what would it take to convert you to the other side

You are correct. I do not grasp the problem.How would my empirically determining the nail exists invalidate empiricism?It seems to me that the problem is that once god can be tested empirically god becomes just another nail?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

It wouldn't. The nail isn't the basis by which empiricism delivers truth/knowledge. How do you conclude the creator on a par with the created?

What you describe makes god just another item that has been verified empirically, yet another nail, another thing we have identified and understand.And you still have not explained how you test "personal revelation"? How do you know that it is not just the result of a old Cabrito?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

The 'item' that has been verified empirically is God: creator of all. I'm not interested in how you satisfy yourself empirically that it is he but am assuming you to be in this position for the purposes of the problemThe problem is that you now know that he created empiricism. Given that the source of your knowledge is now realised to be Him (and not empiricism), how can you more trust it is He this way than another other way he might manifest? Edited by iano, : No reason given.

How do I test that God is the source of empiricism?Why would I think God is the source of empiricism?What tests can I perform to see if god is the source of empiricism?How do I know that the source of my knowledge is God other than by testing using empiricism?You keep asserting stuff, you just don't explain how it is done.And you still have not explained how you test "personal revelation"? How do you know that it is not just the result of a three day old Burrito?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I think you're assuming a God as commonly understood within evangelical Christianity, and that's fine. Agreed, except you do go there in the specific case of empirical evidence of God. I've read to the end of this thread, and I have to agree with Jar that your arguments for this one exception to solipsism read like word salad. There must be yet unmentioned underpinnings to your viewpoint necessary to understanding it.I'm not interpreting God's empirical appearance as saying any more than God exists. If God has certain particular qualities then I would need empirical evidence for those, too. For instance, just because God appears to me doesn't mean that I agree with you that it means that God is responsible for empiricism's "ability to instill truth in us." I'd need evidence of that.In other words, I'm not interpreting God's empirical appearance as meaning, "Iano's conception of God is correct." You seem to be convinced that if God appears empirically to us that it means that your particular beliefs about God are correct. Your own wife doesn't accept all your beliefs about God, how can you expect us to?--Percy

You mean she doesn't base her position on a biblical exegesis? Or that she bases her position on what she believes is a more satisfying Biblical exegesis than yours, and you disagree?If she doesn't have one, and since you seem to believe her loving spirit trumps your literal exegesis, don't you have to follow her?Why don't you try your argument about empiricism and God on her?--Percy

You seem overly skeptical: he walks on water, turns water into wine, raises people from the dead and you'd still be inclined to suppose that he might not have created you to function in the fashion you find yourself functioning in? So assume yourself in a position of having that evidence (him having jumped through that hoop). You would now know that knowledge arrived at empirically is considered knowledge by you because God has assembled you to function so. You know because he deemed it so.This doesn't mean God exists of course. You could be a brain in a jar.

Exactly. Sadly for those who are convinced that they are brains-in-jars being fed a false reality, Yahweh consigns them to hell. I guess their eternity in hell will be spent wondering when their false impression that they are in hell is going to end...

Prove it.Don't just claim it.Don't just turn to a book of claims.Prove it.Prove he exists and all those things are true.Don't just argue about it.
PROVE IT.

I think I said that there must be something underpinning your viewpoint that you're not telling us, and this must be part of it. So when God demonstrates his existence to me empirically, you're telling me that he does this by walking on water, turning water into wine, and raising some people from the dead. This sounds eerily like Jesus, not God. Not that God couldn't do anything Jesus could, of course, but you think he'd come up with his own material.My own view is that I have no idea how God would convince me he was God, but I think it would take a little more than a few tricks. How would I tell the difference between God's miracles and a magician's tricks? Certainly a lot of careful study, observation and analysis would be in order before concluding something as momentous as the God of the Bible appearing in the flesh. I don't have anything much particularly at stake here since anything that is apparent empirically is fine by me, but that empirical step is a tough one.Of course this is all hypothetical. God is never going to make himself empirically apparent because that's not how he works, your literal Biblical interpretation notwithstanding. You can talk about it all you like but you'll never be able to show me your God, while I can take you into a laboratory and demonstrate evolution all day long.--Percy

Take your time. Observe and analyse. After you have done so - and he has jumped through whatever hoops you've placed before him - take your place at the start of the problem posed.Or decide that there is nothing that God could do to prove to you that he is God and (with respect), exit the ranks of those who I'm addressing. I'm addressing those for whom belief demands empirical evidence demonstrating God's existance. I still think you've uber-skeptism at stake. What God does/did/will do is open to question. You cannot be so dogmatic about it (without jumping into the same faith pool as me)The focus of my point is narrow: to underscore the irrationality narrowing permissible evidence for God to the empirical - given what his doing so would lead you to conclude regarding empirical evidence.The request of an unbelieving seeker that God reveal himself is a hypothetical. It would be good if he expanded his hypothesis to include all-logical-comers. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

...Iano, on a good run, says: Well, there are many revelational instances of the existence of God.Many could begin by enumerating things like:The fantastical beauty of a sunrise at Jackson Hole.
The giggle of a baby in the mother's arms looking up at her.
The astounding pictures produced by the Hubble Space Telescope.
The unbelievable power of Love for your life partner.
The geometry of flowers, snails, and many other things we encounter in the natural world..
The interrelationship of the physical constants such that this universe we observe is such as it is.
The sweetness of a morning in spring with fragrances beyond compare....and so on. Believers can cite a million things. 3 million. Wait...there's even more...!!!This is not where this thread is going, however.I am recalling the passage in "Breakfast Of Champoins" where Kurt Vonnegut introduces himself to Kilgore Trout. Trout, being the skeptical type, doubts Vonnegut's omnipotence. So Kurt takes him on a ride around the universe & time.This the level of what it would take for me.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

I believe I said that producing empirical evidence of God is tough, not that I wasn't interested in empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is the only kind of evidence I am interested in. What I did say is that I have no idea what that empirical evidence would look like. If God had left a few scraps of possible evidence behind then perhaps it would be possible to make some educated guesses, but he is most notable for somehow leaving behind not a shred of evidence while being the most powerful being in the universe.But the main point is that your insistence that God making himself empirically apparent would invalidate the empiricism by which he made himself apparent makes little sense, especially when you also claim it wouldn't affect the empiricism for anything else. But I'm not an unbelieving seeker. I just don't believe in the same God you do. What would it take to convince you of my God, who unlike yours just happens to be consistent with the evidence?--Percy

My question has never really been answered. Now it's somewhat modified.If there is enough evidence to show that God exists and he indeed created the universe and everything, and that he is the Judeo-Christian God, and you still won't worship him....
THEN WHAT IS THE POINT OF DEMANDING EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE HIS EXISTENCE?
They may be different things, but they do go hand in hand. It seems to me that mere existence of a powerful being calling itself God might not be enough to worship him, but I think that with an abundance of empirical evidence that actually showed he truly did create every single thing in the entire universe including the entire universe, should be enough to convince an atheist to convert.I don't get this. If there is nothing that you'll accept that'll convince you to convert and worship, then you should stop asking for the evidence and let other people live their own lives.Many atheists never directly answer this question.For myself this would be enough for me to convert and worship him.Unless the things in the Bible are absolutely true as well. because if they were true, he's committed many crimes against humanity that he needs to answer for, and those crimes prove he is a psychopath because of his demand that we should worship him or else we'll be punished.