How do I know the things I know?

[Darkstar]

Don't you think that maybe this 'seeing' god is actually just interpreting things that are completely natural as acts of god? Why do we have to 'find' god anyway? Should we take our seniors' word for it? Why does god value belief over worship; shouldn't he just reveal himself to everyone and see who will follow?

---

---

1. Maybe, but no, I don't think so. Do you ever think your faith in scientism is actually just interpreting acts of god as completely natural?

2. You certainly don't have to if you don't want to.

3. Depends. Sometimes it's smart to take your seniors words on things, other times, not. I'm sure we've all had both experiences.

1. Agreed, arguing over that point would be ultimately futile.

2. Okay

3. Right. There is a difference between taking someone's word for it and following the evidence.

Extraordinary claims require extrordinary evidence.

If someone says that they have a dog, we can take their word for it. The claim of owning a dog is not extraordinary. If we didn't believe them, they could just show us the dog to prove it. If someone said they had a pet alien, we would not take their word for it. If they showed us the alien, we would believe them, but if they refused, we would assume they were lying about it. If someone said an all-powerful being created the universe, whilst refusing to explain how said being's origins could possibly be less complex and unlikely than the origins of the universe itself, we would not believe them (unless we were little kids being indoctrinated). You see, scientists do all of the questioning for us. You might say that they could be lying about that too, but here's the thing: science works. Computers work, the laws of physics work, scinece has earned our trust in that not only does it work, but if it is ever wrong, it will correct itself.

Scientism - the view that empirical science can entirely explain reality, based on the fallible authority of the human attempt at knowledge - is a myth.

Sorry, but science can entirely explain reality. It can't explain that which lies outside reality, like god. No, not the universe, reality, as in actually existing. If god existed, we couldn't explain him, but the fact is that we don't have any reason to think he exists. To say that we haven't yet explined everything; therefore god, is a common fallacy. To say we aren't perfect, therefore god is unknowable and undetectable, contradicts this:

Who says God values belief over worship? He does reveal Himself to everyone and sees who follows.

...no he doesn't. If he did, there would be no atheists.

[Mystic]

Who says God values belief over worship? He does reveal Himself to everyone and sees who follows.

...no he doesn't. If he did, there would be no atheists.

This is like saying if free-will was observable, then no one would disbelieve in free-will.

Yet most of humanity believes free-will is observable through our own experience of it.

Yet there exists people whom disbelieve in free-will.

Do you conclude on this basis free-will is not observable?

[Darkstar]

This is like saying if free-will was observable, then no one would disbelieve in free-will.

Yet most of humanity believes free-will is observable through our own experience of it.

Yet there exists people whom disbelieve in free-will.

Do you conclude on this basis free-will is not observable?

You actually bring up an interesting point. I take 'reveal' not to simply mean doing something that is observable, but in fact something that should be attributed to him. If god wanted to 'reveal' himself, he would not do something that would be ambiguous. Free will has yet to be truly defined; how much control does one need to be 'free'? We cannot even begin to guess, as our mental processes are so complex that we can't tell.

"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."

Thanks again to teaearlgreyhot's sig
At this point, free will is indistinguishable from lack of it (we at least have the illusion of it), but if god truly were to 'reveal' himself, he would not act in a way indistinguishable from a totally normal event.

[IATIA]

...no he doesn't. If he did, there would be no atheists.

This is like saying if free-will was observable, then no one would disbelieve in free-will.

Yet most of humanity believes free-will is observable through our own experience of it.

Yet there exists people whom disbelieve in free-will.

Do you conclude on this basis free-will is not observable?

Free will is an illusion. A 'story' concocted by our consciousness to qualify the body's actions. The illusion feels real to most if not all of us, but that does not make it real nor is it proof of free will.

In the same respect the illusion of god is present in some people. Again, it is only a 'story' concocted by the mind to explain lack of knowledge. An atheist does not need an explanation for this lack of knowledge, but rather strives for the answers. An atheist embraces abstract thought.

[Edwardo Piet]

You know something absolutely through valid deduction or relatively through valid induction.

[Darkstar]

You know something absolutely through valid deduction or relatively through valid induction.

It's simply a lack of understanding of what passes as 'valid' that trips up the religious people.

[liam]

Sorry in advance for a response to a long-past post but i feel its still rather appropriate

What makes them reliable?

Yeah, they've seen God with their own eyes. I knew a man for 12 years that had seen God (he has since passed on)...He's reliable to me.

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish

David Hume

[Darkstar]

Yeah, they've seen God with their own eyes. I knew a man for 12 years that had seen God (he has since passed on)...He's reliable to me.

But if he said it was Allah...

[Edwardo Piet]

I know reliable sources that know God and have seen Him. They are teaching me how to see Him too. It takes a while, God's not cheap.

That's how I know God exists.

If I saw God with my own eyes it would be far more rational for me to recognize that it's far far far more probable for me to be experiencing hallucinations, than for me to actually be seeing God...

And that would apply to anyone.

[Cyberman]

Even if a god, let alone 'God', was to appear to me right now, I would hope it would be extremely disappointed in humanity were I to fall to my knees and accept it as a god merely on the strength of the experience.