"Okay, I believe in a higher power(s) now...."

[MrsFoundit]

If you are going to water down the 'argument' this far, then why not just ask the age old question...

In response to a claim in post 470, "Engaging in this notion that there's some truth outside of our perception breaks down the whole discussion, because you can never validate that at all,"

Me, Post 480, "Introducing the claim that truth is only our best attempts to explain the world as opposed to something we perceive because it does also exist beyond our perception is equally destructive to discussion. If we know things exist because we perceive them, whatever is perceived may exist, including an external source of truth. If we do not know things exist because we perceive them, truth, the world, and explanations do not necessarily exist."

I am not presenting a case for existence God in that post.

 

[cvanwey]

In response to a claim in post 470, "Engaging in this notion that there's some truth outside of our perception breaks down the whole discussion, because you can never validate that at all,"

Me, Post 480, "Introducing the claim that truth is only our best attempts to explain the world as opposed to something we perceive because it does also exist beyond our perception is equally destructive to discussion. If we know things exist because we perceive them, whatever is perceived may exist, including an external source of truth. If we do not know things exist because we perceive them, truth, the world, and explanations do not necessarily exist."

I am not presenting a case for existence God in that post.

Thanks for the clarification. I left this thread for a while, as it is veering way off track, from the OP

But moving forward, has there since been any evidence, either observable, or other, for YHWH? If so, I'm fine with settling/solving/closing this thread right now. Really, my standards are fairly low

 

[MrsFoundit]

But moving forward, has there since been any evidence, either observable, or other, for YHWH?

What could other be in "either observable, or other," ?

 

[cvanwey]

What could other be in "either observable, or other," ?

What'za got? Anything [you feel] worth mentioning? We have roughly 500 posts of 'blah' thus far...

All I ask, in THIS thread, is to demonstrate the one true existing God. I feel I have been more than generous, in conceding that a singular agent must exist. I just need to now know if one of the ones asserted, thus far, is the real one. And if not, maybe this agent has not revealed Himself ever?

How are you so sure [your] asserted God is THE God? And why should I think the same as you?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

What could other be in "either observable, or other," ?

Detectable. Inferrable.
@cvanwey , it's quite clear by now. They have nothing. Who would have thought it? Congratulations, you really have performed a valuable service to Christian Apologetics. Quite simply, you've won not just the thread, but the forum.

 

[muichimotsu]

"Observe" requires our minds and senses, and thereby dependent on our perception.

Can you demonstrate the existence of rocks, independent of our ability to perceive them?

I don't think I claimed that, that would be objective verification in the metaphysical sense, that's not what I'm claiming, more that epistemologically we can reasonably conclude that such things would exist regardless of if we observed them or not, which is not the same as perception in the direct sense of observing, versus a general observation that is shared as knowledge after scientific investigation.

When you phrase a question in a loaded manner, I'm not answering it yes/no, I'm pointing out the faulty phrasing itself.

 

[muichimotsu]

What could other be in "either observable, or other," ?

Empiricism is not remotely the only method in terms of evidence and consideration, rationalism is arguably just as valid in the proper context: abstract concepts, etc.

 

[MrsFoundit]

How are you so sure [your] asserted God is THE God? And why should I think the same as you?

Do you want evidence "either observable, or other,"? If you include other, provide a distinction from 'blah'.

Every world view I have ever encountered seemed absurd to me, Christianity is the one that worked in application.

I do not claim to know what you should think.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Every world view I have ever encountered seemed absurd to me, Christianity is the one that worked in application.

Your personal, unjustified opinion is of no significance here.

No, wait, that's wrong. The fact that you have nothing to offer except your opinion is the reason @cvanwey wins everything.

On Christian Apologetics itself, dedicated to a rational defence of their religion, Christians were asked to justify their faith.
And the best they could come up with was "it just makes sense to me."

Thank you.

 

[muichimotsu]

In response to a claim in post 470, "Engaging in this notion that there's some truth outside of our perception breaks down the whole discussion, because you can never validate that at all,"

Me, Post 480, "Introducing the claim that truth is only our best attempts to explain the world as opposed to something we perceive because it does also exist beyond our perception is equally destructive to discussion. If we know things exist because we perceive them, whatever is perceived may exist, including an external source of truth. If we do not know things exist because we perceive them, truth, the world, and explanations do not necessarily exist."

I am not presenting a case for existence God in that post.

Abstracts don't exist remotely in the same manner as concrete things: numbers, logical principles, etc, can be said to be real and practical in their value even if they have no tangible existence, unlike a tree or a rock or a person. Claiming an external source of truth assumes truth is some qualitative substance we can determine rather than a property of assertions about reality

 

[muichimotsu]

Do you want evidence "either observable, or other,"? If you include other, provide a distinction from 'blah'.

Every world view I have ever encountered seemed absurd to me, Christianity is the one that worked in application.

I do not claim to know what you should think.

Isn't that pretty much an argument from personal incredulity? Effectively you're saying because nothing so far has seemed as compelling as Christianity, you might as well just believe that? It's rhetorical simplicity, not concerned with the truth of the claims, but how they seem better compared to other things: of course that would work if the idea of changing your perspective is intellectually paralyzing, so you ignore the cognitive dissonance that comes about when suddenly you have an experience that undermines what you thought was seemingly compelling apart from anything else, but is proven wrong

 

[MrsFoundit]

Isn't that pretty much an argument from personal incredulity? Effectively you're saying because nothing so far has seemed as compelling as Christianity, you might as well just believe that?

No, because any incredulity that applies is universal, "Every world view I have ever encountered seemed absurd to me", can you see how I did not say "except..." at all.

It's rhetorical simplicity, not concerned with the truth of the claims, but how they seem better compared to other things:

It is not based on comparison, it is based on effectiveness in application, but then you did miss the fact I did not exclude a world view from "seemed absurd".

of course that would work if the idea of changing your perspective is intellectually paralyzing, so you ignore the cognitive dissonance that comes about when suddenly you have an experience that undermines what you thought was seemingly compelling apart from anything else, but is proven wrong

What experience do you assume I must have had which "undermines what I thought"?

 

[MrsFoundit]

Abstracts don't exist remotely in the same manner as concrete things:

Still waiting for you to demonstrate this...

 

[MrsFoundit]

Your personal, unjustified opinion is of no significance here.

Do you have evidence for unjustified ?

On Christian Apologetics itself, dedicated to a rational defence of their religion, Christians were asked to justify their faith.

And a few atheists decided we failed, but provided no evidence themselves. Your personal, unjustified opinion is of no significance here.

 

[muichimotsu]

No, because any incredulity that applies is universal, "Every world view I have ever encountered seemed absurd to me", can you see how I did not say "except..." at all.

Can you be absolutely certain of that in regards to what you've seen? I don't claim to know all variations of Christianity, I would say I don't think fundamentally they are using a sound foundation in appealing to a supernatural reality

The incredulity is not universal, because some people can find Christianity credible and others find it incredulous, that already undermines your point

It is not based on comparison, it is based on effectiveness in application, but then you did miss the fact I did not exclude a world view from "seemed absurd".

That's little better than your personal incredulity, because it's subjective how that application plays out

What experience do you assume I must have had which "undermines what I thought"?

Perhaps experience was the wrong word, but a realization in regards to the correlation fallacies you arguably engage in, if, for instance, you believe God answers a prayer, but have framed the model in such a way that God can answer however it wants and thus you can thank God for something, but then also try to thank a doctor if they saved you by association of God working through them. The mentality itself has to be undermined in critically examining it, people don't have experiences that will make them skeptical, they have to utilize skepticism in response to the experiences and their worldview

 

[muichimotsu]

Still waiting for you to demonstrate this...

It's easy: numbers exist as a descriptive concept we apply in counting things, no one in their right mind is claiming we can demonstrate concepts except as we can conceive of them, it's not teh same as empirical demonstration, which sounds more like what you're asking for. Unless it is the rational demonstration, in which case I already did it, because numbers exist as a concept we apply, they don't exist in a material manner in themselves (there's not number 1 in space somewhere from which we draw all 1, ala the Green Lantern Power Battery)

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Do you have evidence for unjustified ?

Of course. The fact that you gave a personal opinion without justifying it.

And a few atheists decided we failed, but provided no evidence themselves. Your personal, unjustified opinion is of no significance here.

Sorry, but we have twenty-eight pages of evidence. We invited you to justify your faith in your God, and you couldn't.
And that was a genuine achievement on Christian Apologetics Forums. Not often a thread is so successful. In fact, you might call it the achievement, because if Christians can't justify their faith in God, apologetics itself has failed.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Can you be absolutely certain of that in regards to what you've seen?

Yes

I don't claim to know all variations of Christianity, I would say I don't think fundamentally they are using a sound foundation in appealing to a supernatural reality

Your personal incredulity is irrelevant.

The incredulity is not universal, because some people can find Christianity credible and others find it incredulous, that already undermines your point

"Every world view I have ever encountered seemed absurd to me", does not involve other people.

That's little better than your personal incredulity, because it's subjective how that application plays out

"Every world view I have ever encountered seemed absurd to me", you still seem to fail to see my point, no exceptions apply.

Perhaps experience was the wrong word, but a realization in regards to the correlation fallacies you arguably engage in,

You say "arguably", it could apply to anything.

if, for instance, you believe God answers a prayer,

Prayer does not work on a framework of place request, get answer or not.

The mentality itself has to be undermined in critically examining it, people don't have experiences that will make them skeptical, they have to utilize skepticism in response to the experiences and their worldview

Unless they have no use for skepticism.

 

[MrsFoundit]

It's easy: numbers exist as a descriptive concept we apply in counting things, no one in their right mind is claiming we can demonstrate concepts except as we can conceive of them, it's not teh same as empirical demonstration, which sounds more like what you're asking for. Unless it is the rational demonstration, in which case I already did it, because numbers exist as a concept we apply, they don't exist in a material manner in themselves (there's not number 1 in space somewhere from which we draw all 1, ala the Green Lantern Power Battery)

You rate mathematics as part of "concrete things"?

 

[muichimotsu]

Yes

Then you're claiming absolute knowledge, which you cannot possibly have

Your personal incredulity is irrelevant.

And you've failed to show how your subjective perspective is meant to reach such absolute conclusions rather than provisional ones, open to future evidence

"Every world view I have ever encountered seemed absurd to me", does not involve other people.

Actually it does, because people express those worldviews, they don't exist in a vacuum, even 2 people holding to the same beliefs can manifest them differently in their praxis

"Every world view I have ever encountered seemed absurd to me", you still seem to fail to see my point, no exceptions apply.

Then you're dealing in black/white thinking, which isn't rational in pretty much anything except religion, which seems to just be some special exception (which tends towards a special pleading fallacy)

You say "arguably", it could apply to anything.

Being willing to admit your beliefs might be wrong is far more humble and honest than clinging to them because of sentiment and inference

Prayer does not work on a framework of place request, get answer or not.

It might as well, because God supposedly hears all prayers, even according to the bible, it just doesn't answer most of them, if at all in terms of how we understand the way things occur

Unless they have no use for skepticism.

Then I'd say that's a fundamental problem and someone not realizing that is engaging in massively damaging psychological practices, such as self delusion