what would it take to convert you to the other side

Presumably what they (and all the other things you list) have going for them is evidence-of-the-empirical kind. And since there isn't this kind of evidence for God you have no reason to believe God exists?But if God were to turn up empirically (sufficient to convince you of his existance) he would immediately destroy empiricism as a means whereby you say you can believe things exist - including him. You'd then be in the position of realising that He is the one who designed the process whereby you now believe he exists - which makes you reliant on him for your belief in fact - not the process he has designed. The empirical process would be rendered an irrelevant middleman as soon as God turns up by it.Would you be happy to state that you'd be as satisfied with God turning up by personal, direct revelation as you would be his turning up by empirical demonstration? Both means would depend equally on him afterall.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

For the reason I gave, about which you said.. I included the rider "sufficient to convince you of his existance" in my original statement. If convinced it was God then you'd be convinced he created everything - including belief-via-empiricism. Assuming you accept that he could demonstrate it was he then the problem outlined stands - as does the request to clarify on that statement you might make.If you don't accept he could persuade you he was God then you'd appear to be kicking for solipsist touch. I mean, God performing miracles-on-demand before the eyes of however many people you like wouldn't convince you empirically that it was he?Direct revelation is an empirical demonstration. However it is much more unreliable than a persistent corporeal entity such as a cat or a planet so your contention of equal dependence is rejected I'm afraid. If everybody describes my cat differently (white, blue and green, size of a lion/mouse, barks like a dog and has wings) when we get our information by 'direct revelation' - I'd suspect I don't really have a cat. If there was consistency of characteristics between reporters that would certainly be noteworthy. If another person's revelation could be tuned into like Revelation onDemand - that'd be pretty compelling.[/qs]I'll assume at this point you're back with the original problem..

Assuming he did... The destruction of empiricism lies in the fact that it would no longer be an independent-of-God means whereby Gods existance is demonstrated to you. You would no longer be relying on empiricism as a way to this knowledge, you would be relying on God as a way to this knowledge. Empiricism would become an irrelevant middleman. The problem is that the confidence you would have knowing God exists via empiricism would come from the same source as the confidence you would have knowing God exists by direct personal revelation. Namely God.Why would you prefer he demonstrate his existance empirically over direct revelation given that your confidence would come from precisely the same source in both cases?

The difference it makes is to your currently valuing God demonstrating himself one way over another way. The suggestion isn't that you generally value empirical and direct equally but that you should do so when it comes to God revealing himself to you. You'd know it was God in the same way you know basic reality is real. You know this not by empirical means but by assuming it is so because the alternative, solipsism, is useless to you.Empiricism is no more essential than any other means God might utilise to demonstrate his existance. One means is as good as another. But the particular case we are dealing with here leads you to realise that your sense of 'reliability' is provided to you by God. If you happen to have the same sense of reliability via personal revelation then isn't the one means as good as the other?Direct revelation needn't be empirical in that it need not involve transmission via the empirical sense.

You seem to have leapt in without taking in to account the argument. If you peddle backwards but a few posts (addressed to Modulous) then you'll arrive at the start of the argument (the next post, to nwr, sums it up more or less too)Edited by iano, : No reason given.

What I'm saying is that God demonstrating his existance to your empirical satisfaction simultaneously dissolves empiricism as the means whereby you know God exists.Empicism would no longer stand as the independent-of-the-subject means whereby you verify the existance of that subject. You would realise the trust you placed in empiricism-as-truthgiver was merely assigned to it by God, the subject of the empirical verification.

Hi Omni. Yeah, that's me alright - on one of the three sunny days we had here last year. Respectable? Only on the surface. Righteous? Thankfully- Destruction of it as an independent-of-God way to verify Gods existance I should have said. God turning up empirically would bring you to the realisation that your trust in empiricism (as truthgiving aid) is the result of God's "magiking" trust into existance this way.But couldn't he magick trust into existance by any number of means. And if so, why the a priori picky-ness about the means he demonstrates his existance by.I'm not saying you shouldn't prefer empiricism over other truthgivers at this juncture. I'm suggesting you couldn't prefer empiricism over other truthgivers at that juncture.

It would appear so - especially if including the other half of my statement.

She's indeed something of a surprise in the 'quality' stakes - the loveliness within bringing to life the loveliness on the surface. I'm not quite sure what to make of her being a psychologist though (my believing of course that this was a marriage made in heaven). God's way of levelling the playing field for her?Thanks for the good wishes..

Thanks for the clarification.The reason why gravity doesn't achieve this is that empiricism isn't reliant at all points on the existance of gravity. It is that of empiricism which stands independent of gravity that can pronounce on the existance of gravity.In the case of God, all points of empiricism are reliant on him and so the trust we place in that empirical method must be shifted from the method to that which stands behind the method. Namely Him.

Is this better? "What I'm saying is that God demonstrating his existance empirically, to your satisfaction, simultaneously dissolves empiricism as the means whereby you know God exists".It's not so much an explanation as a claim. This doesn't connect to the statement made. The statement made has us realise that our knowing God exists isn't something we can know independent of God's action. The reliance shifts from empiricism to God. You trust your eyes don't you. They tell you the truth when you're crossing the road? And if 1000 people screamed "don't cross now there's a car coming" yet you saw no cars coming you might reconsider crossing - due to your trust in empiricism as truthgiver. I'm sorry. I should have said I don't see the relevance. Eyes are far better than Bibles when deciding on crossing the road (unless you lived in an uber-Catholic country perhaps where you could throw the Bible on the road and cause all the traffic to come to a halt)

Not if people want the intervention (whatever their wanting might look like). You don't have to believe in God to respond to God.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

The passage you quote merely has Thomas believe due to the availability of empirical evidence (and has Jesus calling 'blessed' those who will believe without it). The point I'm making puts the person in the same place as Thomas - believing in God due to empirical evidence. The passage doesn't detail a whole raft of conclusions one might draw on arriving at this point - including the one under discussion. I'm not suggesting they be abandoned. I too rely on empirical methods. The point being made stands aside from that.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Her sharing my religious beliefs stands on a par with the necessity that she be in possession of a head: less a matter of loveliness and more the core requirement of a mate. I honestly couldn't envisage sharing a life with someone with whom I couldn't share my life.That said, she'd have a quite different Christians-take on quite a number of issues to me. Not least on the issue of "wives, obey your husbands.."

Sorry. The contextual intent attempted to convey the notion that empiricism would cease to be the independent basis whereby you know God exists. It would be reduced to the position of middleman - in the same way that a hammer is the middleman between me and a nail.The nail is pushed home by me and I can chose any number of means to push it home. You are made aware of God by God and he can use any number of means to make you aware.