|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: what would it take to convert you to the other side | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
iano writes:
Why?
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.
So? Are you saying god could not make empiricim so that it can independantly used to verify him?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
iano writes:
You are not explaining anything. It is as if you are stringing together some words without understanding what they mean.
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. iano writes:
Is God going to rip out our brains, and replace them with an inferior version that works on different principles?
Empicism would no longer stand as the independent-of-the-subject means whereby you verify the existance of that subject. iano writes:
I place zero trust in "empiricism-as-truthgiver". It does not require trust.You would realise the trust you placed in empiricism-as-truthgiver was merely assigned to it by God, the subject of the empirical verification. In my prior post, I wrote: nwr wrote (in Message 50):
I'll note that you have not commented on that point.
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22389 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
iano writes: Percy writes: God demonstrates his existence empirically and thereby removes empiricism as the means by which you know He exists? Really? It would appear so - especially if including the other half of my statement. We'll get to the other half of your statement in a minute. Let's focus on the first part, where you say God empirically demonstrating his existence results in the removal of empiricism as the means by which you know He exists. Really? (and in case the answer is yes and the implied question isn't clear) Why? Or to be more specific by providing a counterexample, why doesn't gravity empirically demonstrating its existence result in the removal of empiricism as the means by which we know it exists? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
Congratulations!
Your bride is lovely and no doubt better than you deserve: my experience is that if you keep that in mind, your marriage should go swimmingly. I wish you both every happiness. I'll reply to the rest of your post later, and let these good wishes go out unmixed. Edited by Omnivorous, : you Dost thou prate, rogue? -Cassio Real things always push back.-William James
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
A lot of the reasons that you gave for switching religions fall quite short of the "message from God" you stipulate. Though given that almost anything could be thought of by the individual as a "message from God" or a calling, what would appear as an insufficient reason for us could be seen as a very significant calling by the individual switching.
Disillusionment can certainly be a good cause and one that does deal directly with religion. It appears often in ex-Christians' deconversion stories. It may also figure into evangelical pollster George Barna's observation that most "church-growth" is simply the redistribution of members moving from one church/religion to another. I'm sure that in a number of cases, after trying too many churches and getting disillusioned with each and every one, the individual finally ends up giving up on churches altogether. Marriage can be a big reason, but it really doesn't deal that much with religion, but rather with family dynamics (including dealing with the in-laws). In many cases, that conversion would be more of a token gesture, though the convert may end up taking the new religion more seriously than the family members who had grown up in that religion. For example, my father's family having been almost entirely Irish, he was born Catholic. But then one day his father, who had never before had much use for religion, got religious and joined a Protestant church, so in order to keep the family together, my grandmother and the kids all converted too. But then the church leaders cheated him in a business deal and he went back to having no use for religion, but my grandmother remained a devout Protestant for the rest of her long life. My father also attended regularly, but he was becoming thoroughly disillusioned because of the hypocrisy he saw, though he continued to attend regularly for his mother's sake until he turned 21. My father's uncle, who had remained Catholic, married a non-Catholic who converted to RCC. She became a devout Catholic and used to badger my mother to have us convert too. Birth -- this is a non-reason. It does not involve switch religions, but only the child's religion being determined by accident-of-birth. Slavery/Conquest -- Conversion being physically forced on the individual. While this has happened in wide areas, it doesn't really have much bearing on the discussion. Unless we were to be invaded and conquered and the populace were forced to convert. Though a variation of this is the situation of foreign students being sponsored by and supported by religious groups and then once they're hear are required to convert. We personally knew one such student the Mormons brought in from South America and then tried to force to convert. Economic advantages. More pervasive that one might think. A plumbing contractor we worked with decided to move to southern Utah. He returned in less than a year. Part of the reason for his return was that he discovered that he could only work part of the year due the ground freezing (hard to do outside trench work under those conditions). But the other part was that, in order to get any work, he would have had to become Mormon. Similarly, politicians find that in order to get elected, they need to affiliate with established religions that have a large enough voter base. There would also be social pressures. Conventional wisdom is that some single people join a church looking for a spouse. Two the conservative Christian megachurches here have very large and active singles ministries (the count at one is about 15,000 singles). How many there are truly called to that religion and how many are just nominally members in order to partake in that singles scene?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tram law Member (Idle past 4704 days) Posts: 283 From: Weed, California, USA Joined: |
If god meant for us to have firearms we'd be able to fire bullets out our fingers.
That would be empirical evidence God exists. A more serious question arises about empirical evidence though. If there was empirical evidence to show that God actually exists, would you guys become a Christian and worship God? If the answer is no, then what is the point to demanding empirical evidence? Be cause it seems to me that since there is absolutely no way in hell that you guys (those who won't worship God with the existence of empirical evidence), then the point is irrelevant. And I really don't get this either. If there is empirical evidence to show that God exists and he should be worshiped, then according to the rules you are claiming, you should change your minds and hearts and bow down to God. 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 God and they should stop worshiping him?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
If there was empirical evidence to show that God actually exists, would you guys become a Christian and worship God? Several issues buried in there. First, if there was empirical evidence a God existed there is no assurance that it would be one of the Christian gods. The second big issue involves worship. Before someone should worship something they should at least respect that critter and deem it worthy of worship. Empirical evidence that a god exists is certainly sufficient to recognize that existence, but worship is entirely different subject. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Many an athiest has been converted by prayer of Christians, the drawing power of God's Holy Spirit, enlightment from God's holy book, and conviction of sin, righteousness and judgement. Doesn't intervention from God invalidate people's freewill? "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Be cause it seems to me that since there is absolutely no way in hell that you guys (those who won't worship God with the existence of empirical evidence), then the point is irrelevant. if there is such a thing as god and if after i die he tries to judge my life i would tell him a thing or 2 about what an asshole he is, there are millions of christian children ding every day from hunger, disease, and the like and he cant wave his magic wand a bit to help them and if after that he would offer me to worship him or go to hell i would probably spit in his face but i very much doubt that there is such a creature as god no need for one every thing could have and probably did happen on its own, and that whit all his supposed power i doubt he would be so heartless
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1940 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Omni writes: Congratulations! Your bride is lovely and no doubt better than you deserve: my experience is that if you keep that in mind, your marriage should go swimmingly. I wish you both every happiness. 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..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1940 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Percy writes: Why? Or to be more specific by providing a counterexample, why doesn't gravity empirically demonstrating its existence result in the removal of empiricism as the means by which we know it exists? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1940 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
nwr writes: You are not explaining anything. It is as if you are stringing together some words without understanding what they mean. 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.
Is God going to rip out our brains, and replace them with an inferior version that works on different principles? 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 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. 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'll note that you have not commented on that point. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1940 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes: Doesn't intervention from God invalidate people's freewill? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
iano writes:
Well, okay. So you are just claiming that we would all be driven instantly insane. Of course, I think it's a silly claim.
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. iano writes:
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.
You trust your eyes don't you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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. But I still don't see why.
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. 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?
Empiricism is no more essential than any other means God might utilise to demonstrate his existance. One means is as good as another. 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)!
But the particular case we are dealing with here leads you to realise that your sense of 'reliability' is provided to you by God 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?
Direct revelation needn't be empirical in that it need not involve transmission via the empirical sense. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024