iano writes: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.
You are not explaining anything. It is as if you are stringing together some words without understanding what they mean.
iano writes:Empicism would no longer stand as the independent-of-the-subject means whereby you verify the existance of that subject.
Is God going to rip out our brains, and replace them with an inferior version that works on different principles?
iano writes:You would realise the trust you placed in empiricism-as-truthgiver was merely assigned to it by God, the subject of the empirical verification.
I place zero trust in "empiricism-as-truthgiver". It does not require trust.
In my prior post, I wrote:
nwr wrote (in Message 50):So when I want to cross the street, I would just check my Bible and then cross without looking to see if there are any oncoming cars?
Sorry, that does not make any sense. Why would God give us eyes if he didn't intend that we use them?
I'll note that you have not commented on that point.