What is NOT God?

[Resha Caner]

So...out of the possible options for a cause that I listed, the reason for believing the cause to be a living being is..."hope".

I was speaking to a particular argument, and the expectation some might have for that argument. I was not making any general comments about belief, hope, or God.

 

[Resha Caner]

I am saying we can not from our perspective tell the difference because the idea of God gives us no particular clue what to look for or not look for in a universe either with a God present or absent.

I'm not sure who "we" is. If you were referring to yourself, then there's no reason for me to disagree. You don't know what to look for. Shrug. OK. Maybe I've done a poor job of communicating with you.

I still feel the same way. When you meet God, you'll know it - whether you had a preceding idea or not. I guess it just probably won't be me who does the introductions for you.

 

[Davian]

I'm not sure who "we" is. If you were referring to yourself, then there's no reason for me to disagree. You don't know what to look for. Shrug. OK. Maybe I've done a poor job of communicating with you.

I still feel the same way. When you meet God, you'll know it - whether you had a preceding idea or not. I guess it just probably won't be me who does the introductions for you.

How would one discern such a meeting from that which was only imagined?

 

[variant]

I'm not sure who "we" is. If you were referring to yourself, then there's no reason for me to disagree. You don't know what to look for. Shrug. OK. Maybe I've done a poor job of communicating with you.

I still feel the same way. When you meet God, you'll know it - whether you had a preceding idea or not. I guess it just probably won't be me who does the introductions for you.

I mean all of us. If you know what to look for present it.

What qualities does a universe have when God is present that would be lacking with it absent?

You seem to have different ideas about the word "know" than I do which I think is the root of our communicative dysfunction.

I do not question that you are convinced God exists by whatever means you have been convinced, I am stating quite plainly that a universe with God is indistinct from one without God for the purposes of answering the question of whether God exists.

This means we can not know. To know something is true, you have to have some means to differentiate it from it's antithesis.

 

[Resha Caner]

Nuts. I thought this was winding down. I don't think there is anything new to add ... or at least I'm reluctant to say more. I feel somewhat obligated to explain myself, but I don't really want to debate it. I've no doubt some bear enough skepticism to push this all aside, but I'm tired of debating these things. If you don't understand, OK, I'll go through it again. If you do understand, I consider my obligation done.

How would one discern such a meeting from that which was only imagined?

This is the problem of The Matrix. It can be asked of anything - How do you know you're not a butterfly dreaming you're a man?

I perceive reality to be a certain way. I perceive imagining to be a certain way. When I perceive God, it fits with reality and not imagining.

I mean all of us. If you know what to look for present it.

I've tried. Even more so, I'm not disagreeing with you. Shall I repeat my parable The Dog Ate My Homework?

A student places his finished paper on a table outside and goes inside to get a drink. When he comes back, the paper is gone. How can he discern what happened? Short of extraordinary efforts like pumping the dog's stomach, checking the security cameras he happened to install, etc., he can't.

He doesn't know.

It could be:
1) The dog ate it
2) The wind blew it away
3) He imagined he wrote the paper, but never did
4) The Russians stole it in an attempt to destablize the Ukraine
5) ...

He doesn't know, and no "idea" of how it might have happened is going to help him because there is no evidence to distinguish #1 from #2, #3, etc.

So, yeah, the logical thing to do is go with the statistics - with the most likely explanation. But what changes the whole picture - completely changes it - is when his friend walks in and explains that he thought it was a stack of scratch paper, and he used it as kindling to start the grill for their steaks that night.

The idea (what to look for) follows the experience (meeting the person).

So it is with God.

What people ask next is a formula for that experience, and I can't give it. How do you know you've met God? It depends on how trusting one is (John 20:29, Matt 13:1-23).

At one end of the spectrum are those for whom an explanation of the Word is enough (Acts 8:26-38) and they believe. As such, preaching the Word is heavily emphasized in the Lutheran church. Some need a more tactile expression of grace, and so there is also an emphasis on the sacraments (1 Corinthians 10:16) and fellowship (Acts 2:42-47).

In regard to fellowship, recall my parable of my grandfather and fishing. Even though he has died, his love for fishing created an interesting bond for 4 generations of my family. Some people don't need to hear words directly from Jesus' lips - don't need to stick their fingers into the wounds. They believe because they trust other believers, and that bond can extend for generations.

But, for whatever reason, some people need a personal experience before they will believe, and God does that as well (Acts 9:1-19). However, and for whatever reason (I suggested Isaiah 59), this seems to be the rarest of experiences. It's something I can sympathize with because I found myself in that place at one point in my life.

 

[variant]

I've tried. Even more so, I'm not disagreeing with you. Shall I repeat my parable The Dog Ate My Homework?

And I have been telling you your analogies are empty. We don't have an ordinary event with plenty of familiar context to choose from and a series of obvious explanations, we have a universe and us the sentient creatures that inhabit it.

We have you and your religion and your fellows, who in multiple iterations say something intelligent must have made all this happen because it only makes sense to us intelligent beings that something like us did something like this.

But it is an empty explanation, it tells us little to nothing about either the universe and what to expect from it and even leaves us an ill defined concept from which we can not even say what would be different about the universe or our expectations of it if God does or doesn't exist.

God doesn't work as an explanation and the universe in which it does exist has all the same expected qualities as the universe without.

"People believing in God" isn't an expectation that can differentiate the two conditions either, because we could easily see how people would believe in God regardless of it's actual existence.

So how do any of your ideas help here?

 

[Davian]

This is the problem of The Matrix. It can be asked of anything - How do you know you're not a butterfly dreaming you're a man?

Solipsism fail.

I perceive reality to be a certain way. I perceive imagining to be a certain way. When I perceive God, it fits with reality and not imagining.

You did not address my question.

From here, your god looks to be a product of your imagination. By what method do you discern between reality and the imagined? Or do you not make an effort to see past your perceptions?

 

[Adhmar]

I wanted to pose my other thread another way.

In church, often the pastor says that God is "in this place".

So, is God distinct from the things in the room?

If you removed the pews, would God still be there?
If you removed the carpet, the windows, the walls, the crosses, the musical instruments, would God still be there?
If you removed the pastor, would God still be there?
If you removed 80% of the congregation, would God still be there?
If you removed the whole congregation, would God still be there?

You are now left with a barren plot of land: no building, no people, no pastor. Is God still there?

Okay, so keep removing stuff...

If you remove the grass and dirt from the plot, is God still there?
If you remove the Earth, is God still there?
If you remove the Solar System, is God still there?
If you remove the Universe, is God still there?

You are now left with Nothing. Eternal nothingness. A pure vacuum. No universe. No matter.

Is God still there?

My main questions:

1) How is God distinguishable from Nothingness?
2) Is God distinct? Or is God dependent?

The original church was the body, are the people. Pay close attention to Paul. (1 Cor. 12:12–13)

Man is God's Glory, made in his image. Look at yourself in the mirror. Everything good and bad you feel is God. God the father is the light and the darkness. He is Love, but he is also a Man of War. (Exodus 15:3) He is righteous because he can control himself and doesn't sin. As children of God, we have to learn to be like him again because sin entered the world with original sin. Jesus is the light in the darkness. The Good Shepherd to get us out of danger of God's judgment so he doesn't completely destroy us and end the cycle of societal decay. We will be of the spirit again instead of being of the flesh.

That being said, when you ask Jesus into your heart, and love him more than anything else, he will live through you. Followers of Christ have to be willing to take up their cross. If you want to live forever, then the Lord is not your Shepard. If the Lord is your Shephard you shall not want. (Psalms 23) After you make it that far God will baptize your with fire and you will get the spirit. The spirit will guide you like a compass. Many of the authors of the new testament called themselves Bond Servants of Christ. They learned to read the spirit and willingly followed where it was taking them. They became willing slaves.

When many people say that "God is in this place" in reference to the church, they are usually talking about the Holy Ghost which can come like a cloud. The veil has to be removed so you can see it. It's like a loose golden fog. The heaver it is the stronger God's presence. He doesn't enter into a place very heavily usually because 99.9%+ of us are not worthy of his Glory.

To develop in faith you have to learn to joyfully endure trials. (James 1:2-4) The Friends of God in Germany along the Rhine in the mid 1400's were a good example of this. I would post a link but I am not allowed yet.

The Friends of God learned about this through living through plague, famine, and war. You can learn to joyfully endure trials through regular exercise at your own pace. I am not talking about doing some arm curls, but more muscle endurance training, running long distances etc. God is a Man of War. Other then Jesus, David was God's favorite Man. Army Ranger training at your own pace. Running or strenuous walks with music is the best. Just remember that Rome wasn't built in a day and neither are you. I left some websites on my profile if you want to know more.

 

[Resha Caner]

By what method do you discern between reality and the imagined? Or do you not make an effort to see past your perceptions?

See past our perceptions? You'll have to explain to me how you do this. So there is a way for me to detect external objects without using any of my senses?

But it is an empty explanation, it tells us little to nothing about either the universe and what to expect from it and even leaves us an ill defined concept from which we can not even say what would be different about the universe or our expectations of it if God does or doesn't exist.

God doesn't work as an explanation and the universe in which it does exist has all the same expected qualities as the universe without.

As I said, nothing new. I reiterated my position and you yours. I think I've addressed your objection and you say I haven't. What interests me about this discussion is that you seem to speak of God as if you have a definitive idea while at the same time denying there is anything definitive about it.

So, it seems to me the problem you present is a problem we have with a multitude of things. I can say how the universe would be different without God. It's just that you won't accept it because I can't demonstrate it. Well, I expect a scientist would say the universe would be very different if there were no leptons ... might even be able to model what would happen. But it's also impossible to demonstrate our current universe without any leptons.

Or, you continue to speak of God as if he's my circus pony that I keep in a shed, and that I can trot him out whenever I like. When I point out that you just can't treat persons in such a manner, you seem to object to me referring to God as a person. You say the analogy doesn't work, but it's not an analogy. God is a person (actually 3 persons, but we're not even close to ready for that).

So, can you tell me exactly what it is about God you object to? I've been asked if He can physically interact with material objects? Yes. So he can do things in this world? Yes. Can he speak so humans hear him? Yes.

Will he do this on my command as a demonstration for you? No.

You say that leaves you with nothing to look for. OK. If you still feel you don't know what to look for, I'll not disagree. God will have to take the initiative to come to you. There's nothing I can do about that.

So is it the fact that you have to wait on God that frustrates you, or is there something about what I've said that is not a "rational concept" (I believe that's the phrase you've been using)?

If it's the latter, you're going to have to help me out - be more specific regarding your objection to what I've said.

 

[variant]

As I said, nothing new. I reiterated my position and you yours. I think I've addressed your objection and you say I haven't.

You can address my objection at any time by giving me a variable that will be expected to be different in a universe with a God verses one without a God.

You have indeed not done so.

My intention here is to demonstrate the vacuousness of the concept and the epistemic chasm that is theology.

What interests me about this discussion is that you seem to speak of God as if you have a definitive idea while at the same time denying there is anything definitive about it.

I do not. Unless you don't understand that indefinite has a definition. Using the word indefinite to describe something doesn't make it more definite.

So, it seems to me the problem you present is a problem we have with a multitude of things. I can say how the universe would be different without God. It's just that you won't accept it because I can't demonstrate it.

Yes, you seem to get the point. The non-differentiability between truth and falsity is our issue here.

God makes no predictions that are possible to test, so it's use as an explanation or description is null.

Well, I expect a scientist would say the universe would be very different if there were no leptons ... might even be able to model what would happen. But it's also impossible to demonstrate our current universe without any leptons.

It is a problem with other concepts, not leptons though.

Leptons have predictable effects though that we can measure and differentiate. They are descriptions of physical things that have predictable effects within the system.

So, a lepton verses not a lepton is not hard to differentiate at all. What with all the definite characteristics and all.

The "universe without leptons" would be theoretical, and we could approach it as an idea because we have a good idea of what leptons are and how they operate. The cosmology though, only comes into effect here because it excludes God as a rational idea from the entire universe.

Or, you continue to speak of God as if he's my circus pony that I keep in a shed, and that I can trot him out whenever I like.

No, I keep saying that God is an indefinite thing that you have no basis for truthful claims about.

We seem to agree that you don't have the proper experiences to define such a being and yet you seem to continuously want to do exactly that.

I object to all authoritative claims about God.

When I point out that you just can't treat persons in such a manner, you seem to object to me referring to God as a person. You say the analogy doesn't work, but it's not an analogy. God is a person (actually 3 persons, but we're not even close to ready for that).

"God is a person" Is an assertion. It is an idea. And, It is an analogy. You compare your idea to a person over and over. I have ample experiences with persons and no experiences that I can say are of God.

So, can you tell me exactly what it is about God you object to?

I don't object to God at all, by my reasoning I can not. I object to people making claims about something they can neither begin to define, perceive or demonstrate.

I've been asked if He can physically interact with material objects? Yes. So he can do things in this world? Yes. Can he speak so humans hear him? Yes.

Will he do this on my command as a demonstration for you? No.

Too bad for you then. If you could show any of these things to be true you might have a point.

You say that leaves you with nothing to look for. OK. If you still feel you don't know what to look for, I'll not disagree. God will have to take the initiative to come to you. There's nothing I can do about that.

I shall wait with bated breath.

So is it the fact that you have to wait on God that frustrates you, or is there something about what I've said that is not a "rational concept" (I believe that's the phrase you've been using)?

I'm not particularly frustrated. If there is a God and it wants to make himself known it will.

The people who are frustrated here are believers in their attempts to rationalize their very specific contentions about what are invisible and indefinite beings.

If it's the latter, you're going to have to help me out - be more specific regarding your objection to what I've said.

I find people being authoritative about indefinite beings for whatever purpose to be objectionable.

So, I find your basic authority to speak on the matter to be inherently questionable.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

A student places his finished paper on a table outside and goes inside to get a drink. When he comes back, the paper is gone. How can he discern what happened? Short of extraordinary efforts like pumping the dog's stomach, checking the security cameras he happened to install, etc., he can't.

He doesn't know.

It could be:
1) The dog ate it
2) The wind blew it away
3) He imagined he wrote the paper, but never did
4) The Russians stole it in an attempt to destablize the Ukraine
5) ...

He doesn't know, and no "idea" of how it might have happened is going to help him because there is no evidence to distinguish #1 from #2, #3, etc.

So, yeah, the logical thing to do is go with the statistics - with the most likely explanation. But what changes the whole picture - completely changes it - is when his friend walks in and explains that he thought it was a stack of scratch paper, and he used it as kindling to start the grill for their steaks that night.

The idea (what to look for) follows the experience (meeting the person).

Your analogies are always wrong and mix up things in a clever way that makes them seem convincing.

In the analogy, no one is doubting the existence of the person that tells you what happened to the paper. So meeting that person has nothing to do with what we were looking for.

In the analogy, no one is doubting the existence of the paper. The only thing that is in doubt is what happened to the paper.

Doubting what happened to something is a higher level of knowledge than doubting whether that thing exists.

First you must establish that the paper exists before trying to decide what happened to it.

Debating about what happened to the paper is like different theistic religions debating about what God is like. The atheist is the one that comes along and says the paper does not even exist so what are we debating about?

 

[Resha Caner]

First you must establish that the paper exists before trying to decide what happened to it.

We're close to straining the parable beyond reasonable limits, but I anticipated this. Recall that the student has no proof the paper ever existed. So if we tweak the story a bit where the student knows his friend's propensities and accuses him of using the paper for kindling (rather than the friend confessing), we indeed have a debate over existence.

I also anticipated the issue of probabilities that was mentioned earlier. Given the presence of the dog and that it's a windy day, the friend can easily argue that using the paper as kindling is the least likely answer. The wind is a more "natural" explanation than a need to invoke a person to make the paper disappear. [edit] The result is the same with and without the friend. Therefore, according to variant's model, the friend explanation is not a rational explanation.

The people who are frustrated here are believers in their attempts to rationalize their very specific contentions about what are invisible and indefinite beings.

Not in my case. You'll not see me start a thread entitled "What is God?" followed by a wall of text expounding all my speculations. I didn't start this thread, but was answering leftright's question. And that I will do. I'm here to talk with people who are interested in my answer. If all they want is a debate or to promote their own agenda or to mock, I'm not interested.

Similarly, you didn't have to join this discussion. That was your choice.

I shall wait with bated breath.

Will you? Is there any sense in which you're waiting for that, because you come across as someone who is unchangeably decided. It wasn't you, but there was another who made a statement to the effect, "Maybe there is a god, but it's not the god of the Bible because that has been proven false beyond any doubt." Really? If that's the attitude, I'm not the conversation that person is looking for.

You can address my objection at any time by giving me a variable that will be expected to be different in a universe with a God verses one without a God.

Certainly - though I doubt you'll accept it. In fact, I've mentioned it before, but I guess I was too subtle. Some people won't act until they have that personal experience with God. Examples would be Jonah, Thomas, Paul, and me. So, Thomas' mission to India wouldn't have happened in a world without God, because Thomas wouldn't have acted.

The "universe without leptons" would be theoretical, and we could approach it as an idea because we have a good idea of what leptons are and how they operate. The cosmology though, only comes into effect here because it excludes God as a rational idea from the entire universe.

Ah, but this is why I brought up the example. I didn't say one leption. I said all leptons. That is the better analogy to what you're asking. If you're willing to accept the theoretical impact as an answer, then we have a host of examples. It's called theology.

If not, you're asking me for a specific incident.

God makes no predictions that are possible to test, so it's use as an explanation or description is null.

This is why I continue to push these parables about the traits of persons. You're going to have to provide me an example of something you would consider an acceptable testable example for persons, because I'm not seeing it.

And to be clear, we're not talking about statistics. It's not good enough to say you would survey 100 people and 95% prefer chocolate ice cream over anchovy ice cream and so we can measure the real world impact on the anchovy ice cream business. Nor is post ex facto acceptable - asking for your friend's vacation schedule so we have a certain confidence he will appear in Hawaii at a certain time. Finally, you need to consider accessibility. I've used Obama as an example, but Putin or Kim Jong Un would be even better. You'll need to explain how we prove that an inaccessible (and/or uncooperative) authority is the instigator and the not the front man for the actions attached to their name - that Putin actually ordered Russian troops into the Crimea and not some other functionary - that Kim Jong Un actually made the decision to execute his uncle, and it wouldn't have happened if he had objected.

I need an example where you predict a specific person will do a specific thing and then you verify the specific person did that specific thing, because it seems to me that is what you're asking for.

If not, then let's clarify what you are asking for.

 

[variant]

Not in my case. You'll not see me start a thread entitled "What is God?" followed my a wall of text expounding all my speculations. I didn't start this thread, but was answering leftright's question. And that I will do. I'm here to talk with people who are interested in my answer. If all they want is a debate or to promote their own agenda or to mock, I'm not interested.

Yes, but you are indeed suffering from the frustration I outlined. You would like to speak authoritatively on God and you don't even have the basic foundations of an idea, let alone a good authority on the nature of what you speak.

Similarly, you didn't have to join this discussion. That was your choice.

My presence here is simple, I answered the question in the OP in two short sentences.

God is not distinct nor distinguishable from not God.

That is the epistemic problem of theism.

Your attempts to rationalize your beliefs in my direction and the consistent attempts to analogize the epistemic problem of theism with any number of much more regular and less problematic ideas have given me reason to speak further.

Will you? Is there any sense in which you're waiting for that, because you come across as someone who is unchangeably decided. It wasn't you, but there was another who made a statement to the effect, "Maybe there is a god, but it's not the god of the Bible because that has been proven false beyond any doubt." Really? If that's the attitude, I'm not the conversation that person is looking for.

If God exists and wishes to demonstrate it's existence I certainly am willing to entertain it.

I admit openly to having sincere doubts as to God's nature (given that at least one exists) being anything like what you suspect it to be, mainly because the religion you follow seems to me to have the purpose of appealing to human psychological needs.

Certainly - though I doubt you'll accept it. In fact, I've mentioned it before, but I guess I was too subtle. Some people won't act until they have that personal experience with God. Examples would be Jonah, Thomas, Paul, and me. So, Thomas' mission to India wouldn't have happened in a world without God, because Thomas wouldn't have acted.

So, a world without a God would not have any religious prophets or people who feel certain enough to proselytize?

I counter with Zoroaster, Buddha, Mohamed, Krishna, ect.

Why did their messages succeed?

Ah, but this is why I brought up the example. I didn't say one leption. I said all leptons. That is the better analogy to what you're asking. If you're willing to accept the theoretical impact as an answer, then we have a host of examples. It's called theology.

If not, you're asking me for a specific incident.

Yes, but we do have leptons so it's a pretty bad example.

The theory of a universe without leptons might indeed be suffering from the same problem (because it may be impossible), but leptons are definite, and we know something about what they do in the universe.

This is why I continue to push these parables about the traits of persons. You're going to have to provide me an example of something you would consider an acceptable testable example for persons, because I'm not seeing it.

Things only persons can do? What would we expect on a world that was inhabited by intelligent persons? Writing is one pretty convincing thing to show a positive evidence for persons.

Were you expecting that to be hard?

And to be clear, we're not talking about statistics. It's not good enough to say you would survey 100 people and 95% prefer chocolate ice cream over anchovy ice cream and so we can measure the real world impact on the anchovy ice cream business. Nor is post ex facto acceptable - asking for your friend's vacation schedule so we have a certain confidence he will appear in Hawaii at a certain time. Finally, you need to consider accessibility. I've used Obama as an example, but Putin or Kim Jong Un would be even better. You'll need to explain how we prove that an inaccessible (and/or uncooperative) authority is the instigator and the not the front man for the actions attached to their name - that Putin actually ordered Russian troops into the Crimea and not some other functionary - that Kim Jong Un actually made the decision to execute his uncle, and it wouldn't have happened if he had objected.

I need an example where you predict a specific person will do a specific thing and then you verify the specific person did that specific thing, because it seems to me that is what you're asking for.

If not, then let's clarify what you are asking for.

If you are not being intentionally obtuse, You're not quite grasping the scope of our discussion.

I am talking about the most baseline idea of a thing, not knowing all facts or the most intimate details of human action.

Obviously many facts are not knowable or not entirely knowable. The 651st last word that you thought of is probably not knowable, but I have no reason to doubt it happened in these terms. We're not talking about the lack of some specific knowledge here, we are talking about the lack of the very basic distinctiveness of an idea. The problem I speak of is the lack of a foundation upon which we can build to any kind of knowledge or understanding.

The point I am making is that there isn't even a single defining characteristic of the proposed entity you speak of so often. No way to approach it. All events prove it's existence equally.

And something that explains everything explains nothing.

 

[Davian]

See past our perceptions? You'll have to explain to me how you do this. So there is a way for me to detect external objects without using any of my senses?

I am not saying not to use your senses.

There are methodologies to determine when our senses (and the perceptions built on them) cannot be trusted.

I perceive the material from which my desk is made to be solid. Intellectually I know this not to be true, based on scientific methodology, such as that used in the Geiger–Marsden experiment.

Geiger–Marsden experiment

I perceive the A and B squares on the board image to be of different shades, but in reality they are not.

By what method do you determine the accuracy of your perceptions? Or do you not make an effort to see past your perceptions?

 

[Resha Caner]

By what method do you determine the accuracy of your perceptions? Or do you not make an effort to see past your perceptions?

I imagine my methods are similar to those of everyone else. Yes, of course we can be fooled. But asking, "Is this real?" is a question of infinite regress as I already noted.

Whether the desk is solid is a semantic game. Yes, science has shown it to be largely empty space, but when I push against it, I feel a resisting force that I describe as "solid". Solid doesn't mean the desk fills all the space of a certain volume. It means a desk is different than a block of foam, and I detect that difference with my senses.

Yes, but you are indeed suffering from the frustration I outlined. You would like to speak authoritatively on God and you don't even have the basic foundations of an idea, let alone a good authority on the nature of what you speak.

Someone trying to explain themselves is necessarily feeling authoritative? Maybe about my personal experiences, because I don't see how anyone else could be authoritative. But, no, I'm quite satisfied with my relationship to God, and that doesn't involve any need to be authoritative with others.

I don't see why you feel this need to extend your "I don't know" answer to a claim about all humanity for all time and their relationship to God. If anything is a grab for authority, that is.

So, a world without a God would not have any religious prophets or people who feel certain enough to proselytize?

No. You still miss my point. Those are examples of people who would not act unless they had a personal experience - unless they actually, physically, audibly, heard God. Some have the faith to act without that, and I expected you would dismiss such actions as acting on nothing. The examples I gave, then, are people who acted on something physical. Of course you can also dismiss those as psychological - as no different than some mania of "hearing voices". But that's just armchair quarterbacking - no better than a wild guess.

I counter with Zoroaster, Buddha, Mohamed, Krishna, ect.

Why did their messages succeed?

Did I ever claim God didn't speak to them? Though I think you're in error to put Buddha in that list. I don't think he ever claimed God spoke to him.

The "success" of their message is not my point.

Yes, but we do have leptons so it's a pretty bad example.

Do we? We have this "base" understanding you speak of regarding what a lepton "is"? As I recall, electrons were originally posited as particles with a (classical) radius, etc. Then came wave-particle duality ... and now we're at what? A mathematical probability distribution? So electrons are a distribution of numbers?

But again, tell me what a person "is". You're still not doing that.

Things only persons can do? What would we expect on a world that was inhabited by intelligent persons? Writing is one pretty convincing thing to show a positive evidence for persons.

Were you expecting that to be hard?

God can write / has written. Shrug. Now what? Aren't you going to ask me for extant evidence? Or is it that easy? We're done now?

If God exists and wishes to demonstrate it's existence I certainly am willing to entertain it.

Then that is where I'll leave it.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

We're close to straining the parable beyond reasonable limits, but I anticipated this. Recall that the student has no proof the paper ever existed.

So if we tweak the story a bit where the student knows his friend's propensities and accuses him of using the paper for kindling (rather than the friend confessing), we indeed have a debate over existence.

I also anticipated the issue of probabilities that was mentioned earlier. Given the presence of the dog and that it's a windy day, the friend can easily argue that using the paper as kindling is the least likely answer. The wind is a more "natural" explanation than a need to invoke a person to make the paper disappear.

You're still missing the point. Your analogy makes no sense. Lets walk through and look at why:

Friend walks up to a picnic table where the student is sitting looking a bit distraught.

Friend, "Hey what's up?"
Student, "I wrote a paper this morning and left it on this table and now its gone!"
Friend. "What paper? I don't see any evidence for it that you even wrote it."
Student, "No, I did. I wrote a specific paper for this assignment."
Friend, "Okay, well first you have to prove that paper exists."
Student, "Okay, yea sure, here is some in my backpack." (Note #1: this is something I haven't seen a theist do: provide some agreed upon qualities to look for in a god).
Friend, "Okay, I see that paper so we can both agree on some qualities of what we are looking for. Now, how could you propose that we find your specific paper now that we have agreed we have agreed that paper in general exists?"
Student, "Well, we could look under the table. We could look in the dogs stomach. We could figure out which way the wind is blowing and go looking in that direction." (Note#2: this is another thing that theists fail to do: provide agreed upon ways to look for God...and even if found, we don't know that we've found him because of the lack of definition from Note #1)
Friend, "Cool, I'll help you look." (Note #3: this is another reason the analogy fails. Both people end up looking for the lost paper. With regards to God, theists claim to have found something called God while atheists can't seem to find it)
Friend, "Oh, here I found it!"
Student, "Oh awesome. Thanks."


Here is the analogy tweaked to make the theistic case more apparent:

Friend walks up to picnic table where the student is sitting, looking content,

Student, "Hey, I wrote this paper and its sitting on this table."
Friend, "Where? I don't see it."
Student, "Its right here."
Friend, "I still don't see it. What does it look like."
Student, "Well, its more of a person."
Friend, "What? But I thought you said it was a paper."
Student, "Not, a paper, the Paper."
Friend, "There's no other papers?"
Student, "Nope, this is the only one."
Friend, "I still don't see any evidence of this paper that you're talking about."
Student, "Well, like I said, its a person."
Friend, "Is it a person or is it a paper?"
Student, "Both."
Friend, "Ok, I'm confused. Are we talking about a paper that you wrote down on physical paper that has some sort of physical manifestation in the world, or is it just a paper that you wrote in your head?"
Student, "No its real."
Friend, "You didn't really answer my question"


And so on.

 

[variant]

I imagine my methods are similar to those of everyone else. Yes, of course we can be fooled. But asking, "Is this real?" is a question of infinite regress as I already noted.

No, it is not. Real is a question of reliability predictability and usefulness of the idea.

You can of course infinitely regress past this point but there is no value to you in doing so.

Someone trying to explain themselves is necessarily feeling authoritative?
Maybe about my personal experiences, because I don't see how anyone else could be authoritative. But, no, I'm quite satisfied with my relationship to God, and that doesn't involve any need to be authoritative with others.

You are not trying to explain yourself you are making assertions about what God is like.

You have made many assertions about it's nature, without being able to answer the basic epidemiological problem.

I can catalog them for you if you so desire.

I don't see why you feel this need to extend your "I don't know" answer to a claim about all humanity for all time and their relationship to God. If anything is a grab for authority, that is.

If they could answer the basic epidemiological problem then I wouldn't extend the problem to them.

Fact of the matter is that all claims about God suffer from it.

Now you are correct that they suffer from it from my perspective, but I am not sure how I could speak from anything other than my own perspective.

No. You still miss my point. Those are examples of people who would not act unless they had a personal experience - unless they actually, physically, audibly, heard God.

Assertion. So now you have insight into the physical experiences people have and how they "hear" God?

I have no insight into the private experiences of others in this sense, as you have pointed out, so, are we only privy to how people privately experience God when it supports your conclusions or is this a broad assertion people can make about other peoples experiences with God?

How can we tell whether people genuinely heard God? What does that look like? How can you differentiate it from those who did not?

Some have the faith to act without that, and I expected you would dismiss such actions as acting on nothing. The examples I gave, then, are people who acted on something physical. Of course you can also dismiss those as psychological - as no different than some mania of "hearing voices". But that's just armchair quarterbacking - no better than a wild guess.

Here, as I just stated you simply dismiss explanations that don't agree with your mindset and accept those that do agree with it. This is an argument via confirmation bias on your part.

My position is that you can't tell the difference between a person legitimately acting because they experience God and someone who is not.

Notice here that you are the Gnostic and I am the agnostic, so my position doesn't require that I know these peoples psychology, just that there are multiple possible explanations for the event.

Did I ever claim God didn't speak to them? Though I think you're in error to put Buddha in that list. I don't think he ever claimed God spoke to him.

You can not claim to be a christian and also adhere to truths that contradict the basic message you adhere to.

Prophets don't show us the difference between God and not God, they may exist regardless of the God they profess to speak for.

The "success" of their message is not my point.

Then what is your point? What specific variable about the various prophets tells us whether or not God exists?

How can we use them to differentiate either the existence or nature of God?

Do we? We have this "base" understanding you speak of regarding what a lepton "is"?

Considerable direct evidence? Proper predictions of experimentation. Information about how it acts and how it doesn't act.

As I recall, electrons were originally posited as particles with a (classical) radius, etc. Then came wave-particle duality ... and now we're at what? A mathematical probability distribution? So electrons are a distribution of numbers?

I made no claim that we had a complete idea of leptons, there are plenty of things we don't know about them at any given time.

This 'base' is a working definition that allows us to tell whether or not our ideas about them are correct and something to go on when measuring and asking questions about them in the future.

Wikipedia:

A lepton is an elementary, spin-1⁄2 particle that does not undergo strong interactions, but is subject to the Pauli exclusion principle.[1] The best known of all leptons is the electron, which governs nearly all of chemistry as it is found in atoms and is directly tied to all chemical properties. Two main classes of leptons exist: charged leptons (also known as the electron-like leptons), and neutral leptons (better known as neutrinos). Charged leptons can combine with other particles to form various composite particles such as atoms and positronium, while neutrinos rarely interact with anything, and are consequently rarely observed.

We formed this definition via this wonderful process called observation, something not quite available for God.

But again, tell me what a person "is". You're still not doing that.

That's a bigger question than our discussion. I am giving you what I don't get from theist for God, something that will tell you if there are people present or that there were.

Admittedly on the most basic level, but why should I go past the most basic level to make my point?

God can write / has written. Shrug. Now what? Aren't you going to ask me for extant evidence? Or is it that easy? We're done now?

So give me a writing that we could attribute to God and not something else.

That humans write is a pretty mundane observation, and something we could use to see whether persons existed somewhere and exclude other explanations.

What does it look like when God writes?

Then that is where I'll leave it.

Good, then we agree that you don't have the power to differentiate God from not god to me. Please take my ideas into consideration when you try to do so for yourself.

Have a nice day.

 

[Resha Caner]

You're still missing the point. Your analogy makes no sense. Lets walk through and look at why:

I don't think your version represents what I've said. I tried to be straight-up, and it seems to me the questions boil down to these:

You ask, "Is God x?" or "Can God do x?" I reply yes or no.

For those questions where I answered yes, the typical question that follows is, "How do you know God can do x?" I've replied either with, "I've experienced it - witnessed it," or "The Bible says he can."

The final question, then, is usally of the form, "Can you demonstrate that?" Since I interpret that as, "Can you make God do that?", my answer is no.

 

[Resha Caner]

You have made many assertions about it's nature, without being able to answer the basic epidemiological problem.

I can catalog them for you if you so desire.

If you wish. I think I understand you. It's just that I don't see why the issue you raise is unique to the question of God.

Now you are correct that they suffer from it from my perspective, but I am not sure how I could speak from anything other than my own perspective.

I agree, and I've never asked you to use any perspective but your own. All I've asked is, "Do you understand my perspective?" The reply tends to be of the form, "Yes, I understand why your perspective is faulty." If I thought my perspective was faulty, I would change it, so what I hear you saying is I lack the intellectual capacity, am deceived, or something else along those lines.

Shrug. OK.

Assertion. So now you have insight into the physical experiences people have and how they "hear" God?

I don't see why you need to make this sound extraordinary. I hear sounds. I assume other people hear sounds in a manner similar to mine. So, when someone says, "Person X talked to me," it's a rather common assumption what their experience was.

I have acted based on what trusted people suggested to me. I assume other people act based on what trusted people suggest to them. So, when someones says, "I did this because Person X suggested it," again, it's a rather common assumption.

What I'm saying, then, is that in certain cases, the action would not have happened if the person had not audibly heard God.

Here, as I just stated you simply dismiss explanations that don't agree with your mindset and accept those that do agree with it. This is an argument via confirmation bias on your part.

No. What I don't accept is some random person claiming they can analyze my psychology over the Internet.

Notice here that you are the Gnostic and I am the agnostic, so my position doesn't require that I know these peoples psychology, just that there are multiple possible explanations for the event.

Again, I don't see the need to throw out this label. I thought we covered this. I'm an engineer and (I assume) you're not. In that case, I have training you don't. Does that mean I have some secret, inaccessible knowledge you don't? Not really. You could get the same training as me, you just haven't.

You could have the same experiences as me. You just haven't.

You can not claim to be a christian and also adhere to truths that contradict the basic message you adhere to.

Who said I was adhering to the claims of Islam? That wasn't the question. Mohamed claimed God spoke to him. Maybe he did. I have nothing to judge that claim on.

Where my discernment comes is in comparing the claims of the Bible to the claims of the Koran. The claims differ. I accept the claims of the Bible and reject the claims of the Koran. You may disagree with the Bible, but that doesn't make it a unique epistemic problem. People make choices like that all the time.

Considerable direct evidence? Proper predictions of experimentation. Information about how it acts and how it doesn't act.

You can observe the effect, yes. Likewise, we can observe the effect on someone who believes in God. But that's not what you're asking me.

I made no claim that we had a complete idea of leptons, there are plenty of things we don't know about them at any given time.

Nor have I made a claim of complete knowledge of God. Just as you said regarding your knowledge of leptons, there are some things you know and somethings you don't know. For the things you know, you can demonstrate effects. I can do the same.

That's a bigger question than our discussion. I am giving you what I don't get from theist for God, something that will tell you if there are people present or that there were.

No, this is our discussion. You gave me something for "people". Now give me something for "a person". You suggested writing. Prove to me that the writing you produce was written by a specific person.

So give me a writing that we could attribute to God and not something else.

Yep. That's a tough problem, just as it is for giving an incontrovertible piece of writing for any person. Who wrote the Iliad? Or Hamlet? We know someone wrote those things, but who?

Good, then we agree that you don't have the power to differentiate God from not god to me.

I agreed to that a long time ago. You seem to want more, though.

 

[variant]

If you wish. I think I understand you. It's just that I don't see why the issue you raise is unique to the question of God.

It's not. It is a problem common to all non-falsifiable claims.

I agree, and I've never asked you to use any perspective but your own. All I've asked is, "Do you understand my perspective?" The reply tends to be of the form, "Yes, I understand why your perspective is faulty." If I thought my perspective was faulty, I would change it, so what I hear you saying is I lack the intellectual capacity, am deceived, or something else along those lines.

Shrug. OK.

I do understand your perspective. I'm just holding you to what I think is a very baseline and reasonable standard when interacting with mine.

I am using a very basic part of the formation of ideas to show another to be vacuous. A very important seeming idea that people (such as yourself) put a lot of effort into.

I don't see why you need to make this sound extraordinary. I hear sounds. I assume other people hear sounds in a manner similar to mine. So, when someone says, "Person X talked to me," it's a rather common assumption what their experience was.

I have acted based on what trusted people suggested to me. I assume other people act based on what trusted people suggest to them. So, when someones says, "I did this because Person X suggested it," again, it's a rather common assumption.

What I'm saying, then, is that in certain cases, the action would not have happened if the person had not audibly heard God.

I make it seem extraordinary because of all the time you just spent trying to define peoples perspectives as inaccessible to me.

When people say they talked to incorporeal entities, I am not sure any assumptions are appropriate to the nature of their experience.

I think your perspective requires a bit more skepticism.

No. What I don't accept is some random person claiming they can analyze my psychology over the Internet.

And yet you have some pretty fantastic grasp of how St. Thomas's relates to God in his mind. I dare say psychoanalysis over the internet is a better prospect. We can actually interact with one another.

Again, I don't see the need to throw out this label. I thought we covered this. I'm an engineer and (I assume) you're not. In that case, I have training you don't. Does that mean I have some secret, inaccessible knowledge you don't? Not really. You could get the same training as me, you just haven't.

You could have the same experiences as me. You just haven't.

You haven't even expounded on any experiences, unless I missed something. The point being of course that your experiences don't solve the problem.

You are free to be wrong about the nature your experiences.

If it was something available to all then it would solve the problem. It's not.

Who said I was adhering to the claims of Islam? That wasn't the question. Mohamed claimed God spoke to him. Maybe he did. I have nothing to judge that claim on.

The point is that God saying antithetical things to various persons seems to cast doubt on the idea that we can trust what people say they get from God.

Why should I trust people in this matter? They like you haven't shown me any Gods, or even how the idea operates in reality on the most basic level.

And why implicitly trust people? People lie.

Where my discernment comes is in comparing the claims of the Bible to the claims of the Koran. The claims differ. I accept the claims of the Bible and reject the claims of the Koran. You may disagree with the Bible, but that doesn't make it a unique epistemic problem. People make choices like that all the time.

My 'discernment' (observation) is that the more religious people say about how there are discernible characteristics of their religious thinking, the less they actually tell you about how to tell why one idea is right and the other is incorrect.

You can observe the effect, yes. Likewise, we can observe the effect on someone who believes in God. But that's not what you're asking me.

God explains all possible effects the idea has on people. Obviously this isn't the same as how we observe leptons.

Nor have I made a claim of complete knowledge of God. Just as you said regarding your knowledge of leptons, there are some things you know and somethings you don't know. For the things you know, you can demonstrate effects. I can do the same.

Obviously not. That is the point. God doesn't fall into the category of something you know, observe, or can predict the outcome of.

No, this is our discussion. You gave me something for "people". Now give me something for "a person". You suggested writing. Prove to me that the writing you produce was written by a specific person.

You simply miss the point, If I can give you any differentiation criterion between A and ~A the concept doesn't suffer the problem.

How much I know about any given thing will depend on the quality and quantity of such evidence.

Yep. That's a tough problem, just as it is for giving an incontrovertible piece of writing for any person. Who wrote the Iliad? Or Hamlet? We know someone wrote those things, but who?

More difficult actually, since we don't know that incorporeal Gods exist or can write things.

I agreed to that a long time ago. You seem to want more, though.

I also don't believe you can do it at all. Seeing as you can't define to me one expected quality how can I know what you expect from God in your own experience?