If there was a loving God, would you accept him?

[pocaracas]

I appreciate those who responded to my second post. A number of you critiqued that I was using a ploy to lower the meaning of evidence. Actually, I would argue that I believe the opposite. I believe that much of what we call evidence is actually our interpretation of the evidence. Hence, the statement “the facts say” or “just give me the facts” confuse the meaning of facts and evidence. These statements actually speak about our interpretation of the facts. Therefore, my desire is to help us understand the difference between fact and the interpretation of the fact. The author, G. K. Chesterton, wrote an essay entitled “The Club of Queer Trades”. This essay does a good job at illustrating the difference between fact and interpretation of the facts. I encourage everyone to read the essay. It is available on google books.

That's sort of what I said about "fact" and "truth".
And it's why it grinds my gears when religious people tout a "truth" as something absolute... that makes no sense.

My point is that the difference between us is not a matter of evidence, but our interpretations. Some of you acknowledged this point and I appreciate that. This is important because it is a major reason why a theistic belief system is plausible.

Somehow, I think you're not talking about the same kind of evidence...

If it was simply a matter of the evidence then there would be no disagreement. We all would be either theists or atheists.

I'd say that theists tend not to look at any evidence and go along with their indoctrinated beliefs...

However, the theist points to the same evidence as the atheist, but we come away with opposite conclusions. Why is this and how do these interpretations formulate?

One is honest and makes no unfounded claim... the other, not so much.

Before I deal with this question I would like to make a second proposal.

Can empiricism truly evaluate the theistic argument?

Let's look at the theistic argument, shall we?
- Abrahamic religions:
. a god talks to Abraham requesting he kill his own son, only to then say, "no, bro, I was just messin' with ya".
. a god makes a bush burn without consuming it.
. a god talks to Moses, writes on stone and carves out tablets with those writings.
. a god prevent people from building a tower and magically makes them talk in different languages.
. etc...

Could empiricism evaluate these events, if they occurred nowadays? yes.
Can empiricism evaluate the past claims of such events? no.
Can empiricism evaluate if Darth Vader is truly dead? no.
Can empiricism discern between a true story and a false one, when there's no evidence for either? no.
If there's no evidence for either, then which should we accept? none!

I know the initial reaction in our culture is a definitive yes. However, I do not agree. I base this heavily on the fact that we truly believe in absolute realities.

Reality is what it is and cares not about what we think about it, nor our models for it.
Of course, I'll exclude such mental masturbations as "brain in the vat" and other matrix-like scenarios where we can't discern the real from an exterior construct mimicking a reality.

Ironically, I think that many of you would argue that the falsehood of God is an absolute fact.

Which god?... Ah... capital G, so Abrahamic god, huh?
That one is a fairy tale god... a fairy tale gone wrong!

However, can empirical investigation truly evaluate the reason or origin of right, wrong, beauty, or courage?

What does that have to do with any god?
Mental states, social behavior, appreciation for a healthy environment are all traits that help with the overall survival of the species, hence it makes sense that throughout our evolution we'd enhance such behaviors.

Ok, so I know that someone is going to say well aren’t those simply determined by chemical reaction? But these studies only describe what is going on. None of them deal with what causes them or why these causes are different from one culture to another. Further, do these studies explain why a soldier stricken with fear will work to overcome the fear? Where does this sentiment for honor come from? The studies show very little about how chemical reactions in the brain can account for one's full range of sentiments.

In a nutshell and oversimplifying it: Evolution did it.

If empirical investigation cannot deal with these “intangibles”, than can empirical investigation determine God’s existence?

If that god talks to humans, then yes.
If that god interacts with humans, then yes.
If that god interacts with the environment, then yes.
If that god produces any physical object, then yes.

If that god is indistinguishable from a made-up god, then no.
If that god lives only in the minds of people, then no.
If that god is indistinguishable from Zeus, Ra, Darth Vader, Kahless, or the white walkers, then no.

The truth is that there are realities that go beyond empirical investigation.

Then why call them "realities"?

There is a limit to what can be determined and understand from
empiricism. Therefore, what value does empiricism have in the debate over whether there is a God?[/b]

The clue is in the verb you used... "is".
I underlined it for you.

Care to tell me what this verb means?