Fair enough - it sounds like you're certain in every practical sense, but you don't believe you have "absolute knowledge". That was really the main distinction I was trying to make. Certainly I agree that you can't reason in any meaningful way without writing off certain kinds of extreme possibilities.

I think absolute knowledge is possible even from our subjective standpoint. For instance, it is absolutely true that "something" exists. Any argument against this is actually proof that it is true.

In any case, I am making a claim to absolute knowledge, because divine revelation could only ever be absolute knowledge. A person receiving such revelation would have a justified true belief in God. That's my claim. It's not something I could prove..only God could prove it, but neither am I unjustified in believing it.

I understand the contrast here, and I think I understand now what you're trying to get at better - I just don't think this contrast is fundamental to the question I'm interested in (which is different, I think, than the one you're interested in). To me the intermediary steps are fungible - it's the start states that are interesting to me, and to me they all require arbitrary stuff that I don't like, but that seem necessary.

Well, originally you were responding to this question:

"I'll ask you the same question I ask messenger..how would you tell the difference between a random chance Universe and one that God designed? What test could you conduct to find out which one you were in? When you can come up with a test to determine that, then you can tell me that there is no evidence. Logically, if there is a God, the entire Universe is evidence."

If we can boil all of the possibilities down to design and chance, how could you tell which Universe you were in? What test could you conduct that would tell you the difference? Atheists often demand some kind of empirical proof of God, yet they are never forthcoming on the details of what that proof would consist of. That is really the impetus behind this question..

I think this difference in focus may come down to our varying perceptions of those intermediary steps. For me, the general big bang model, ideas of how stars and planets coalesced, natural abiogenesis, and evolution are reasonably credible as they stand and I expect those theories to develop and become more credible. You see those things very differently. I think that naturally leads to a different focus.

The reason I don't see them as credible is because of a lack of evidence. For instance, there is absolutely no evidence of abiogenesis, at all. In fact, louis pasteur proved that it is most likely impossible. Life has never once been observed coming from non-life. Yet, it is assumed to be true because "there must be a naturalistic origin to life". It's a just-so story and it isn't at all credible. I've heard the odds of it happening are far greater than the number of atoms in the Universe.

People tell me that Creation sounds like a fairy tale, but then they tell me their own story that begins with "once upon a time a frog became a prince", and this somehow sounds plausible when you throw in billions of years.

time is in fact the hero of the plot. the impossible becomes possible..time itself performs the miracles.

George Wald
Harvard
Nobel laureate

I agree with this as well - to an extent. Having a unique God makes for a simple explanation in general (although it gets a bit complicated in practice for how we ended up precisely "here"). For the general problem of "how did this all get here", your recipe is very simple if it starts with God. On the flip side, God is a very big thing to assume. I think a case can be made for belief in a general God on something like this basis. Though I don't personally find it a convincing case at this time, that could change.

I think you'll have to admit that God is a much better theory than "I don't know". Yet, people bandy about "I don't know" as if this is the superior position. You have to wonder why to even think that the Universe was designed is subject to so much ridicule and derision, when it is actually a perfectly reasonable theory that is supported by evidence. As far as assuming God goes, you don't need to explain God to postulate Him as a possibility. What matters is whether the idea has explanatory power. The question always is, is God a better explanation for the evidence?

It isn't always an evidential argument, either. There many logical arguments to assume there is a God:

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

Perhaps another question: for you personally, would you describe your situation as more like "God provided me with special evidence, and I reason that He must exist because of this evidence" or more like "God produced a change in me directly, such that I now believe (unmediated by your own reason)"? (Or, obviously, something in between or different altogether). I think this would clarify your situation for me.

I received evidence in a number of different ways. One, is that God fundamentally changed me. In the blink of an eye, where I was broken, I was now healed. Where there was addiction, there was self-control. Where there was hate, there was now love and forgiveness. Where there was darkness, there was now light. It was instantaneous and it certainty had nothing to do with me. I would have stayed the way I was, left to my own devices. It was a supernatural transformation of my inner being.

Another thing is that God has demonstrated to me, beyond all reasonable doubt, that He is in absolute control of everything. To the extent that I no longer include the word coincidence in my vocabulary. In short, He has used my internal and external experiences to give me evidence of His existence, and this is ongoing. I always experience the presence of God because His Spirit lives within me.

There are other ways that I cannot quite put into words. The peace of God transcends all understanding. His love surpasses all expectation and every height; it is a deep and wondrous mystery. He is my Father, and I am his (adopted) son. My relationship with God is a personal one that has changed my entire life in every conceivable way, beyond anything I could ever imagine or hope for.

>> ^jmzero

About your perceived arrogance. I'm not judging anybody on the Sift. You alone are the one who came here with a single-purpose account to try and convert people to your faith. I'm telling you how you come off and how it's affecting your goal. Your spamming of what I consider nonsense into the middle of what I consider rational discussions and your indifference to the fact you're irritating people, in my mind, gives me licence to be blunt. You could accept it as honest criticism and go from there.

About evidence. You and your religion are the ones showing up uninvited and making incredible claims. If you're making the claim, it's to you to provide a way to prove it. The only way a claim has any meaning is if there's some way to falsify it. But your claim is designed in such a way that it is literally impossible to falsify it. That's the weakness that inspired the spoof deities like FSM and the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Bertrand Russell's Teapot: in practice, one is exactly as falsifiable as the other. In theory, your faith has seemingly falsifiable statements, but in practice, every time one of them is falsified, theologians and apologists work endlessly to somehow "make" it still hold true, sometimes by changing the meaning of words retroactively, or claiming retroactively it was just a metaphor or whatever. Sometimes it's a legitimate save, but usually it's intellectually dishonest. When someone points that out, you come up with some other intellectually dishonest way of getting out of that too.

Here's an example of what I mean: You make the claim that God is all-loving. To me, if words have meaning, "all-loving" that means God will only do loving things. But he commits mass murder several times. Now, any human that even once had ever beat somebody up, even in the heat of passion, would be disqualified from the category of "all-loving". But for God, there's always an apologist loophole because you'd decided beforehand that God was all-loving and will stop at nothing to make sure that label sticks.

Or the claim of intercessory prayer. Of the rigorous studies that have been done, all have said there is no correlation between prayer and positive health effects, even when religious groups sponsor the study. To anybody using reason, this proves that prayer doesn't work. But you need so badly for it to be true that you ignore the statistical evidence, and rely instead on anecdotes or the studies (however rigorous) that showed a positive effect, or you dismiss all the studies because they are science, and science is a false religion, or whatever. Regardless, as the result, "Prayer doesn't work" is unacceptable, any results by any method you will invent fault with, even if you agreed to the method beforehand.

If you disagree that you're being intellectually dishonest, find a definition of the term that you agree with, and I'll show you what I mean.>> ^shinyblurry:

You have said to me that you attempt to give me the benefit of the doubt, which I appreciate, however most of those here tell me I am wrong, so is that somehow less arrogant in your eyes? In any case, it is both falsifiable and provable. You could find Jesus' grave for instance. It is also provable in that God does reveal Himself, as billions of people today, and billions more throughout history have found out. Whether you believe that or not is beside the point. The point is, if you demand evidence, tell me how we should find it. How would you test for God? If God exists, the entire Universe is evidence for God. How would you tell if you were in a Universe created by God or one created by random chance?>> ^messenger:
"The answer"? Not sure what part of Feynman's interview response you're alluding to or what exactly "the question" was, but the best you personally can say is that you have "an answer", and one which may or may not be true, and which is both unfalsifiable and unprovable. Commenting all over the Sift like you know "the answer" and as if the rest of us are too stupid to just accept it is why people call you arrogant, FYI.>> ^shinyblurry:
It's better to know the answer than remain ignorant of it.

And to be doubly clear, there is no fundamental dichotomy between "chance" and "design". Chance needn't exist for a God or Godless universe, and "design" (as a vague concept, not specific theory) seems to exist either way too (though it could be illusory). I believe that I design things - so as an explanation for "how things are", most people are going to invoke design as a mechanism either way.

Of course there is a fundamental dichotomy between chance and design. Let's look at the definitions:

Chance

: something that happens unpredictably without discernible human intention or observable cause
b : the assumed impersonal purposeless determiner of unaccountable happenings : luck -an outcome decided by chance-

c : the fortuitous or incalculable element in existence

1
: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan : devise, contrive
2
a : to conceive and plan out in the mind -he designed the perfect crime- b : to have as a purpose : intend -she designed to excel in her studies- c : to devise for a specific function or end -a book designed primarily as a college textbook-

A design was deliberately caused by a mind, whereas chance just happens. Either existence as we know it was deliberately caused by a mind, or it wasn't. Whether the Universe is deterministic and things had to happen this way has no bearing, because that says nothing for the reason of the original configuration, or how it got that way. Either there is no particular reason and it just happened to be that way, or it was set into motion by an intelligence. Design is planned and chance is unplanned, and that is the dichotomy.

If you want to speak about what is arbitrary, then you have to consider that everything is equally unlikely from the standpoint of one who is unsure about everything. You may suspect there is a truth, because things appear to happen for a reason, but be unable to grasp it. This is like a black hole for the mind, and there is no escape from uncertainty.

You have to make a couple of assumptions to even begin to reason. The first is that you are real. The second is that the Universe is not inherently deceptive. The first, because you cannot reason without assuming you exist, and so assuming the contrary will only lead to absurdity. The second, because again, if you cannot trust anything then you cannot trust your own thoughts either. Therefore, you have no route to reason and again it leads to absurdity.

This isn't to say you couldn't be deceived about the Universe. It is to say that there is always some route to the truth. Therefore, the truth is something tangible and can be grasped. However, you are still in the quandary of being a subjective being with limited knowledge. There may be a route to the truth, but it requires you to be omnipotent. This is where most people stop and say, well, we just can't ever know what the truth is, but this isn't true. Even if you are not omnipotent, an omnipotent being could tell you what the truth is. That's my claim.

God is also the simplest explanation for everything, which can account for absolutely everything we see, feel, or experience, and that is precisely why some people don't like it. They don't want an ultimate answer like God because He interferes with their personal autonomy. They want to be free to imagine that it could be any number of things, so therefore they have the ultimate freedom to live however they please. To say there is any particular answer, especially a personal one, restricts their personal freedom and makes them accountable to specific outcomes.

I'm not saying this universe is in any way likely or that it should compete with your current understanding of the world. So to clarify: my question to you is "do you agree it's not absolutely impossible that is the case". If you're leaving your answer to this clarified question as "no", what possible evidence could you have to rule this situation out? What evidence or experience couldn't be falsified by a devious supernatural agent? What if they could mess with your very process of reason (and I see no reason why they couldn't - again just as hypothetical)?

Well, you've agreed with me that God could reveal Himself to someone in such a way as they could be absolutely certain about it. Such a person could justifiably consider all other outcomes to be absolutely impossible, and be absolutely certain about that. That's my claim. Can I prove that I am that person, even to myself? Not entirely, but I have faith that it is true. This is not a blind faith, it is faith based on my personal relationship with God, which is experiential. Faith is the *substance* of things hoped for, because although I do not see God with my eyes, His Spirit dwells within me.

I do believe there is another supernatural power in this world, a kingdom of darkness which is a lesser power, but powerful enough to deceive human beings. Satan does want you to believe in God; the wrong God. Satan actually doesn't care what you believe, so long as it isn't in the Lord Jesus Christ. Another reason is that I have personal experience with demons; I have been around demon possessed people, and I have spoken to them when they manifested themselves in those people. They are professional liars (actors), the like you have not imagined.

It comes back to the Universe being inherently deceptive. You can't reason that way; you have to believe there is a route to truth. Neither can Satan completely deceive you; God gives everyone the opportunity to know the truth and to break free of their slavery to sin.


>> ^jmzero

>> ^messenger:

The researcher says about sheep: "They have a reputation for being extremely dim and their flock behaviour backs that up as they are very silly animals when in a group – if there is a hole they will fall into it, if there is something to knock over, then they will knock it over."
Amen sistah! Testify!
I wouldn't ordinarily take an animal analogy to such lengths, but you brought it up twice as if it means something.
@ChaosEngine too>> ^shinyblurry:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s
cience-news/8335465/Sheep-are-far-smarter-than-previously-thought.html



Sheep need a good shepherd.

The researcher says about sheep: "They have a reputation for being extremely dim and their flock behaviour backs that up as they are very silly animals when in a group – if there is a hole they will fall into it, if there is something to knock over, then they will knock it over."

Amen sistah! Testify!

I wouldn't ordinarily take an animal analogy to such lengths, but you brought it up twice as if it means something.

@ChaosEngine too>> ^shinyblurry:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s
cience-news/8335465/Sheep-are-far-smarter-than-previously-thought.html

>> ^ChaosEngine:

"Only a mile away from the shepherd and his flock was a goatherd and his herd. The merest accident of microgeography had meant that the first man to hear the voice of Om, and who gave Om his view of humans, was a shepherd and not a goatherd. They have quite different ways of looking at the world, and the whole of history might have been different.
For sheep are stupid, and have to be driven. But goats are intelligent, and need to be led."
-- Terry Pratchett
For once, shiny, we are in total agreement.
>> ^shinyblurry:
His sheep hear His voice.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8335465/Sheep-are-far-smarter-than-previously-thought.html

Besides intelligent design and random chance, what other alternatives are there?

That is a very odd question - it doesn't take a great imagination to come up with possibilities, once we depart the realm of "seems to be likely". Time could be an illusion - the universe could be completely static, arbitrarily existing in its current form throughout all eternity. Ahead of you (none of us exist... oops!) is a soap bubble that looks like whatever you're seeing right now - behind you is an endless velvet Elvis painting. To be very clear: I don't know this isn't the case (and even if God or mescaline made me 100% convinced that this was or wasn't the case, I still would have no actual way of knowing - I'd just have a brain that's been messed with and thought it knew things it didn't).

You can make it as convoluted as you like..in the end, it is all either the product of design or chance. If you disagree, come up with an alternative.

Anyways - I'll repeat my previous question. Do you accept it's possible that you're being deceived by a demon who can mess with your thoughts? This is a fairly simple question; I've answered your questions, and I don't think it's unfair for me to expect a yes or no answer.

No, because God has given me sufficient evidence that I can be certain of it. A person receiving absolute confirmation of Gods existence has a justified true belief in God, regardless of what someone who has no such revelation perceives as reasonable. Indeed, a person on the outside of this revelation is irrational and incapable of determining what truth is.

>> ^jmzero

>> ^Jinx:

I'm probably not a sheep then.
I am ignorant of much, but what I do know is that humans are prone to believe what they want to be real, I know that humans fear the unknown, that we look for patterns and that we'll invent them when they aren't there. I don't know that there is no God, I don't know that you aren't gifted with some divine knowledge that I am not privy too, but I do know what is probable and what is not. Thats how rational humans make decisions, we accept that our knowledge is imperfect and we make a best guess. Science is best guess. Thats all we have, thats all we've ever had and like it or not, thats all you have. Certainty is your own deception.


Yet, science has nothing to say about the existence of God, so how do you say this factors into probabilities? Again, you say you're fairly certain about my uncertainty..but I say that is because you are uncertain. Certainly, God could let you know. Do you want to know?

"Only a mile away from the shepherd and his flock was a goatherd and his herd. The merest accident of microgeography had meant that the first man to hear the voice of Om, and who gave Om his view of humans, was a shepherd and not a goatherd. They have quite different ways of looking at the world, and the whole of history might have been different.

For sheep are stupid, and have to be driven. But goats are intelligent, and need to be led."
-- Terry Pratchett

For once, shiny, we are in total agreement.
>> ^shinyblurry:

His sheep hear His voice.

>> ^Quboid:

>> ^shinyblurry:
How do you drive a group of militant anti-theists further away from God? You either want to know the truth or you're running away from it. That's the only dichotomy in this equation.
I post for a number of reasons, depending on the topic. I generally only post in videos which deal with God, Christianity, or social issues involving biblical morality, because those are the subjects that interest me. Not only am I qualified to comment on these topics, but as these kind of videos generally present an anti-christian worldview, it is only natural for me to respond to the subject matter and present my own viewpoint.
Videos like this don't make me angry. Like I've said before a few times, I used to think this way. I used to be as liberal and skeptical about the supernatural as most of you are. It is no mystery to me why you think the way you do. I am not baffled by your reasoning, nor does it threaten mine. What I felt was sorrow for Richard because he may never have come to know God before he died.
>> ^Quboid

You're not going to push me any further away, that's true. But presumably there are more on-the-fence readers who are smart enough not to get embroiled, and are fed up of seeing you banging away at your favourite drum.


His sheep hear His voice. I am a human being prone to failure, and again, I can't lead anyone to salvation. It is God leading through His Holy Spirit that changes someones heart.

>> ^dannym3141:

How dare you accuse me of being a militant anti-theist after the discussions i've had with you? Do you have no conscience about lying or something? You had to swallow your pride and apologise to me once for being a jerk (when i came to you as an inquirer) and yet you bandy around terms like "militant anti-theists?"
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. God is watching; shame on you.
>> ^shinyblurry:
How do you drive a group of militant anti-theists further away from God? You either want to know the truth or you're running away from it. That's the only dichotomy in this equation.
I post for a number of reasons, depending on the topic. I generally only post in videos which deal with God, Christianity, or social issues involving biblical morality, because those are the subjects that interest me. Not only am I qualified to comment on these topics, but as these kind of videos generally present an anti-christian worldview, it is only natural for me to respond to the subject matter and present my own viewpoint.
Videos like this don't make me angry. Like I've said before a few times, I used to think this way. I used to be as liberal and skeptical about the supernatural as most of you are. It is no mystery to me why you think the way you do. I am not baffled by your reasoning, nor does it threaten mine. What I felt was sorrow for Richard because he may never have come to know God before he died.
>> ^Quboid



I don't regard you as a militant anti-theist. However, the sift has many *proud* militant anti-theists and so I generalized. I didn't mean everyone.

Besides intelligent design and random chance, what other alternatives are there?

For your part, do you accept it's possible that you're being deceived by a demon who can mess with your thoughts

Do you believe God can make Himself known in such a way as you could be certain about it?

>> ^jmzero

>> ^shinyblurry:

How do you drive a group of militant anti-theists further away from God? You either want to know the truth or you're running away from it. That's the only dichotomy in this equation.
I post for a number of reasons, depending on the topic. I generally only post in videos which deal with God, Christianity, or social issues involving biblical morality, because those are the subjects that interest me. Not only am I qualified to comment on these topics, but as these kind of videos generally present an anti-christian worldview, it is only natural for me to respond to the subject matter and present my own viewpoint.
Videos like this don't make me angry. Like I've said before a few times, I used to think this way. I used to be as liberal and skeptical about the supernatural as most of you are. It is no mystery to me why you think the way you do. I am not baffled by your reasoning, nor does it threaten mine. What I felt was sorrow for Richard because he may never have come to know God before he died.
>> ^Quboid


You're not going to push me any further away, that's true. But presumably there are more on-the-fence readers who are smart enough not to get embroiled, and are fed up of seeing you banging away at your favourite drum.

How dare you accuse me of being a militant anti-theist after the discussions i've had with you? Do you have no conscience about lying or something? You had to swallow your pride and apologise to me once for being a jerk (when i came to you as an inquirer) and yet you bandy around terms like "militant anti-theists?"

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. God is watching; shame on you.
>> ^shinyblurry:

How do you drive a group of militant anti-theists further away from God? You either want to know the truth or you're running away from it. That's the only dichotomy in this equation.
I post for a number of reasons, depending on the topic. I generally only post in videos which deal with God, Christianity, or social issues involving biblical morality, because those are the subjects that interest me. Not only am I qualified to comment on these topics, but as these kind of videos generally present an anti-christian worldview, it is only natural for me to respond to the subject matter and present my own viewpoint.
Videos like this don't make me angry. Like I've said before a few times, I used to think this way. I used to be as liberal and skeptical about the supernatural as most of you are. It is no mystery to me why you think the way you do. I am not baffled by your reasoning, nor does it threaten mine. What I felt was sorrow for Richard because he may never have come to know God before he died.
>> ^Quboid

I know you are, but what am I?>> ^shinyblurry:

If you don't know, how would you know what I know?
>> ^Jinx:

We're both ignorant. Only one of us knows it.