Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Faith necessarily irrational and unjustified?

12467

Comments

  • #92
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    There is so much wrong with this that I'm not sure where to start. Remember throughout this reply that I am basing my analysis on your criteria.

    Your understanding of my criteria..

    You are now saying that I haven't evidenced Myself as God. But I have done this, according to your criteria, which is that I as God get to evaluate the most appropriate way of demonstrating My existence. Are you now changing your criteria to that you as a human get to evaluate the most appropriate way that I as God choose to demonstrate My existence?

    God demonstrating/evidencing his existence requires, per definition, that the person on the receiving end be convinced it's him and not another of the many options beloved of this forum. If he fails in that regard then he is, by definition not demonstrating/evidencing his existence.

    It's not human evaluating anything, it's that words have meaning.

    (As an aside, I am not sure why you have shifted from the word verb demonstrated to the verb evidenced. Perhaps you can clarify why you have done this? In the meantime I will assume you mean by both words something like showing the truth of a claim by providing evidence.)

    The reason has to do with atheist dogma on what evidence need be (namely empirical in form). If I use the word 'evidence' in the context of non-empirical then shouts of "show me this evidence" follow as surely as night follows day.

    At the end of the day, all that evidence of any nature does is convince us that such and such is the case.

    You then say: "You give all the evidence of being an atheist who doesn't like addressing the point." But, by your criteria, what supposed evidence that I am an atheist could trump Me demonstrating to you that I am God by willing these comments to appear on this forum without the aid of a computer?

    The above should have dealt with this. I'll ignore further points centred around your unconvincing turn as God.

    You then say: "If I say "God has evidenced himself" then I'm merely reporting to you, something that God has done." But that does not follow from your statement. Actually, if you say "God has evidenced himself", all that you are doing is reporting to me that you believe that something that you believe to be God has done something.

    In the same way that I believe that something that I believe to be my wife has just made me a hot port.


    However, if you were hypothetically addressing that point to another human, then you are saying that whether a human believes it to be true is neither here nor there. That is correct, and it applies to you just as much as it does to any other human. My existence as God is either true or false, independently of what you or any other human believe about it.

    Indeed.
    You then say: "What matters is whether I've been convinced or not - something which depends on an act of God (whatever means he uses to demonstrate himself)." Now you are conflating two different actions. Me demonstrating myself as God is something that I as God does, and you being convinced or not is something that you do. And whatever you are convinced of, you might be mistaken, because you are a human.

    I don't agree. The onus is on God to do what is necessary to convince. It's a big ask and so the evidence needs to be overwhelmingly good to counter barriers. And overwhelmingly good to counter any error I could be making. Else it's not demonstration but something shy of demonstration.

    Maybe your point is that I as God can choose to cause you to be either convinced or not convinced? If that is your point, then I as God might have chosen to demonstrate Myself to you in a way that does not convince you. I might be doing this to test your faith in Me. Have you considered that possibility?

    If you're God testing folks faith in your existence by choosing to demonstrate in a way that doesn't demonstrate your existence then you'll have to join a long queue of gods. And accept the fact of genuine mistaken identity come Judgement Day

    My point was that if God decides to demonstrate himself (where demonstrate means something along the lines of "clearly show the existence or truth of (something) by giving proof or evidence") the manner he chooses isn't all that relevant since the result is going to result in conviction.

    You then say: "There is no need for me to look for further evidence if already convinced." But of course there is reason to look for further evidence. It is a significant belief, and you as a human being might be mistaken, just as you recognise that members of other religions are mistaken.

    You will see from what I've said above that the act is God's and is not reliant on man.

    Just as it would be were he to demonstrate his existence to you, to your utter conviction, empirically or by any other means you like. I mean, which part of the mechanism of conviction wouldn't ultimately be relying on act of God? Like, name it.

    Finally you say: "Now that you know I've not been convinced your God by you, perhaps you could go back and actually address the point?" But I am addressing the point. You asked me to elaborate on a scenario that I proposed, and I did so.

    I asked you how you extricate yourself from the conclusion of reliance on God in the case he demonstrates himself no matter by what method. I don't see anything that addresses that.
    You could, of course, undermine my scenario by arguing that humans, not Gods, get to determine the most appropriate way to evaluate the validity of a claimed demonstration of a God's existence.

    But you're not arguing that. Or are you?

    When it comes to me claiming God exists then you are entitled to decide what's the best way to evaluate my claim. When it comes to God demonstrating his existence then clearly not.


  • #93
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    You might take a stab at answering the questions in the OP. It would help answer your own question perhaps.
    No it doesn't. Please explain how you think it does.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I'm sure people have known they loved their wives in the years before brain scans supposedly "proved" such a thing. I'm not sure how you'd prove it to anyone else though (as opposed to a fiction).
    So the one example you picked is an example of something irrational?


  • #94
    pauldla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    You might get to wondering a little when lots and lots of perfectly sensible and intelligent people also start seeing a blue space monkey. It doesn't make them right but it does give some support to the notion you might just be blind.

    Well if the visitations were highly localised I'd probably start wondering if there were other possible explanations, such as LSD in the water supply; because, let’s face it, blue spacemonkeys. I’d wonder how many people really were seeing blue monkeys, and how many were just going with the flow, of getting on the bandwagon so to speak. Especially if there were external factors influencing the desirability of having such a vision. I’d also probably wonder if they’re all seeing the same thing, and how they can know they’re all seeing the same thing, if they can’t evidence it to each other. I wouldn’t start to doubt my own clarity on the matter just yet, as I’m not even sure what a blue spacemonkey is, and without evidence (or, for that matter, even a clear idea of what they are) I’d probably be best served by reserving judgement but being highly dubious. Because, again, blue spacemonkeys.

    But we are not talking about blue spacemonkeys, we are talking about a much more sensible idea: of God, the Good Lord, Creator of Heaven and Earth and All That Is, Seen and Unseen, and his predilection for manifesting himself to people in ways that cannot be communicated to others. If He ever does decide to manifest Himself to humanity, will you be annoyed that His revelation to you has made you something of a Cassandra, who saw the truth but could not be believed..?


  • #95
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    God demonstrating/evidencing his existence requires, per definition, that the person on the receiving end be convinced it's him and not another of the many options beloved of this forum. If he fails in that regard then he is, by definition not demonstrating/evidencing his existence.

    It's not human evaluating anything, it's that words have meaning.
    That's simply not the case.

    Demonstrations and evidence can range from weak to strong, and they can either convince or fail to convince.

    Even your OP acknowledges this.

    You say: "Would you accept that God, (if he existed and was Creator) would be in a position to demonstrate his existence to you personally in such a way as to leave you in no doubt as to his existence..."

    In that, you acknowledge that this hypothetical God could also demonstrate his existence to you personally, but in such a way as to leave you with doubts as to his existence.

    Like, for example, the way the hypothetical Christian Trinitarian God has supposedly demonstrated his existence to the world without convincing most people.

    If your concepts of demonstration and evidence require that the person be convinced by them, then just reframe your arguments using the word convinced and we can discuss that instead.


  • #96
    Red Nissan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,055 ✭✭✭Red Nissan


    The change factor.

    At one time we thought there was only one 'what we call' universe, now we know there are three ~ us being the third.

    Things change, may or may not exist forever, but change they do.

    Causal factors, what exists now influences what will exist and may even be so influential in that that it seems created. Our own Earth and Moon have a fascinating story.

    The man who thought up the concept of splitting atoms, can he be really credited with Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

    I'd be in the camp that suggests that if a 'God' ever actually existed at all, his experiments is running away without him and he can do nothing about it now.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The onus is on God to do what is necessary to convince.
    "The onus is on God"?!?

    That's quite a statement for a Christian to make. :)


  • #98
    Penny 4 Thoughts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 107 ✭✭Penny 4 Thoughts


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    2) Does it matter how God would demonstrate his existence given that IF God THEN whatever means he chooses to demonstrate his existence derives its 'conviction factor' from God's assigning the level of conviction factor to it.

    Hi Antiskeptic,

    I suppose that would be the guts of what I was asking. God can of course simply make us believe she exists. If she is completely unconstrained she can do anything, including this. So it is almost irrelevant to ask can she do this. By any definition of a God I'm aware of she can do anything and everything. Pondering she she can do this would be similar to asking if X can be any number can it be 10. The second question seems almost irrelevant or academic, given the initial proposition. If though she is constrained to not forcing us to believe she exists through a physical manipulation of our minds, but instead constrained to convincing us she exists through a method that leaves us to decided and weigh the evidence presented then this is an entirely difference kettle of fish.

    In this case I would have to fall back on the methods I use to weigh up any evidence. The first step would be query or ponder whether anyone else can also seeing or experiencing the phenomena I am experiencing. So if God appeared to me in a George Bush style floating light and spoke to me I would immediately ask someone near by if they also saw the light. If they didn't then I would be stuck unable to determine if the image was "real" or simply something I was imagining.

    Thus God could not use such a method to demonstrate her existence to me. This wouldn't be because God is some how flawed or broken, but rather because she herself has chosen to constrain herself in how she interacts with me to a method that rules out demonstrating her existence. Obviously the question then becomes why she would choose to do this. If God appeared to me in such a manner I would assume it wasn't to demonstrate her existence to me since she wouldn't achieve this.

    So to summarise, no God could not demonstrate her existence to me if she is constrained, by herself, to not manipulating my free will to assess evidence and my ability to rational reason evidence. Which I hope she is :) Hope that helps clarify.

    Penny :)


  • #99
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I've no problem with that. I'm merely objecting to nozz making such a positive claim when he's no way of knowing whether God exists or not. I, on the other hand can know that God exists (it only takes him existing and for him to reveal that fact to me) and whilst I can't prove God exists, it is not unreasonable to simply state that I do know he does if asked.

    In the lack of any presentable evidence to prove that your "reveal" was genuine, you don't know anything. Your certainty comes, via circular logic, from the a priori assumption that god does exists and that comes, via arrogant circular logic, from the a priori assumption that you can't be mistaken or fooled in your interpretation of that reveal.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    You seem to be saying that God is not able to reveal himself to his creation. And seem to be conflating people being in error (which is something that stems from within people) with something that would stem from God.

    But in a brains-in-jar sense I suppose you're right. We must always hold out the possibility that that's what we are..

    This is some painfully bad strawmanning that doesn't even remotely come close to what I wrote. Please try again:
    "A guess that is right is still a guess. Even IF god exists AND he reveals himself, your (or my) own surety of that reveal is not a measure of its validity, as you (or I) have no way of knowing if that surety is genuine or not. Different people are equally sure of the existence of contradictory gods, so it is clearly possible for people to achieve absolute surety of non-existent gods "
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    There are fads and fashions in internet discussions. I remember 'cognitive dissonance' making it's appearance about 10 years ago and it wasn't long before everyone was accusing everyone else of it. Similarly, dismissing a persons point by labelling it with some or other logical fallacy has been done absolutely to death. It's so 5 years ago.

    If you reckon you can make a case for what I've said being a non sequitur then by all means point it out.

    It is monumentally stupid to say that if you accept one form of evidence that you must accept any. It was monumentally stupid the first time you claimed this and it's still monumentally stupid now (if not more so, given how many people have explained why it is so wrong).
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    That's your projection onto me. I never said nor suggested my being special was the reason God turned up.

    I'd prefer you address problems like this though - rather than ducking out with a rant.

    Me ducking out? You claimed that we are all blind and that only you can see because you are equipped for it and we are not. And it was you who immediately cowered away from obvious implication of that circular claim (that it is god who makes us blind, and punishes us for being blind).
    So, any time that you would address this clear issue, on behalf of your god who was nice enough to deign you with the sight necessary to see him while sentencing the rest of us to hell, that would nice.


  • #100
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    So what? You decide you've got good reason to suppose why it is you can't convince others of what you've experienced. And they perform accordingly. What about that should cause you to doubt myself?

    I mean, I've got good reason why it is I can't convince my 2 year old that the square root of 9 is 3. Does that mean I should doubt the square root of 9?

    :rolleyes: That's your 2 year old, are you saying you cannot convince anyone? Again, if I cannot convince anyone else of something I supposedly experienced why shouldn't I doubt it?
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    ?

    If you can't read back the last few posts between us to figure out the simple point I was making then this entire argument is beyond you.


  • #101
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »
    Hi Antiskeptic,

    I suppose that would be the guts of what I was asking. God can of course simply make us believe she exists. If she is completely unconstrained she can do anything, including this. So it is almost irrelevant to ask can she do this. By any definition of a God I'm aware of she can do anything and everything.

    There are plenty of things God cannot do (make square circles for instance) - not that it's particularly complicated to countenance another level possible for us, one which operates at immaterial level. It is a level that God operates at afterall.

    The second question seems almost irrelevant or academic, given the initial proposition. If though she is constrained to not forcing us to believe she exists through a physical manipulation of our minds, but instead constrained to convincing us she exists through a method that leaves us to decided and weigh the evidence presented then this is an entirely difference kettle of fish.

    The question of force applies to why God convicts a person rather than which method he uses. He can as easily convict non-empirically as he can empirically (where the word convict means 'overcome each and every objection that can be raised so as to ensure belief follows').
    So to summarise, no God could not demonstrate her existence to me if she is constrained, by herself, to not manipulating my free will to assess evidence and my ability to rational reason evidence. Which I hope she is :)


    Let's take the Christian God which sees the world as we know it as a stage of sorts, where each person is given the opportunity (even though they don't believe God exists) to decide whether it is the things of God or the things contra_God which they ultimately want. Their wish shall be granted either way with that decision being an eternal one.

    The forum for a persons answer is their response to good and evil, both within and without. They answer Gods inquiry into their hearts desire (even though they don't believe he exists) by their thoughts, words and deeds. All day long, all life long. This because they have a God-given conscience which shadows and informs them (irrespective of race, culture, creed)

    If a point comes where the answer to God's query is (or rather, is translated from their unconscious reply to his inquiry) "I want the things of God" then his criteria for turning up is satisfied and turns up he does in convincing fashion.

    The free will the person has was played out in their responding to God's inquiry, whether in the positive (he turns up) or negative (he doesn't turn up). Once their will has been established, what follows is but consequence.

    No force is involved.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    Penny 4 Thoughts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 107 ✭✭Penny 4 Thoughts


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The question of force applies to why God convicts a person rather than which method he uses. He can as easily convict non-empirically as he can empirically (where the word convict means 'overcome each and every objection that can be raised so as to ensure belief follows').

    If we accept the initial criteria that God acts based on logic, no square circles for example. And we accept that God will not force a person to believe in her existence by altering their mind. I don't think I can accept then the idea that she can just as easily convict non-empirically as she can empirically. If the person observing the demonstration requires empirical evidence in order to believe then it seems an illogical statement to say God can over come this objection non-empirically. For myself I would require evidence that rules out a number of more probably scenarios that would also be local to myself, such as a hallucination. I don't know how God would overcome this in a manner that doesn't introduce verification by third parties that the experience I have had is not local to myself.

    Penny :)


  • #103
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Let's take the Christian God which sees the world as we know it as a stage of sorts, where each person is given the opportunity (even though they don't believe God exists) to decide whether it is the things of God or the things contra_God which they ultimately want. Their wish shall be granted either way with that decision being an eternal one. The forum for a persons answer is their response to good and evil, both within and without. They answer Gods inquiry into their hearts desire (even though they don't believe he exists) by their thoughts, words and deeds. All day long, all life long. This because they have a God-given conscience which shadows and informs them (irrespective of race, culture, creed) If a point comes where the answer to God's query is (or rather, is translated from their unconscious reply to his inquiry) "I want the things of God" then his criteria for turning up is satisfied and turns up he does in convincing fashion. The free will the person has was played out in their responding to God's inquiry, whether in the positive (he turns up) or negative (he doesn't turn up). Once their will has been established, what follows is but consequence. No force is involved.
    Do you really believe this (unctuous, pointless) waffle? Like, really (believe it)?


  • #104
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    In the lack of any presentable evidence to prove that your "reveal" was genuine, you don't know anything. Your certainty comes, via circular logic, from the a priori assumption that god does exists and that comes, via arrogant circular logic, from the a priori assumption that you can't be mistaken or fooled in your interpretation of that reveal.


    This is some painfully bad strawmanning that doesn't even remotely come close to what I wrote. Please try again:
    "A guess that is right is still a guess. Even IF god exists AND he reveals himself, your (or my) own surety of that reveal is not a measure of its validity, as you (or I) have no way of knowing if that surety is genuine or not. Different people are equally sure of the existence of contradictory gods, so it is clearly possible for people to achieve absolute surety of non-existent gods "


    It is monumentally stupid to say that if you accept one form of evidence that you must accept any. It was monumentally stupid the first time you claimed this and it's still monumentally stupid now (if not more so, given how many people have explained why it is so wrong).


    Me ducking out? You claimed that we are all blind and that only you can see because you are equipped for it and we are not. And it was you who immediately cowered away from obvious implication of that circular claim (that it is god who makes us blind, and punishes us for being blind).
    So, any time that you would address this clear issue, on behalf of your god who was nice enough to deign you with the sight necessary to see him while sentencing the rest of us to hell, that would nice.

    I was planning to snip some of this, to just support one or two sentences, but as I read it I felt that it the whole post is so comprehensively excellent, I had to quote it all.


  • #105
    mickrock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Do you now accept that I am God, or do you need further evidence?

    You are God who happens to be playing the character of Michael Nugent, as well as all the other parts in the divine drama.

    Actors sometimes lose themselves so totally in their roles that they forget their true nature.

    We are all God in disguise playing hide-and-seek with itself.


  • #106
    pauldla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    mickrock wrote: »
    You are God who happens to be playing the character of Michael Nugent, as well as all the other parts in the divine drama.

    Actors sometimes lose themselves so totally in their roles that they forget their true nature.

    We are all God in disguise playing hide-and-seek with itself.

    This raises many troubling questions about the true nature of human sexual intercourse. :eek:


  • #107
    gaynorvader
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    {...}

    Would you accept that God, (if he existed and was Creator) would be in a position to demonstrate his existence to you personally in such a way as to leave you in no doubt as to his existence, but without that personal demonstration being something that could be shared with equal effect with another person?

    Yes
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    If you did accept that possibility, then would you not also have to accept that belief based on such an event would be both rational and justified.

    No, because it could equally be a delusion. The only way of rationally and justifiably demonstrating the veracity of something is to gauge it against collective experience. To a child, a monster under their bed is real. It's not rational for the child to believe the monster really exists, the opposite is the case.
    There's no way of knowing for sure if "God" beamed knowledge of His existence into your head or if you are just suffering from a delusion, so to take any belief away from it is as irrational as the man on the street claiming to be Jesus.


  • #108
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    pauldla wrote: »
    This raises many troubling questions about the true nature of human sexual intercourse. :eek:

    Well because god is supposed to be the ultimate, he must also be the ultimate narcissist (a clear subset of all the personalities needed to be the ultimate), therefore having sex with himself will not only be desirable but necessary.


  • #109
    pauldla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Well because god is supposed to be the ultimate, he must also be the ultimate narcissist (a clear subset of all the personalities needed to be the ultimate), therefore having sex with himself will not only be desirable but necessary.

    Indeed. It would also mean that, ultimately, there is no difference between straight sex, gay sex, and masturbation. It's all deity on deity.


  • #110
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    pauldla wrote: »
    Indeed. It would also mean that, ultimately, there is no difference between straight sex, gay sex, and masturbation. It's all deity on deity.
    And, with the Trinitarian God, it would also be group sex.


  • #111
    pauldla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    And, with the Trinitarian God, it would also be group sex.

    The mind boggles!


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    At nozzferrahhtoo's request

    To correct a little bit of historical revisionism from antis here, for the record I "requested" no such thing. I suggested the user stop derailing another thread and he could go and start another thread of his own if he wanted to bring up the subject.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    his thinking belief irrational and unjustified.

    To repeat, if there is no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to support a belief, then I do find it irrational to subscribe to that belief. I have yet to be shown, much less by you, a reason to think otherwise.

    The rest of your post is Whatiffery, and I do not play at whatiffery. Especially if having had such an experience one is going to accept it on face value without evaluation or even the suggestion of a methodology for evaluation. But not surprising from someone with a username that precludes being skeptical of such an experience in the first place. Bias firmly on sleeve there.


  • #113
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    antiskeptic wrote: »

    Would you accept that God, (if he existed and was Creator) would be in a position to demonstrate his existence to you personally in such a way as to leave you in no doubt as to his existence, but without that personal demonstration being something that could be shared with equal effect with another person?

    If you did accept that possibility, then would you not also have to accept that belief based on such an event would be both rational and justified.

    OK. This is not the first time you have raised this point round these parts but it must be said that it is certainly a clearer statement than last time. I'm going to make my points as simple as possible so that there is no ambiguity.

    The parameters of the thought experiment involve the assumption that a) some god exists and that b) this god is the creator of the universe. However, there is a condition missing here from your original post in the Christianity forum, namely that the god in question is the Christian god.

    Are you still using the Christian god for the purposes of this argument?

    If so, then the answer to the first question in your argument must be no.

    The Christian god is described in several places as being perfect (e.g. Psalms 18:30, Matthew 5:48). A perfect being would, by definition, have no flaws and all of its actions would similarly be perfect. Revelation as described in the OP is an inefficient method of communication and thus imperfect.

    Now, if the God were not the Christian God, then the requirement for perfection could be discarded. In the case of a generic deity, it is possible for a god to communicate in such a way.

    However, the real problem is the second part of your argument:

    "If you did accept that possibility, then would you not also have to accept that belief based on such an event would be both rational and justified."

    Well, frankly no. For several reasons.

    Firstly, when you refer to you (highlighted above), who do you mean? Do you mean the person who experiences the revelation or somebody else? Even if I accept the possibility that God (assuming he exists) could have communicated with you in such a way, what proof does your experience offer me? Why should I have to accept that it is rational and justified. I only have your anecdotal testimony.
    Long story short, the person who experiences the vision can consider their belief rational and justified. They can consider it to be whatever the hell they want. However, no one else according to the parameters of the OP would be required to find such a revelation rational.

    Secondly, in terms of the core of the OP, how exactly, do you convince yourself that God spoke to you? After all one of the core teachings in the Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments is humility.

    "He leads the humble in what is right, and teaches the humble his way."
    Psalms 25:9

    "Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”
    1 Peter 5:5

    A true Christian would attempt to be humble about the experience and presume that God did not reveal himself to them and that there could be an alternate explanation.

    To quote House M.D.:

    "Now someone with true humility would consider the possibility that God hadn't chosen him for that kind of honor. Well, he'd consider the possibility that... he just... had an illness."

    I mean its not as if there aren't a plethora of naturalistic explanations to account for such an experience. Take this for example:

    The role of the limbic system in experiential phenomena of temporal lobe epilepsy

    Religion and Art: Cultural Ramifications of Temporal Lobe Epilepsy

    Temporal lobe epilepsy is a disease which has, for some time, been suggested as the cause of religious visions and hallucinations. In the case of a disease such as this capable of producing such symptoms, how do you differentiate between a naturalistic explanation and a divine revelation?


    In summary, to answer the OP, could a god communicate with someone as described in the OP?
    Possibly.

    Could the Christian God?

    No chance.

    Even if we grant the first part as a possibility, does this make the belief rational and justified?

    No.


  • #114
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    OK. This is not the first time you have raised this point round these parts but it must be said that it is certainly a clearer statement than last time. I'm going to make my points as simple as possible so that there is no ambiguity.

    Sorry for not responding this this oldrnwisr. A two year old limits time at times.


    The parameters of the thought experiment involve the assumption that a) some god exists and that b) this god is the creator of the universe. However, there is a condition missing here from your original post in the Christianity forum, namely that the god in question is the Christian god.

    Are you still using the Christian god for the purposes of this argument?

    Yes I am.



    If so, then the answer to the first question in your argument must be no.

    The Christian god is described in several places as being perfect (e.g. Psalms 18:30, Matthew 5:48). A perfect being would, by definition, have no flaws and all of its actions would similarly be perfect. Revelation as described in the OP is an inefficient method of communication and thus imperfect.


    I'm not sure what's inefficient about it. Perhaps you could elaborate in what way you think it inefficient.

    It's worth noting that even if inefficient in one regard, it may achieve another end not otherwise achievable. Even God is constrained by logic.




    However, the real problem is the second part of your argument:

    "If you did accept that possibility, then would you not also have to accept that belief based on such an event would be both rational and justified."

    Well, frankly no. For several reasons.

    Firstly, when you refer to you (highlighted above), who do you mean? Do you mean the person who experiences the revelation or somebody else?

    I mean you as in you, the atheist who considers positions based on rational argument and who hasn't had any revelation of any sort in the matter God.



    Even if I accept the possibility that God (assuming he exists) could have communicated with you in such a way, what proof does your experience offer me? Why should I have to accept that it is rational and justified. I only have your anecdotal testimony.

    That's fair enough. The argument isn't aimed getting folk to accept second hand news as true.



    Long story short, the person who experiences the vision can consider their belief rational and justified. They can consider it to be whatever the hell they want. However, no one else according to the parameters of the OP would be required to find such a revelation rational.

    But they can't find it irrational either. Once accepting that God, if he exists, could demonstrate himself to another by revelation and that the person's subsequent belief in His existence arising from that revelation is both rational and justified, leave agnosticism on your part is the only option.

    Agnosticism would be silent on the matter. It wouldn't make the positive declarations as to religious irrationality which litter this forum.


    Secondly, in terms of the core of the OP, how exactly, do you convince yourself that God spoke to you?

    There is no reliance on the person in the OP. The OP lays the onus on God to convict and supposes nothing able to stand in his way in achieving that should he so chose. "How do I.." is a null question in that situation. "I" cannot doubt because of act of God.


    After all one of the core teachings in the Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments is humility.

    "He leads the humble in what is right, and teaches the humble his way."
    Psalms 25:9

    "Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”
    1 Peter 5:5

    A true Christian would attempt to be humble about the experience and presume that God did not reveal himself to them and that there could be an alternate explanation.

    I'm at a loss as to how God turning up to a person makes them arrogant. It would be God's decision, not theirs.

    A true Christian, by the way and to put it perhaps over-simply, is one to whom God turns up. This, to distinguish Christianity from cultural Christianity.


  • #115
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Even God is constrained by logic.

    1126.gif

    Awesome. I take it you have this directly from this god of your's? I love how your god is so logical that you are having to obfuscate wildly to atheists in two different threads when asked for the evidence of said logical god.


  • #116
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Obliq wrote: »
    1126.gif

    Awesome. I take it you have this directly from this god of your's? I love how your god is so logical that you are having to obfuscate wildly to atheists in two different threads when asked for the evidence of said logical god.

    God is assumed constrained by logic for the purposes of discussion. Part of robindch's dialectic don't you know.

    There are any number of arguments that can be profitable which don't go near evidencing God's existence.One of these is this threads OP - which aims not to evidence God but to silence atheists who claim Christian belief necessarily irrational.

    That's where I chose to operate. I note that inconvenient to you and others but no matter to me. My aim isn't to evidence God but to silence this claim of atheism


  • #117
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    That's where I chose to operate. I note that inconvenient to you and others but no matter to me. My aim isn't to evidence God but to silence this claim of atheism

    Oh dear. You cannot silence this claim of atheism. You have proven yourself unable to do so. In fact, the longer you keep obfuscating, the more it strengthens the only claim atheism makes: There is no god.

    Edit: You would somewhat weaken the claim by providing evidence for a god. Hint. Big hint.


  • #118
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Obliq wrote: »
    Oh dear. You cannot silence this claim of atheism.

    That remains to be seen, this thread is in process.
    the only claim atheism makes: There is no god.

    Atheism professes a lack of belief in God. It doesn't make a positive claim since it has no way of establishing that claim. And since no way, it would be professing a belief. Which would make atheism a religion. Oh dear..

    Ask your pals


  • #119
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Atheism professes a lack of belief in God. It doesn't make a positive claim since it has no way of establishing that claim. And since no way, it would be professing a belief. Which would make atheism a religion. Oh dear..

    Ask your pals

    True, fair enough. How would you go about silencing a lack of belief then? Although don't let me hold you up in answering all the other unanswered questions you've been generating :rolleyes:


  • #120
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Obliq wrote: »
    True, fair enough. How would you go about silencing a lack of belief then? Although don't let me hold you up in answering all the other unanswered questions you've been generating :rolleyes:


    The topic is the topic, don't worry about off topic


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Obliq wrote: »

    Awesome. I take it you have this directly from this god of your's? I love how your god is so logical that you are having to obfuscate wildly to atheists in two different threads when asked for the evidence of said logical god.

    Of course the funniest thing about the whole "god is contstrained by logic" thing, is that it doesn't stop antiskeptic and his ilk from arguing that god is omnipotent, despite the constraint destroying any putative pretension to omnipotence (as well as existence, as to be honest a being such as YHWH defies logic anyways).


Advertisement