How could you tell?

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

Since this would fall outside the realm of something I could detect (assuming that's the hypothetical situation you are creating), I couldn't.

So... how could you tell if a deity was telling the truth?

Since you can't tell does this make you think you are actually a brain in a vat?

 

[Non sequitur]

Since you can't tell does this make you think you are actually a brain in a vat?

I couldn't speak on that matter, since I couldn't know.


I've asked you 4 times and have responded to your questions, that were your response to my question...

Could you please give me the courtesy of responding to how could you tell if a deity was telling the truth?

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

I couldn't speak on that matter, since I couldn't know.


I've asked you 4 times and have responded to your questions, that were your response to my question...

Could you please give me the courtesy of responding to how could you tell if a deity was telling the truth?

You can't tell me whether or not you think you are a brain in a vat?

And you are trying to ask a Christian whether or not they could tell God is lying?

At least the Christian can say he is not a brain in a vat which is something you seem to be unable to do.

 

[Non sequitur]

You can't tell me whether or not you think you are a brain in a vat?

And you are trying to ask a Christian whether or not they could tell God is lying?

At least the Christian can say he is not a brain in a vat which is something you seem to be unable to do.

A Christian being able to say something that I cannot is irrelevant and doesn't give one person more authority over the other. Plus, it's an ad hominem.

I said I could not tell. Your question was not "Do I think I am?", so please don't misrepresent me. Pretty sure there are some rules in your religion you are breaking...

I am not asking whether or not someone could tell, but how you could tell.

So, for the 5th time, how could you tell?

If you cannot or do not want to answer, please simply don't respond. I'm tired of answering all your questions and you not even answering my original one.

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

A Christian being able to say something that I cannot is irrelevant and doesn't give one person more authority over the other. Plus, it's an ad hominem.

I said I could not tell. Your question was not "Do I think I am?", so please don't misrepresent me. Pretty sure there are some rules in your religion you are breaking...

I am not asking whether or not someone could tell, but how you could tell.

So, for the 5th time, how could you tell?

If you cannot or do not want to answer, please simply don't respond. I'm tired of answering all your questions and you not even answering my original one.

Nah....think I will pass.

 

[Non sequitur]

Nah....think I will pass.

Yeah, cognitive dissonance is a b_____, huh?

(I think it's obvious to any reading this thread, that it's a safe bet to add you to the list of "couldn't tell".)

Thanks for your discussion.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I am not sure it is possible to tell.

Let G or D (god or demon) be transcendental causes. If the set of all known effects C (the cosmos) follows identically from either D or D, it is empirically impossible to tell, using evidence of the senses, whether the transcendental cause of C is G or D.

It is probably, given a limited choice, just pragmatic to believe is G for psychological comfort.

 

[ranunculus]

A related question. Or maybe it's the same. How can you evaluate someone's character if you presuppose that:
-everything they say and do is good by definition,
-your own sense of morality comes from them?
I guess it's impossible.

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

A related question. Or maybe it's the same. How can you evaluate someone's character if you presuppose that:
-everything they say and do is good by definition,
-your own sense of morality comes from them?
I guess it's impossible.

Jesus Christ is goodness and I know this because I have a personal relationship with Him.

Anything else?

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

I am not sure it is possible to tell.

Let G or D (god or demon) be transcendental causes. If the set of all known effects C (the cosmos) follows identically from either D or D, it is empirically impossible to tell, using evidence of the senses, whether the transcendental cause of C is G or D.

It is probably, given a limited choice, just pragmatic to believe is G for psychological comfort.

Do you choose to believe in the world of physical objects around you is real and that you are not a brain in a vat because of the psychological comfort it gives you?

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

Yeah, cognitive dissonance is a b_____, huh?

(I think it's obvious to any reading this thread, that it's a safe bet to add you to the list of "couldn't tell".)

Thanks for your discussion.

I already entertained you a bit earlier and asked:

So what?

I then marveled at your lackluster response.

It seems to me your point is not as profound as I thought it would have been. And personally I think you are engaging in a fruitless exercise.

The question you are asking is with regards to how one obtains knowledge of God who is a person.

Paramountly, one obtains knowledge of God through the same means that anyone obtains knowledge about any other person. Cultivating a relationship with Him is how we know God. We do not know Him via abstract, vain reasonings and formulas.

We know Him via a personally cultivated two way relationship. But in order to take part in this, one must have faith that what God has revealed about Himself is true. Either Christ is True or He is not. If God came to earth, then Christ is everything we would expect Him to be.

But Christ also lets us know we are sinful and cannot be in right relationship with Him until a fundamental change occurs.

We must be born again before we can know God in the intimate sense.

Only those who are born again can speak about knowing God in the sense that I am using the term. Only those who have been born again can actually speak about knowing that God is Good because they have the proof of this in the form of experiential relations.

 

[juvenissun]

You seem to be replying to conversations in other members posts...

But, how could you tell?

Convince yourself gradually.

Everyone can do it.

 

[juvenissun]

Put me down as "can't tell".

Then you ARE telling.

An atheist is one who CAN tell that there is no God.

 

[CabVet]

Then you ARE telling.

An atheist is one who CAN tell that there is no God.

Nope, an atheist is one who BELIEVES there is no God. Big difference.

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

In an attempt to bring the thread back to its original OP, I pose a question to anyone willing to attempt an answer:

What attributes would a Being necessarily possess if this Being were to be considered the Greatest Being that we could imagine?

In other words, humans are mortal i.e. we die. Would the greatest being we could imagine be mortal, or immortal?

Humans exist in time and age over time. Would the greatest being we could imagine exist in time and age over time?

Humans can cease to exist. Would the greatest being we could imagine ever cease to exist?

Humans are sometimes good and sometimes evil acting. Sometimes we lie, cheat, steal, for selfish reasons that end up hurting others etc. etc. Could the greatest being we could imagine ever have the desire to do evil? It seems to me that the answers to these questions are obvious.

What do you think?

 

[Non sequitur]

I already entertained you a bit earlier and asked:

So what?

I then marveled at your lackluster response.

It seems to me your point is not as profound as I thought it would have been. And personally I think you are engaging in a fruitless exercise.

The question you are asking is with regards to how one obtains knowledge of God who is a person.

Paramountly, one obtains knowledge of God through the same means that anyone obtains knowledge about any other person. Cultivating a relationship with Him is how we know God. We do not know Him via abstract, vain reasonings and formulas...

And that is where you started to apply circular reasoning, so I just removed it...

If you were being deceived and if you were being told the truth, it would look the same.

Your cultivated personal relationship, and anything else, cannot be examined to determine if you have been given false information; being deceived.

How could you tell if he was lying?

 

[Non sequitur]

In an attempt to bring the thread back to its original OP, I pose a question to anyone willing to attempt an answer:

What attributes would a Being necessarily possess if this Being were to be considered the Greatest Being that we could imagine?

In other words, humans are mortal i.e. we die. Would the greatest being we could imagine be mortal, or immortal?

Humans exist in time and age over time. Would the greatest being we could imagine exist in time and age over time?

Humans can cease to exist. Would the greatest being we could imagine ever cease to exist?

Humans are sometimes good and sometimes evil acting. Sometimes we lie, cheat, steal, for selfish reasons that end up hurting others etc. etc. Could the greatest being we could imagine ever have the desire to do evil? It seems to me that the answers to these questions are obvious.

What do you think?

Please create your own thread for your own questions.

 

[Non sequitur]

Convince yourself gradually.

Everyone can do it.

Since you could convince yourself of the truth and also the false, I don't see how this helps you.

I mean, it's an appropriate answer, but it doesn't solve the dilemma of being able to determine the truth from lies.

 

[KCfromNC]

In an attempt to bring the thread back to its original OP, I pose a question to anyone willing to attempt an answer:

What attributes would a Being necessarily possess if this Being were to be considered the Greatest Being that we could imagine?

Not sure how this is in context with the theme of the thread, unless you're saying that a maximally greatest being would be infinitely able to fool us. Anything less means that I could image a being greater than it at being dishonest.

But where I come from, being able to imagine something isn't a great way to figure out the details of reality, so I'm doubly confused as to why you'd even mention it.

 

[Yamaha06R6Guy]

Not sure how this is in context with the theme of the thread, unless you're saying that a maximally greatest being would be infinitely able to fool us. Anything less means that I could image a being greater than it at being dishonest.

But where I come from, being able to imagine something isn't a great way to figure out the details of reality, so I'm doubly confused as to why you'd even mention it.

I asked a simple question.

It seems to me you are thinking too hard.

I, a Christian, believe the God of the Bible is the Greatest Conceivable Being.

In other words, there is no Being Greater than He is.

Therefore, I believe God is Good and cannot be anything other than Good.

Why? Because Goodness is a great making property. The Greatest Conceivable Being could not lack Goodness and still be the Greatest Conceivable Being.

I do not believe evilness is a great making property, but rather, Goodness.

These conclusions should be self-evident to anyone in their right mind.