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

[pocaracas]

---

Many of the comments from my last post have rejected the idea that there are limitations to empirical analysis of the God or said it does not matter. Some of you have pointed out that if there was a God, should there not by empirical evidence? My response is twofold:

1) Empirical studies fall short of being able to understand all of reality? How can you account for the existence of beauty and courage on only an empirical epistemology. It makes no sense why a fearful man will stand up in the field of battle and charge the enemy. This concept belongs to a realm beyond empirical science. Since some of you have doubted whether such a realm exists I would like to ask the following question.

---

2) What makes empirical rationalism the sole and first criteria for understanding the world?

---

I believe this question along with the limitations of empiricism present a serious challenge to what basis an atheist has for his view. It gets to the heart of what I believe are a series of assumptions that are made before the atheist even looks at the evidence. This question begins to touch what in a very technical sense is knows as a metaphysical dream. This dream explains why a theist comes to a different conclusion than an atheist.

Please let me know what you think. I am very interested in understand how atheist evaluate their primary basis for determining reality, empiricism. I look forward to hearing from everyone.

---

Why should it not be?

[Forsaken]

I'll give this god a kick up his/her ass - tell him/her to go fix the problems of this world before thinking about being loving and caring!

[vorlon13]

Hell, If Satan himself offered me Brian back from the dead I would accept Satan and all the trimmings. Hail Satan!

[Coffee Jesus]

How can you account for the existence of beauty and courage on only an empirical epistemology.

Empiricism presupposes that we are having mental experiences, as our sensory perceptions are just that. Beauty and courage are also aspects of mental experience. Unlike beauty and courage, God is supposed to be an objective thing that exists beyond your mind.

2) What makes empirical rationalism the sole and first criteria for understanding the world?

When we converse through language, we must be able to verify that we're talking about the same thing. We do this verification empirically. For example, I can ask you to identify "red objects", "boats", or "cars" to verify that you have the same understanding of these words as I. If we can't have a common understanding of "God", then it doesn't have meaning.

Empiricism is the default criteria because I know that you exist through empirical observation. If I deny empiricism, then I deny the existence of the person that I'm having a conversation with.

If you have some other set of criteria, show that the functionality of those criteria follows from the same assumptions that grant me your existence.

[Simon Moon]

1) Empirical studies fall short of being able to understand all of reality? How can you account for the existence of beauty and courage on only an empirical epistemology. It makes no sense why a fearful man will stand up in the field of battle and charge the enemy. This concept belongs to a realm beyond empirical science. Since some of you have doubted whether such a realm exists I would like to ask the following question.

Beauty and courage are the results of brain states. The examples you give are explainable in the field of neuroscience.

There is no need to appeal to the supernatural to explain them.

2) What makes empirical rationalism the sole and first criteria for understanding the world?

I'm not sure anyone has claimed that empiricism is the sole criteria for understanding the world. But it is by far the best method we've come up with so far.

And even if another method was found, how would one demonstrate that is more effective than empiricism?

[RobbyPants]

1) Empirical studies fall short of being able to understand all of reality? How can you account for the existence of beauty and courage on only an empirical epistemology

How do you know beauty and courage "exist"? What do they have to do with "reality"?

2) What makes empirical rationalism the sole and first criteria for understanding the world?

Well, anything else is functionally equivalent to "making stuff up". Of what use is an idea if it can't be shown to even apply to the world? If you tell me there's a such thing as karma or souls, but can't demonstrate them, why should I take them seriously? No one has ever seen a soul do anything in this world.

Sure, you can say that souls are super important because they live forever in heaven or hell after you die, but you can't demonstrate heaven or hell exist, either. If I tell you your soul will go to hell if you don't follow the five pillars of Islam, are you going to take me seriously and switch religions?


There's no reason to believe any of that stuff.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Even if the God was malevolent, what would be the use of defying him, I simply cannot comprehend. Its some sort of a dumb bravado that invariably ends up as a vain, inglorious gesture towards the God that created you. If you knew that there was a God, why would you want to go against him anyways?

[pocaracas]

Even if the God was malevolent, what would be the use of defying him, I simply cannot comprehend. Its some sort of a dumb bravado that invariably ends up as a vain, inglorious gesture towards the God that created you. If you knew that there was a God, why would you want to go against him anyways?

How is anyone going against any god, by simply not believing what other people claim about that god? We also not believe many other people who say similar things about other gods...

If there is a god (or several), then which one(s) am I going against by not believing in it(them)?

[truthBtold]

Even if the God was malevolent, what would be the use of defying him, I simply cannot comprehend. Its some sort of a dumb bravado that invariably ends up as a vain, inglorious gesture towards the God that created you. If you knew that there was a God, why would you want to go against him anyways?

From what is written about the god of the bible... going against him would be the right thing to do....

[kılıç_mehmet]

Even if the God was malevolent, what would be the use of defying him, I simply cannot comprehend. Its some sort of a dumb bravado that invariably ends up as a vain, inglorious gesture towards the God that created you. If you knew that there was a God, why would you want to go against him anyways?

How is anyone going against any god, by simply not believing what other people claim about that god? We also not believe many other people who say similar things about other gods...

If there is a god (or several), then which one(s) am I going against by not believing in it(them)?

What other people claim about him? Who are those people?
You don't deal with them in the afterlife.

And well, considering that the God in question requires you to worship him, you would do wise to do so.

From what is written about the god of the bible... going against him would be the right thing to do....

And who are you to determine what is right when compared to God?