"

You don't have to believe without evidence in this mechanism because evidence comes first and belief second.

It can't be that hard to trace that much.

antiskeptic

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Strawman galore. It is YOUR claim there is a god, so it is YOUR problem to provide the evidence and tell me how it evidences itself.

Speaking of strawmen.

I was dealing solely with an objection you had. You say you are required to believe without evidence and that this is something you cannot or willnot do.

I say that is not the way it is. That your objection barks up the incorrect tree.

I show an alternative mechanism. The route is evidence > belief all the way.

I don't say you'll experience that, since not all will believe. Just that if believing this is the way belief occurs. Evidence first.

I don't say I'll prove it. I just say this mechanism circumvents other unproved mechanisms you object to. If you take the time to object to one unproved mechanism then you are fair game for being proposed another unproved mechanism.

A route proposed. An alternative to the one you object to. Your objection doesn't apply to this mechanism. By all means object saying it isn't proven. But leave aside your objection that you have to believe without evidence.

Huntergonzo

I'm all for people having imaginary friends, but I'm not such a big fan of people trying to introduce me to their imaginary friends.

Admittedly though, I am partial to the flying spaghetti monster, fúckin love spaghetti, bates the b0ll0x out of a few miserable loaves and fishes any day of the week!

antiskeptic

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I'm all for people having imaginary friends, but I'm not such a big fan of people trying to introduce me to their imaginary friends.

Admittedly though, I am partial to the flying spaghetti monster, fúckin love spaghetti, bates the b0ll0x out of a few miserable loaves and fishes any day of the week!

Nutritionally, if nothing else, you are challenged.

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

Nutritionally, if nothing else, you are challenged.

MOD.
STOP IT.
You have been warned already for making snarky uncivil comments. Next time it will be a card.