what would it take to convert you to the other side

I believe a lot of things exist. My head is filled with entities which I believe exists.Kettles, tables, cats, penguins etc.There are lots of things that I believe exist that I've never seen with my own eyes.Pluto, Uranus, Neptune, Mercury and their moons. Africa, Antartica, the Titanic.There are things that I will probably never see, that I believe exist or have existed. Hot Jupiters, black holes etc.There are people I've never met, who are dead, that I believe did once exist in a living sense.Henry VIII, John Hunyadi, my paternal grandfather.When a deity has something like they have going for it - I'll believe it exists just as I believe they exist.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

It would seem a common thread. Why? I'd observe him, others would observe him, he'd have persistence and independence. People would talk with him, report on what he says - film him. Weigh him. All sorts of things. How would that destroy empiricism? I'd be in the position that the entity in question exists. Unless said entity supplied evidence that he designed empiricism - why would I have to realise it? 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.

Persuading me that he did things like that would take more evidence than just the evidence that he exists. But assuming that he did - I fail to see the problem. How is it a problem? If he managed to persuade me that he created my senses and the means for me to gain knowledge I'd say "Good show, old chap."Where's the destruction of empiricism? You're going to have to explain what the problem is, iano.

If God exists, it never was. What difference does it make? The fact that I can use my eyes to look at my eyes doesn't mean I'm blind! But how would I know it was God? Empiricism is still essential since it is the method which God used to demonstrate he did it! But why is that a problem? Because in mere direct revelation - I have little reason to have any confidence, as previously explained. Remember - that direct revelation is actually empirical, and it is very unreliable.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

But I still don't see why. Erm, what? If he was knocking about in the same way my cat does, I'd know him by empirical means. I wouldn't have to invoke a dubious philosophical sleight of hand. Why is not believing it was god useless to me? But I'm just saying that I would be converted to the other side if God was like my cat. Other alternatives would include God forcing me to believe through his powers...but that, as mentioned, is trivial. I could answer the thread's question with "a sharp blow to the head" or "a stroke", but they aren't interesting answers. I'm assuming the caveat "What, under your current epistemological model, would you regard as sufficient grounds to change your mind.". Having an experience that cannot be differentiated from delusion is not sufficient in my present epistemological model. Obviously - if I was sufficiently deluded I could believe my wife was a hat (even if only momentarily)! So yeah - if you are just saying that God forces me to believe then like duh, obviously.But if God was knocking around just like my cat, that wouldn't undermine empiricism would it? Again - if it is experienced it is empirical, by definition. If you don't experience the revelation then it's not much of a revelation But my point was - if experiences of God were like experiences of my cat then I would be converted to the other side. If my experiences of my cat were like the experience of God - I'd doubt I had a cat.Naturally. if I had my mind changed by external force other than experience (such as a stroke, a genius neurologist with powerful magnets or a deity) that would change my mind.Now if God demonstrated himself to me like my cat. If, as obvious as my cat is responsible for the 'present' in my shoe, it was obvious that God was behind empiricism and as obvious that I could have obtained knowledge through some other method THEN it would still have taken the empirical cat style appearance to get there since I wouldn't trust the other method until its efficacy was empirically demonstrated as viable (possibly by God)!It really is as simple as my subtitle makes out.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

The point is that we want evidence before we will believe that the entity in question exists and it is usually in that context that evidence is demanded. Why would we worship something that we don't think even exists?However, once we have established that a deity exists the next question is, what kind of deity is worthy of worship?It's a very difficult question - but I can say straight away that if we have reason to believe that it is not only the Abrahamic (Judeo-Christian is a stupid term) deity but that the tales in the Holy Bible that he is given credit for were actually his work...then the only thing that would make me worship such a horrendous monster would be fear. And it is reasonable to suppose that I could be so terrified by such a being that I would go through the motions of worship.I doubt it would be genuine.But if Yahweh exists, then I could understand certain social policies regarding abortion being treated differently. Therefore, if someone claims we shouldn't allow abortions because Yahweh considers them immoral (assuming the Biblical Yahweh cares two hoots, which I'm not so sure about) then it would be perfectly reasonable to say:"Sure a big monster might torture us all to death and if that were true, we should consider not allowing abortions...but do we have any evidence that this big monster even exists let alone that it plans to torture us?" For those people that mind their own business - I let them get on with it. For those people that insist in meddling in my business on the grounds of God Exists or those who like to debate philosophy - minding my own business means tackling those who aren't letting me live mine.