|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: what would it take to convert you to the other side | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
iano writes: She's indeed something of a surprise in the 'quality' stakes - the loveliness within... Does the loveliness within include sharing your religious beliefs? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3992 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.5 |
Tram law writes: After all, isn't this the same thing you are demanding of theists? That since there is no empirical evidence then they are required to admit there is [no] God and they should stop worshiping him? That's certainly not my demand. I merely demand that theists who claim they have evidence for the existence of God present their evidence in a valid form--especially when believers attempt to insert their beliefs into public policies and institutions. Theists who concede they have no empirical evidence for God's existence and who agree their beliefs should remain in the private sphere are fun to talk to, but I have no demands to make of them. I don't care if they worship Bambi as long as Bambi stays out of our laws, schools, and bedrooms. As to worship? None of the gods I've heard described sound like entities I'd want to worship: frankly, I don't understand the worshipful stance in any creature who has evolved beyond the dog. And I prefer cats. As far as I can tell, only cultural ascendancy distinguishes our modern crop of gods from their own devils. Dost thou prate, rogue? -Cassio Real things always push back.-William James
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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. Yet according to the Bible, that is NOT what happens.
John 20 writes: Jesus Appears to Thomas24Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it." 26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." 28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" 29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." Empiricism did NOT cease nor was it replaced. There is NO indication that Thomas stopped relying on empirical methods or that Jesus abandoned using empirical methods.
More John 20 writes: 30Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. Empiricism continues. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Jar writes: Yet according to the Bible, that is NOT what happens. 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.
Empiricism did NOT cease nor was it replaced. There is NO indication that Thomas stopped relying on empirical methods or that Jesus abandoned using empirical methods. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Percy writes: Does the loveliness within include sharing your religious beliefs? 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.."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I believe you asserted that empiricism would cease to exist?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
She shares your religious beliefs, but has "a quite different Christian's-take" on some issues, like "wives, obey your husbands." That's good, thank God nothing important.
So what would it take to convert you to her take about obeying one's husband? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Hi Iano,
I had to go back to Message 44 to find some important qualifiers that you included:
iano in Message 44 writes: 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're talking about a non-specific god of the universe, then why would it follow that he created "belief-via-empiricism?" A king of the realm didn't create everything in his kingdom. Why do you believe that a god of the universe would have created everything in the universe? Maybe he just defeated all the other gods. And if you're talking about the Christian God of a literally interpreted Bible then where in the Bible does it say he created "belief-via-empiricism?" I think you've got an interesting argument that God empirically demonstrating his existence would undermine that very empiricism. From then on I would have to consider the possibility that God might be fooling me about anything I observed, including that one time when I observed God - Holy Conundrum, Batman! But there's no evidence that empiricism is chancy or unreliable, and there seems no reason to think empiricism would change just because God chose to remove my doubt that the God I believe in is actually the God of a literally interpreted Bible. I therefore think your statement about God undermining empiricism by empirically demonstrating his existence is highly arguable, even among people whose beliefs are much closer to your own than are mine. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
jar writes: I believe you asserted that empiricism would cease to exist? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
iano writes: jar writes: I believe you asserted that empiricism would cease to exist? 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. But you have not even mentioned any other way. This assertion that God can use any number of ways is oft repeated, but as yet I have never found anyone that will innumerate them or explain how they are used. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Percy writes: And if you're talking about the Christian God of a literally interpreted Bible then where in the Bible does it say he created "belief-via-empiricism?" I was really only jumping in at the arrowhead of a widespread objection to the biblical God. That objection eschews personal revelation as a satisfactory means whereby God reveals himself and demands empirical evidence instead. It's from that point that I embark. Certainly you could query whether the biblical God created belief-via-empiricism but I'm assuming a God-as-commonly-understood (ie: creator of all) and dealing with the objection itself.
I think you've got an interesting argument that God empirically demonstrating his existence would undermine that very empiricism. From then on I would have to consider the possibility that God might be fooling me about anything I observed, including that one time when I observed God - Holy Conundrum, Batman! I suggested earlier that such a response effectively kicks to solipsist touch and because that approach is usually considered useless we might as well not go there. There is no particular harm with empiricism being revealed as God-empowered, it just means it's position as uber-truthgiver is dismantled in the specific case of God's self demonstration. Which opens the way for other ways of self demonstration. Perhaps they are even better suited to purpose than empiricism (something supported by the bibles revelation that folk didn't believe even in the face of Jesus' miracles)
But there's no evidence that empiricism is chancy or unreliable, and there seems no reason to think empiricism would change just because God chose to remove my doubt that the God I believe in is actually the God of a literally interpreted Bible. I therefore think your statement about God undermining empiricism by empirically demonstrating his existence is highly arguable, even among people whose beliefs are much closer to your own than are mine. I'm not suggesting that God undermines empiricism by utilising it in self-demonstration. What he does undermine is the notion of empiricism being independent of God. And because dependent at all points on God, it is dependent on God for it's ability to instill truth in us (just as we are dependent on God to design us to be able to receive truth this way). Once realising that God (if he exists) isn't restricted to just one means whereby he can instill the truth in us, the unbeliever can relinquish his demand for "empirical evidence or I'm not going to believe". He can rationally and logically request of God that He reveal Himself in any way He chooses - knowing that he, the seeker can be as satisfied with a direct revelation as he can be an empirical demonstration. Edited by iano, : No reason given. Edited by iano, : No reason given. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
jar writes: But you have not even mentioned any other way. This assertion that God can use any number of ways is oft repeated, but as yet I have never found anyone that will innumerate them or explain how they are used. It wouldn't be too difficult to appreciate a God capable of creating 5 senses (6, if counting proprioception) creating another one which is capable of direct interaction with him. It's not necessary to elaborate further than "personal revelation" as that interaction in order to make my point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Percy writes: So what would it take to convert you to her take about obeying one's husband? A more satisfying biblical exegisis supporting her position than the one I employ to support mine would do it. In so far as I'm in a position to comment objectively, I'd place myself as generally having a sounder understanding of doctrine mechanics and would see her as better applying those most critical of doctrines: to love God with heart, soul and mind and neighbour as self. Until I overtake her on that latter score I'm probably not in a position to lead her anywhere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
iano writes: It wouldn't be too difficult to appreciate a God capable of creating 5 senses (6, if counting proprioception) creating another one which is capable of direct interaction with him. It's not necessary to elaborate further than "personal revelation" as that interaction in order to make my point. Word salad. What are these additional senses? How are they tested and confirmed? How do you know the "personal revelation" is actually from God and not just a New Mexico Green Chili Enchilada? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
jar writes: Word salad. Copyright Schrafinator iirc.
What are these additional senses? How are they tested and confirmed? How do you know the "personal revelation" is actually from God and not just a New Mexico Green Chili Enchilada? You don't seem to have grasped the problem. The issue isn't to demonstrate personal revelation true. The issue is that God turning up empirically (ie: satisfying you that he exists via empirical demonstration) raise the same problem for empiricism. How to demonstrate it true given that it would stem from the same God it supposedly demonstrates.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024