EvC Forum: what would it take to convert you to the other side

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: what would it take to convert you to the other side

nwr

Member

Posts: 6412

From: Geneva, Illinois

Joined: 08-08-2005

Member Rating: 4.5

Normal Thread Display

Message 37 of 139 (581200)
09-14-2010 12:51 PM

Reply to: Message 30 by iano
09-14-2010 10:01 AM

Re: Simple really...

iano writes:
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.

Now that's a puzzler. How would empiricism be destroyed without wiping out all biological life on the planet?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 30 by iano, posted 09-14-2010 10:01 AM		iano has not replied

nwr

Member

Posts: 6412

From: Geneva, Illinois

Joined: 08-08-2005

Member Rating: 4.5

Normal Thread Display

Message 43 of 139 (581212)
09-14-2010 2:15 PM

Reply to: Message 39 by Theodoric
09-14-2010 1:09 PM

Re: Athiest Scientists Converted To Theism

Theodoric writes:
What can you tell us about Tipler?

I read his book "The Physics of Immortality" somewhere around the time that it came out (1994). It is hard to take Tipler seriously after that.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 39 by Theodoric, posted 09-14-2010 1:09 PM		Theodoric has not replied

nwr

Member

Posts: 6412

From: Geneva, Illinois

Joined: 08-08-2005

Member Rating: 4.5

Normal Thread Display

Message 50 of 139 (582199)
09-20-2010 10:16 AM

Reply to: Message 49 by iano
09-20-2010 8:52 AM

Re: Simple really...

iano writes:
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.

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 am quite puzzled as to what you think you are saying when you use the expression "destruction of empiricism."

This message is a reply to:
	Message 49 by iano, posted 09-20-2010 8:52 AM		iano has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 51 by jar, posted 09-20-2010 10:19 AM	nwr has replied
	Message 71 by iano, posted 09-24-2010 8:42 AM	nwr has replied

nwr

Member

Posts: 6412

From: Geneva, Illinois

Joined: 08-08-2005

Member Rating: 4.5

Normal Thread Display

Message 52 of 139 (582201)
09-20-2010 10:24 AM

Reply to: Message 51 by jar
09-20-2010 10:19 AM

Re: Simple really...

jar writes:
And I am still wondering how you test 'direct personal revelation' other than by using empiricism?

Yes, that too.

This idea of the destruction of empiricism looks seriously confused.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 51 by jar, posted 09-20-2010 10:19 AM		jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 53 by PaulK, posted 09-20-2010 10:35 AM		nwr has seen this message but not replied

nwr

Member

Posts: 6412

From: Geneva, Illinois

Joined: 08-08-2005

Member Rating: 4.5

Normal Thread Display

Message 77 of 139 (583017)
09-24-2010 10:25 AM

Reply to: Message 71 by iano
09-24-2010 8:42 AM

Re: Simple really...

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.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 71 by iano, posted 09-24-2010 8:42 AM		iano has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 87 by iano, posted 09-25-2010 7:12 AM		nwr has replied

nwr

Member

Posts: 6412

From: Geneva, Illinois

Joined: 08-08-2005

Member Rating: 4.5

Normal Thread Display

Message 89 of 139 (583173)
09-25-2010 8:31 AM

Reply to: Message 87 by iano
09-25-2010 7:12 AM

Re: Simple really...

iano writes:
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.

Well, okay. So you are just claiming that we would all be driven instantly insane. Of course, I think it's a silly claim.

iano writes:
You trust your eyes don't you.

I use my eyes. That's not the same as trusting them. There are such things as optical illusions, and if it were a matter of trusting our eyes then we would be deceived by those optical illusions. But we usually are not deceived.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 87 by iano, posted 09-25-2010 7:12 AM		iano has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

5 online now:	CosmicChimp, nwr, PaulK, Phat, Tangle
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 0/2