What’s wrong with this argument?

[Kylie]

Sensory evidence.
All evidence is derived from the senses.

But a person's sense can be fooled, can't they?

 

[Bradskii]

1. If we can at least define God as truth in love

2. And we can say we’ve experienced truth in love

3. Then we can say we’ve experienced God

4. Therefore, God exists

What’s wrong with this?

You've got 4 steps that you think logically lead to a conclusion that God exists. Unfortunately, you assumed He existed in the very first step. In other words, the premise contains the conclusion.

 

[Lion IRC]

But a person's sense can be fooled, can't they?

You mean like post #55 ?

 

[HitchSlap]

Sensory evidence.
All evidence is derived from the senses.

How should I uses my senses to determine a miraculous claim?

 

[Lion IRC]

Well, what works for me is if I pray for a miracle and I see that thing eventuate, I will typically trust my own eyes. Primary evidence. I saw it happen. If we can't trust our own senses, forget about epistemic humility, we can't even believe in the reality of existence. #brain_in_a_vat

A few years ago our beloved little (elderly) dog Lucy ran off during a thunder storm and was lost for 3 days. We searched desperately- continuously- even throughout the night.

I was about to give up hope because we live in a remote rural/farming area where natural selection disadvantages dogs that look like foxes. And we have no near neighbours. Not a suburban street where lots of ppl might see her and recognise her as our dog and feed her/help her. Lucy isn't socialised to strangers because she seldom sees any other people.

After 3 days, we were starting to give up hope. I prayed, not that God bring her back, but that God might let me know whether I would see her again. At the very moment I prayed those words I heard a very faint and distant bark. Imaginary? All in my head? Wishful thinking? Pure coincidence? For me, it was God's answer to my prayer.

Just before nightfall that same day my wife cried out to me - there was Lucy slowly limping her way up our long driveway. Dehydrated and exhausted.

Was this a miracle? Did I witness this happen with my own eyes and ears?

In so many ways, the people who experience true miracles don't really care that much whether or not hyper-skeptics believe in miracles. Nor do we understand the mind of the unbeliever who demands a repeat performance...on-command.

Veridical proof or else.

Or else what? LOL

 

[Bradskii]

Was this a miracle? Did I witness this happen with my own eyes and ears?

In so many ways, the people who experience true miracles don't really care that much whether or not hyper-skeptics believe in miracles. Nor do we understand the mind of the unbeliever who demands a repeat performance...on-command.

Veridical proof or else.

Miracles come in two flavours. The first is the one that can't be proven as a miracle. A lost dog turning up for example. Or a spontaneous remission from a serious illness. Dancing suns perhaps.

Then there are the ones where evidence is there if you want to examine it. Mary appearing in Zeitoun. Or quite a local one for me, appearing on a fence at a local headland a few minutes away from where I'm typing this: https://www.smh.com.au/national/virgin-mary-hits-sydney-beach-again-20030203-gdg7kz.html

You'll find that the relevant church authority (Catholic in the last two cases) won't touch the latter with a ten foot bargepole. I mean, what's the point of a miracle if you can prove it's false? It undermines all other claims.

 

[Kylie]

You mean like post #55 ?

Please show me how any of those people felt something that wasn't there.

 

[Lion IRC]

Perhaps I misunderstood you.
If we both agree that none of the blind men were being "fooled by their senses", and that the elephant in the room is real, then I'm happy.

 

[Kylie]

Perhaps I misunderstood you.
If we both agree that none of the blind men were being "fooled by their senses", and that the elephant in the room is real, then I'm happy.

I just don't see how the elephant thing applies in any way to the point?

A person's brain can receive sensory information that they interpret as a real thing, even when it is not. The phantom limb pain I mentioned, for example. The brain receives stimulation and interprets it as being from a limb that has been removed.

That's completely different to people feeling only one part of something and assuming that their experience represents 100% knowledge.

 

[Chriliman]

You've got 4 steps that you think logically lead to a conclusion that God exists. Unfortunately, you assumed He existed in the very first step. In other words, the premise contains the conclusion.

I’m not sure defining something means you’re assuming it exists. I could define a unicorn without assuming it exists(other than in my own imagination)

 

[Bradskii]

I’m not sure defining something means you’re assuming it exists. I could define a unicorn without assuming it exists(other than in my own imagination)

But you are assuming it (God in this case) does. There's a world of difference between 'Unicorns are pink' and 'Let's assume for the purpose of this exercise that unicorns are pink'.

There aren't any conditionals anywhere in your steps. Throw some in, see what happens and come back to me.

Edit: Whoops, my bad. You actually started with an 'if'. So I kinda need to let you off the hook in that regard. In which case I might agree that your logic is good. I just don't agree with the first premise.

 

[Chriliman]

But you are assuming it (God in this case) does. There's a world of difference between 'Unicorns are pink' and 'Let's assume for the purpose of this exercise that unicorns are pink'.

There aren't any conditionals anywhere in your steps. Throw some in, see what happens and come back to me.

Edit: Whoops, my bad. You actually started with an 'if'. So I kinda need to let you off the hook in that regard. In which case I might agree that your logic is good. I just don't agree with the first premise.

Good on you for pointing that out. Thank you.

 

[Mark Quayle]

1. If we can at least define God as truth in love

2. And we can say we’ve experienced truth in love

3. Then we can say we’ve experienced God

4. Therefore, God exists

What’s wrong with this?

One issue I see is whether a definition of a thing and experiencing that thing is enough to conclude it exists and/or wether we can even agree to define God as at least truth in love

This same error shows up all the time. For example, the Atheist will say they have peace, their conscience is as good as a Christians (and probably better) and so on. But they have no idea of the fallen nature of man, or of the meaning of Total Depravity, nor what it is to have the Holy Spirit motivating one.
Even they have some concept of what 'Truth in Love' means. And no two of us has the same view of it.

 

[Bradskii]

This same error shows up all the time. For example, the Atheist will say they have peace, their conscience is as good as a Christians (and probably better) and so on. But they have no idea of the fallen nature of man, or of the meaning of Total Depravity, nor what it is to have the Holy Spirit motivating one.
Even they have some concept of what 'Truth in Love' means. And no two of us has the same view of it.

Wow. Not just total depravity. But Total Depravity! I bet if you said it, it would sound like you were shouting it in a big enclosed box.

And no need to capitalise 'Atheist'.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Wow. Not just total depravity. But Total Depravity! I bet if you said it, it would sound like you were shouting it in a big enclosed box.

And no need to capitalise 'Atheist'.

lol habit.

 

[HitchSlap]

This same error shows up all the time. For example, the Atheist will say they have peace, their conscience is as good as a Christians (and probably better) and so on. But they have no idea of the fallen nature of man, or of the meaning of Total Depravity, nor what it is to have the Holy Spirit motivating one.
Even they have some concept of what 'Truth in Love' means. And no two of us has the same view of its.

As a former Christian I understand the terms, but as an unbeliever, I know there are better explanations for them.

 

[Hazelelponi]

1. If we can at least define God as truth in love

2. And we can say we’ve experienced truth in love

3. Then we can say we’ve experienced God

4. Therefore, God exists

What’s wrong with this?

One issue I see is whether a definition of a thing and experiencing that thing is enough to conclude it exists and/or wether we can even agree to define God as at least truth in love

The problem is your trying to philosophize God...

God is a being, one that has no scientific classification, nor can He be classified.

His description is many, but He does stand for objective truth for the human being. (I am the way, the truth, and the life).

Our modern definitions don't do justice to truth. Take love for instance, it mainly means be nice and leave others alone to their own ends, which God sometimes gives people but it's not "nice" to do so when you know the end result, indeed it is Judgement.

So if I were you I'd stop trying to make God into some feel good, sound good philosophy as it doesn't accurately represent Truth in modern language, it's just something that makes people feel better about themselves.

 

[Chriliman]

The problem is your trying to philosophize God...

God is a being, one that has no scientific classification, nor can He be classified.

His description is many, but He does stand for objective truth for the human being. (I am the way, the truth, and the life).

Our modern definitions don't do justice to truth. Take love for instance, it mainly means be nice and leave others alone to their own ends, which God sometimes gives people but it's not "nice" to do so when you know the end result, indeed it is Judgement.

So if I were you I'd stop trying to make God into some feel good, sound good philosophy as it doesn't accurately represent Truth in modern language, it's just something that makes people feel better about themselves.

So you wouldn’t agree to at least define God as truth in love?