K

SOMMS:

Do you believe there is a UFO flying behind the Hale-Bopp Comet with beings that want to beam aboard the souls of those who believe and want to be taken to Heaven?

This is something that was "revealed" through personal experience to the Heaven's Gate cult. It fits all of your requirements for evidence through personal revelation. Have you sought these extraterrestrials with an open heart, or do you consider the followers of this religion crackpots?

If you do consider them crackpots, can you see why personal revelation is evidence of nothing except the state of the person citing the revelation? If there is a difference between belief in the Heaven's Gate teachings and belief in God, please explain what that difference is. Otherwise, it would seem that personal revelation is the same no matter what the belief.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

rdalin,
How are misconstruing...(page 9)

as...

rdalin- One's 'attitude toward God' translates to either believing or disbelieving in God's existence.

??

Thoughts and comments welcomed,


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas ]</p>

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Philosoft,

Very simply...this is an outline of an open attitude:

'I don't know if God exists or not, but if he does...I want a relationship with him.'

That's it.


It's not nearly as complicated as you are making it. There is no 'believe first then seek' or 'have relationship with abstract idea'.

Thoughts and comments welcomed,


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Biff the unclean

Very simply...this is an outline of an open attitude:

'I don't know if God exists or not, but if he does...I want a relationship with him.'

That isn't an open attitude at all. It's closed as tight as a drum.

An open attitude is 'I don't know if God exists, I will honestly try to find out.'

To declare that you want a relationship with Him before you even know He is real is senseless. You don't know anything about God. You don't know if he exists. If he does you don't know if he is animate, inanimate, or simply a law of nature like gravity. You don't know if it is possible to have a "relationship" with it.

What you are doing is deciding without proof that not only does God exist but that the characteristics of God are those taught by the American Protestant Christian Church in the twentieth and early twenty first centuries but not the nineteenth or before. This is not an open attitude at all.

And you still haven't told us how if you were an Atheist, as you claimed, just how you came by your "revelation" to begin with? Your premise would make such a revelation impossible.

Philosoft

How do you keep overlooking the obvious problem with this?

<strong> Not quite.

<strong> Sophistry. Now honestly, I must have some idea what I'm seeking. I'm seeking a relationship either with something or with nothing. If the former, I must have some kind of pre-existing concept. I'm not just looking for three letters, I'm looking for an entity. Even to seek a relationship, I must first believe the thing being sought is relationship-capable. Right there, I have at least a partial concept and a belief. I believe the thing I'm seeking is relationship-capable. If I lack this belief, I have no impetus to seek a relationship, and any such seeking is random and arbitrary. And if I'm not seeking a relationship with a concept then, by elimination, I already believe the thing exists. There are no other options, either I believe the thing exists or I don't. If I have a concept of a thing which I don't believe exists, I am seeking a relationship with an abstract idea.

rdalin

Okay, since you don't seem to like my recap of what you said, I'll try again.

You are apparently saying that 'be open and seek' means not to take a position towards God's existence, either pro or con. Rather, one should seek with an open mind (although I have no idea how that's possible when considering a supernatural being), and then, presumably, one will get a revelation. That's the only other way I can interpret it.

There are a couple of major problems with this. First, while it sounds reasonable, there's a built-in bias. I've seen challenges of this sort before, and the stock theistic answer to the seeker who claims that no revelation was forthcoming is, "You weren't honest" or "You weren't open-minded" or "It takes time" or "God works in mysterious ways" or some variation. In other words, the assumption underlying this position is that God actually does exist and anyone who honestly seeks him will find him; conversely, anyone who doesn't find him wasn't honestly seeking.

The second problem is that having an open mind concerning God's existence isn't the same thing as having an attitude toward God. I am an atheist who believes that no supernatural entities of any kind exist. I have, in other words, a completely closed mind in this area. If there is a God such as theists posit, he could give me sufficient reason to change my mind. Until then, my mind's made up.

On the other hand, my attitude toward the God described in the Judeo-Christian Bible is that he is incoherent, inconsistent, and morally monstrous. So, my belief in God's existence and my attitude towards God are two different things.

Let me ask you a question - what does your phrase - ones attitude toward God - actually mean? You may think that you've made your position clear, but that's obviously not the case.

Edited for clarity

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: rdalin ]</p>

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

rdalin,
Yes. This is what I am saying. You don't know God exists...the whole thing could be completely made up. However, it could also be true as well.
By seeking you will have more information (pro or con) to make a reasonable decision on the matter.


I think we should make the distinction between the statement 'Ones revelation of God is dependent upon ones attitude towards God' and theist who are claiming you did something wrong.
Even though you and I don't agree on God's existence...we should be able to agree on the above statement. In otherwords we should agree that 'attitude affects revelation' is a true statement even though you claim 'God exists' is false and I claim 'God exists' is true.


Two things about this:
First, the usage of the term 'supernatural'. From the theist perspective God is not much different than 'logic', 'math' or 'physical law'. All these things do exist but have no physical attributes. For example...you can't determine the impedence of Pythagoreans Theorem. This in no way implies it doesn't exist or it has no ramifications in the physical world. Is it 'supernatural'? Well...if you want to call it that but I prefer not to. Is it nonphysical? Yes.
God could simply be said to be nonphysical.

The main difference theists see between the above and God is that God is a willful, sentient thing whereas the others are non-sentient.

Second, the position that God must prove himself to us does not take into account that IF God exists then we must approach him.

This being the case...it is likely you are not taking into account the sovereign authority and holiness of God IF he existed. This is not saying you must assume God exists...it is saying that IF God exists THEN his authority and holiness is implicit. Our ability to acknowledge this would be a function of our attitude towards the God concept.


It would look something like this:
"I don't know if God exists or not, but if he does I would like to personally know him. So I'm going to seek and see if he really exists.

I am not saying that God exists, but if he does, I would acknowledge his authority over everything and would most likely willfully submit to his authority. Again...not saying he exists...but if God does exist then his holiness is sovereign...ie *he* would be the authority of what good and evil are...not me."

Thoughts and comments welcomed,


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas ]</p>

K

SOMMS:

Since it has been shown that personal revelation with the "right" attitude has been used by many different people as proof for countless absurd and conflicting beliefs, would you agree that it should be disregarded as worthless evidence? If not, why not?

Philosoft

Either "God" means something to the person saying the above or it does not. If it means something, it has an attendant concept. If it means nothing, then it's akin to saying, "I don't know if Splarg exists or not."

You are, at the very least, saying a concept exists, a concept about which you make several assumptions. Observe:

<strong> Assumption 1: God is to be referred to as a male.

<strong> Assumption 2: God has "authority over everything" and wields his power absolutely.

<strong> Then you are not seeking a relationship with something that exists.

<strong> This is all based on your concept. If you are seeking a thing based on your specific concept, you can hardly be said to be seeking openly, or seeking truth.

rdalin

Let me deal with your points one by one.

<strong>You said:</strong> By seeking you will have more information (pro or con) to make a reasonable decision on the matter.

<strong>My reply:</strong> This is not valid. Suppose I seek and don’t receive any more information. Does that mean there is no information, or that I’m not seeking honestly, or that I didn’t seek long enough (or something else)? You are merely assuming that I'll have more information.

<strong>You said:</strong> I think we should make the distinction between the statement 'Ones revelation of God is dependent upon ones attitude towards God' and theist who are claiming you did something wrong.

Even though you and I don't agree on God's existence...we should be able to agree on the above statement. In otherwords we should agree that 'attitude affects revelation' is a true statement even though you claim 'God exists' is false and I claim 'God exists' is true.

<strong>My reply:</strong> Nope. My attitude is that God doesn’t exist, and if I did seek, it would only be for the purpose of demonstrating that seeking doesn’t bring revelation.

<strong>You said:</strong> Two things about this:
First, the usage of the term 'supernatural'. From the theist perspective God is not much different than 'logic', 'math' or 'physical law'. All these things do exist but have no physical attributes. For example...you can't determine the impedence of Pythagoreans Theorem. This in no way implies it doesn't exist or it has no ramifications in the physical world. Is it 'supernatural'? Well...if you want to call it that but I prefer not to. Is it nonphysical? Yes.
God could simply be said to be nonphysical.

<strong>My reply:</strong> The God that I believe doesn’t exist is a specifically supernaturally entity; that is, one capable of transcending the physical laws that govern the universe. On that basis, God is very different from logic, mathematics and physical law. ‘Supernaturally’ expressly means ‘not natural.’ Logic, mathematics and physical law are natural.

<strong>You said:</strong> Second, the position that God must prove himself to us does not take into account that IF God exists then we must approach him.

<strong>My reply:</strong> Why? This doesn’t logically follow at all. You're making an additional and unwarranted assumption about the nature of God.

<strong>You said:</strong> This being the case...it is likely you are not taking into account the sovereign authority and holiness of God IF he existed. This is not saying you must assume God exists...it is saying that IF God exists THEN his authority and holiness is implicit. Our ability to acknowledge this would be a function of our attitude towards the God concept.

<strong>My reply:</strong> You are conflating two different concepts. If there is a God, he need be nothing more than the God of the Deists; that is, an entity which created the universe, set it in motion, and then left it to run. You are assuming that if there is a God, then that God has ‘sovereign authority and holiness;’ this is not at all a valid assumption. There is no necessary connection between a God and a sovereign, holy God.

<strong>You said:</strong> I am not saying that God exists, but if he does, I would acknowledge his authority over everything and would most likely willfully submit to his authority. Again...not saying he exists...but if God does exist then his holiness is sovereign...ie *he* would be the authority of what good and evil are...not me."

<strong>My reply:</strong> As I said, there’s no reason that a God would have authority over everything. There is no reason that a God would be holy or sovereign. There is no reason that a God dictates good and evil. These are extra and unwarranted assumptions which you’re tacking on.

I’ll tell you what. For the purposes of this discussion, I’ll concede that there is a God which created the universe. Now, it’s your job to prove that this God is sovereign and holy and has authority over everything and is responsible for good and evil and all the rest.