Tercel

Spin,

I can “hear” my thoughts in my head, I can “visualise” images too in my mind. I have knowledge that I am capable of both these things, yet neither of these pieces of knowledge came to me through the senses. I do not literally hear my thoughts with my ears nor do I literally see visualised images with my eyes. I can also directly know my own existence without appealing to empirical sensory support of this.

Oh, I’m not worried about it. Most of the time I’m happy to take the existence of my nose and the rest of the world as axiomatic.
However 99%’s query is best analysed by not assuming the existence of an independent world. This is a purely academic exercise for me.

In normal life I use the word “know” to mean that I’m moderately certain of something. However, in order to answer 99%’s accusation that you can be absolutely certain of your nose’s existence but only moderately certain of God’s, it is useful to redefine the word “know” to mean absolute certainty and prove that you then can’t “know” your nose exists but that it is possible to know God does, hence disproving 99%’s argument and adding a bit more for good measure.

I’m not sure you’re following my argument here. I’m not interested in objectively showing God’s existence. I’m arguing that it is possible to be subjectively absolutely certain of God’s existence.

Why it is necessary to validify it? If the conviction of God’s existence comes in such a way that you cannot not be certain of it, then validification or otherwise is a pointless exercise.

Possibly they are the same, it depends what exactly you understand “believe” as meaning. I am meaning that one is simply absolutely certain of God’s existence without any sensory input. Personally, I attribute this sure knowledge to God’s spirit convicting me of truth.
But the point is that this is subjective proof to me.

That’s because this is not the normal means of receiving knowledge. Knowledge is normally acquired through the senses. However it is possible that the senses could be being deceived so one cannot be absolutely certain of knowledge obtained through the senses. But, I contend, that it is possible for knowledge to be obtained another way: By direct impartation. It is conceivably possible for knowledge to be directly imparted to us, not through the senses but directly to our minds in such a way that we are absolutely certain of that knowledge which is to say that the questioning of the truth of such knowledge is not valid any more than questioning one’s own existence is valid.
I further contend that it is possible for God to impart such knowledge of his own existence and further that he has done so to me. And hence I have absolute surety of his existence at a level more basic than that of the rational or the sensory.

Can you know that you have these ideas in your head by your definition? –Short of writing them down/speaking them and receiving sensory input with your eyes/ears that you really do have them.

You seem to consistently deny that we can know things without sensory inputs, and hence my argument for knowing God without sensory inputs cannot hold water. However, that we can know what is occurring in our minds without receiving sensory inputs demonstrates your denial as unfeasible. And it seems we can consign your attempted definition of knowledge to the very large garbage heap of empirical philosophy’s failures…

Tercel

Tercel

Which particular work were you thinking of?

I think there's some good material in his Dialogues on Natural Religion that I could use. Hume's apparent acceptance of a form of the Design argument in favour of the existence of a creator wouldn't be difficult to use. I also like his idea that religious philosophy needs to be approached very cautiously and carefully, with a careful understanding all the way of the limits of human reasoning. I'm sure some of the atheists around here could benefit from a few lessons in this next time they declare that X proves God's existence impossible. I tried to give Koy a lesson in this recently (I doubt he appreciated it though), I did consider quoting some of the Dialogues at him then.

And of course his Of Miracles crap is always ripe for demolition and reconstruction. Although arguing that has a tendency to get messy, especially on these boards where failure to unconditionally and unthinkingly accept Hume's argument is inexcusable. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" as I'm so often told, though I have yet to see any evidence for this assertion or even receive a clear explanation of exactly what is meant by this. Apparently it's supposed to be self-evident and completely disprove all miracles. Reminds me of Hume's argument.

Tercel

theophilus

<strong>My "contempt" (I do not hereby acknowledge that I hold you in contempt) is for those who presumes to speak against the things of God when they obviously havn't the least idea of what they're talking about.</strong>

I must correct this statement. I have no "contempt" for any person. My dispute is with false ideas. I am troubled by people who presume to speak authoritatively without understanding.

Not Prince Hamlet

Tercel,

I extend the same requirements to Hume as I do to anybody else: prove it. I'm evidently not as familiar with the bulk of his work as you are, so I can't agree or disagree with your statements about the applicability of his various pieces.

I'm sure some atheists will try to prove that a god can not exist. I'm not one of them. I'd love to prove this -- and am reasonably certain that it is a true statement -- but the very nature of divinity provides an airtight out against disproofs by atheists. In a nutshell, I don't think it's possible to disprove the existance of a supreme being.

Therefore, what I do is lower my expectations, and instead work to prove restrictions of various theologies. I can't prove that there is no god, but I can prove that if there is a god, then one or more conditions must be true. That's pretty much as far as an atheist can go and still claim to be reasonable and have an open mind.

After all, atheists are constantly complaining that theists aren't being rationale in their arguments, but then go off and commit the same logical crimes in their zeal. We atheists need to remember that the same rules and expectations apply for the home deal as they do for the away team.

That being said, I seem to remember that there were some powerful arguments against sollipsism ... something to do with probablity. If memory serves, it didn't disprove solipsism (not like my "murder proof" would), but it does address how likely it is to be right. Like disproving the existence of divinities, you can asymptotically approach a proof, but you'll cross that final infinitessimally small barrier into proof.

Jeff

Not Prince Hamlet

Theophilus,

I understand the feeling. However, I think when dealing with theism, things get a little dicey.

For instance, for the sake of argument, assume that the Old and New Testaments are accurate.

Jesus comes along at a time when the land was covered with philosophers, priests, and soothsayers. Born of uneducated parents (well, his adopted parents, at least), he would come across as incredibly ignorant to those philosophers and their ilk. Yet, with the insight provided to us by the Bible, we realize that in fact, he knew more about God than any other mortal on the planet.

Thus, in a theistic debate, it is possible to have read every tract ever written and still be ignorant, or have read nothing of religion and be a sage, according to God's desire.

It is an inequality in the debate: the atheist side doesn't have this handicap. A thing is either provable or it is not provable. The logic is either valid or it is not valid.

Still, the theistic side has advantages of its own. For instance, it is impossible to disprove the existence of a god. However, all God has to do is show His face and say, "Yo. Here I am," and all the atheist arguments crumble into so much dust. (Sort of like if somebody every proves P = NP in Computability.)

Jeff

Tercel

A probabilistic proof against solipsism? Sounds very wierd. Are you sure?
As far as I am aware, the only "proof" against solipsism is the pragmatic Pascal's Wager: Believing the world non-existent when it really does exist has obvious serious consequences, believing that it exists when it really doesn't has no known negative consequences.
Of course, since Pascal's Wager seems to be the pet hate of most Atheists on these boards, I'm not sure any of them would ever admit such logic to be of value.

Such is the nature of probabilistic arguments. I'm not sure it's a problem though: Our legal system seems to work perfectly well dealing with probabilistic arguments by using "beyond reasonable doubt" as amounting to a proof.

Not Prince Hamlet

No, I'm not sure about the probalistic "proof". I've asked a friend of mine who is much more versed in these kinds of arguments than I to join the board, but he's been busy. I'm hoping he'll join soon.

Pascal's Wager really doesn't prove anything about solipsism. It's basically what I said earlier, but without the sharpened edge: solipsism may be true, but thinking about it will get you nowhere, so you might as well not examine that case.

As you pointed out, Pascal's Wager really isn't a proof of anything, but as pragmatic advice, it has value. It's flawed like any other adage ("He who hesitates is lost" and "Look before you leap") but it has its uses.

Yeah, that's pretty disturbing to me. 99.9999...% certain is not the same thing as 100% certain. (Although certain number theorists might disagee with me.) To me, beyond reasonable doubt means precisely that: beyond reasonable doubt, but not necessarily beyound all doubt.

Jeff

99Percent

theophilusOriginally posted by 99Percent:
Belief and therefore faith in something requires free will, because it involves the choice between two or more possible alternatives.

Your statement above is only true if human will exists in a neutral state where it may choose either for or against a proposition. The bible is clear that this is not the case.

Funny you mention the bible to support your arguments because in order to make the bible a source of knowledge or whatever you need to believe in it in the first place.

Human will is in bondage to sin and, therefore, incapable of choosing to respond to truth

That is certainly a losing proposition, if we are incapable of choosing to respond to truth then we cannot know the truth. Are you a Calvinist?

Actually, all you can say is that you "believe" on the basis of the test that the baby is a boy. You can never "know" until the baby is born, as my friend can attest who had two boys after untra sound said they were girls.

Ok, lets make the example even clearer. Lets say that he doesn't have the slightest clue as to whether his wife is going to have a boy or a girl. But it is his desire and hope to have a son, (Notice the irrationality). So he believes that he will have a son. Ok, now his wife delivers a boy and now he can no longer say "I believe I have a son", now he actually says "I know I have a son, or in fact I have a son", there is no longer an uncertainty that allows faith, hope and belief to play a role, because now I know the fact.

As I pointed out above, there never was an "elememnt of free will" in your statement.

There is certainly an element of free will because he chose to believe.

However, your statement about committing a sin when we say we "know" God exists, is mistaken. We do not know that he exists because we have determined it to be so. We know it because he has revealed himself. The sin is to deny him when he has sufficiently revealed himself.

I think you are making a grave mistake as a theist, not because you are a theist but because of how you are basing your faith. How exactly has he "revealed" himself? Why does he "reveal" to some and not to others? Certainly there are people who have never even heard of the word "Jesus". I don't even deny him because he doesn't exist in the first place, much less because he has "sufficiently revealed himself".

Once again, you assume that empiricism is a sufficient means of ascertaining knowledge for or against God. It is not, neither is natural rationality. They can "apprehend" the evidence which God has given, but do not of themselves provide such evidence.

I don't understand here. Who is "they"?

the atheist begins his investigation by assuming the non-existence of the creator God (he does not submit his thinking) and assumes his own thinking as normative and authoritative. He has already exercised his free will not to believe.

So you do believe in free will after all? I guess you are not a Calvinist, but let me state again, not to believe involves a lack of free will. When you believe is when you are actually exercising free will because you have the choice to do so as there are alternatives. When a fact in indeed known, there can be no choice to disbelieve or believe. I know the perfect circle is impossible in reality so I have no choice but to reject this possibility of belief in the perfect circle (or the perfect anything for that matter). Therefore I know God does not exist. This is the strong atheist position. The theist has the hope of the afterlife and therefore the hope of irrationality being a possible, and it has to be sustained through belief and faith, because it goes against empirical knowledge. And not only that, it has to be done with absolute conviction, without any possiblity of doubt, making it an absolute truth or else his belief comes falling down like a huge house of cards.

This is why your belief in God is in fact a religion.

Tercel

I believe Theophilus is indeed a Calvinist.

He has "revealed" himself through the testimony of the spirit in our hearts, through creation, through a continuous stream of specific revelations throughout history many of which are recorded in the Bible, through Jesus Christ, and through the active work of the Spirit giving Gifts and Fruits.

No doubt Theophilus will respond with the standard Calvinist stance that it's God's choice who to choose and He does what He does for morally sufficient reasons which we're in no position to know or criticise.
While I'd certainly agree with that statement, as an Arminian I go further and say that God chooses everyone and indeed has revealed himself to everyone to some degree or another.

Certainly.
I personally think that people who aren't Christians will probably find out the truth when they die and be given the opportunity then trust in God.

Of course there is. You can decide that you don't like what you know and ignore that knowledge and trick yourself into believing something else. The human mind has an amazing ability of escaping conclusions it doesn't want to come to.

God cannot exist because he's perfect? That has to be the second-worst argument against God's existence I've ever seen! (The worst being, "Can God make a rock so big he can't lift it?")

I can't speak for Theophilus, but my belief goes very significantly with empirical knowledge, indeed it is based on very strong empirical knowledge. Empirical knowledge is the reason I am a Christian.

You keep asserting this, but I have yet to see any sound reasoning behind this assertion.

Tercel

Not Prince Hamlet

Actually, now that you mention it, I've never seen that one refuted.

Although, strictly speaking, it's an argument against God's omnipotence, not His existence.

Jeff