I have attempted the Cellar Argument for God in this thread, as well as
in others sections of the forum, but they keep running away from them:

islam/i-am-muslim-t632.html

nontheism/theists-why-should-i-believe-t94-110.html#p13496

creationism/who-designed-the-universe-t709.html

.

Ah good, I'll take a look at them. Interesting, I haven't heard of the Celler Argument before.

Its a very weak argument at best.

ray wrote:

Yes, of course. God is not completely hidden. That would be very unfair. Anyone can see Him if they really loved to.

Its like a tall building, and I am standing on the top roof. I can only describe the stars to you. You chose to remain in the basement cellor. You simply need to get to the top floor to see the sky for yourself. How you get up there is entirely up to you.

Unfortunately the reverse of this can be said to be just as valid.

The believers are the ones in the basement, refusing to go up to the roof to see the whole world, they stay in the dark clutching a book that promises all the answers.

While I am an atheist and I would welcome a compelling and well thought out argument, this isn't one of them.

jim wrote:Its a very weak argument at best.

ray wrote:

Yes, of course. God is not completely hidden. That would be very unfair. Anyone can see Him if they really loved to.

Its like a tall building, and I am standing on the top roof. I can only describe the stars to you. You chose to remain in the basement cellor. You simply need to get to the top floor to see the sky for yourself. How you get up there is entirely up to you.

Unfortunately the reverse of this can be said to be just as valid.

The believers are the ones in the basement, refusing to go up to the roof to see the whole world, they stay in the dark clutching a book that promises all the answers.

While I am an atheist and I would welcome a compelling and well thought out argument, this isn't one of them.

Perhaps you could simply understand it as a claim which can be tested? Couple it with the fact that there are self-interested reasons which make it rational to investigate whether the claim is true or not (i.e. P's wager), one has good reason to take him at his word and see whether or not one is in the cellar. This is not an uncommon form of reasoning - for instance it resembles Plato's cave, as well as Nietzsche's mountains ("Why I am So Wise").

jim wrote:

While I am an atheist and I would welcome a compelling and well thought out argument, this isn't one of them.

That is nothing new.

No argument is compelling enough for you. Which is why you are where you are.

ray wrote:

jim wrote:

While I am an atheist and I would welcome a compelling and well thought out argument, this isn't one of them.

That is nothing new.

No argument is compelling enough for you. Which is why you are where you are.

Err... ray, in what way is that an argument? It's an allegory, yes. But you haven't demonstrated that it corresponds to reality in any way.

It hardly matters, Ray is commonly held to be nothing more than a poe.

ray wrote:

jim wrote:

While I am an atheist and I would welcome a compelling and well thought out argument, this isn't one of them.

That is nothing new.

No argument is compelling enough for you. Which is why you are where you are.

Ray, you do know what an argument is right?

Hey daddyo, I don't wanna go down inna basement

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zK2Ntk6Zb6g[/youtube]

ray wrote:I have attempted the Celler Argument for God in this thread, as well as
in others sections of the forum, but they keep running away from them:

islam/i-am-muslim-t632.html

nontheism/theists-why-should-i-believe-t94-110.html#p13496

creationism/who-designed-the-universe-t709.html

.

Atheists are only Atheists pretty well because we have not yet seen credible evidence for god (or gods). It's not just Allah, in theory there are something over 2000 buildings with people on top saying "Look at my God". Perhaps they are all describing the same scene from their own point of view but if that was true then we would see strong commonality of view but what it appears to us uninvolved people is that they seem to be on the roof, noticed that God was not there, and have rapidly invented many different stories to justify why the people have just spent all this money building the building in the first place.

If you are describing stars and we are in the cellar then we simply would like you to install a camera. You sending us a photo or describing the night sky isn't good enough because it's not even a matter of us not trusting you (all human relationships are reducible to trust) but that we need to verify our trust. There are a lot of people out there who abuse other people's trust.

The scientific method does this; we trust someone to present a paper that has results that can be reproduced. If they cheat on the results (and this does happen) then others can't reproduce the results and the original paper is retracted. What is trustworthy is what is left. Don't feel wronged if we simply ask for evidence and then pick this to pieces to reproduce the results because what is trustworthy is what is left.

What you cannot expect us to do is blindly believe according to some rules that presume trust without verifying this trust. Your cellar analogy is no more evidence for god than my description is evidence for their not being god but you can't also expect us to restrict ourselves to your worldview.

The scientific method has few restrictions but Islam does have some clearly defined restrictions and we would like it if you could explain why you limit yourself and expect us to limit ourselves too.

The basis to claim the restriction are true is that the universe is large (information large based on the entropy) and there will be many more scientific discoveries to come (these discoveries simply document how the universe works and how to predict how it will work in the future and so must be definition only be limited by the size of the Universe) but the Qur'an, which is claimed to have scientific foresight, is limited in what it could ever predict (even if it could predict in the first place). There is a limit to the self-information the Qur'an could hold (based on the actual physical size and the entropy rate of each symbol).

Just as there were science before the Qur'an the limited size of the Qur'an means that there is a limit to the discoveries in the Qur'an and so there will be many more scientific discoveries than there ever can be in the Qur'an.

Or did I miss the Qur'an part 2 ?.

Well, it's not much of an argument...

ray wrote:

Yes, of course. God is not completely hidden. That would be very unfair. Anyone can see Him if they really loved to.

Are you saying that your god is hidden from anybody who doesn't "really love to" see him?
Why does the visibility of your asserted god depend on "really loving to see Him"? Can one find evidence for your god's existence through honest and critical inquiry (without any emotions clouding up judgement)?
You don't describe what it is that I should be looking for, and you blame me for not seeing it. That is completely unfair.

Its like a tall building, and I am standing on the top roof. I can only describe the stars to you. You chose to remain in the basement cellor. You simply need to get to the top floor to see the sky for yourself. How you get up there is entirely up to you.

This analogy is broken.
You refer to the stars, but I know what you refer to because I know myself what stars are. You are describing something that is known to me, I just simply cannot see it in this moment, since I'm in the basement (according to your analogy), presumably without windows. But I still know what stars are, I have seen them before.
Seeing the stars on a clear night is not a big deal, and does not depend on me "really loving to see the stars", as you claimed before. I would see the stars even if I didn't "really love to" see them, but somebody took me to the roof while I was asleep, and woke me up. I would see the stars even if I completely hated to see them.

For you analogy to work, I think you would need to be standing on the roof and pointing at ljhgiafvyfjtbgn (which I don't know what is, I just made it up). And even if I went up to the roof, you would still need to explain how do I detect ljhgiafvyfjtbgn. You would need to show evidence that ljhgiafvyfjtbgn exists. Evidence like clearly pointing it out, so that it is distinct from anything else. Evidence that accounts for every property of the asserted entity. You have been repeatedly been asked to show some evidence. I would really love to see evidence for the existence of any deities, including yours. To follow your analogy, there is no obvious staircase or elevator leading to the roof. You providing the evidence is like showing where the stairs are. When will you start providing the evidence? Do you have any at all?

Yours is not an argument for god, it is rather a "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy mixed with blaming the victim, followed by a bad analogy.

dyet-b wrote:Well, it's not much of an argument...

ray wrote:

Yes, of course. God is not completely hidden. That would be very unfair. Anyone can see Him if they really loved to.

Are you saying that your god is hidden from anybody who doesn't "really love to" see him?
Why does the visibility of your asserted god depend on "really loving to see Him"? Can one find evidence for your god's existence through honest and critical inquiry (without any emotions clouding up judgement)?
You don't describe what it is that I should be looking for, and you blame me for not seeing it. That is completely unfair.

I don't speak for Ray, but I would argue (following Paul Moser and Kierkegaard) that God is "hidden" from disinterested observers. If we are talking about a perfect being, there is no reason to suspect that such a being would limit himself to or even take part in spectator evidence (which doesn't require any commitment or participation on the part of the observer). A perfect being (in virtue of his moral perfection) would will what is best for all moral agents. This would include our coming to know him freely (because moral perfection requires respect for freedom), and freely consenting to align our behavior in accordance with his will (because he wills only what is good). Spectator evidence would not accomplish these ends, and it would (as Kierkegaard suggests) establish an improper relationship between us, and create tension between God's moral perfection and our freedom. "There is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't" (Pascal)

Yours is not an argument for god, it is rather a "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy mixed with blaming the victim, followed by a bad analogy.

As I've suggested before, I think one could understand it as more of a testable claim than an argument. It's the claim that through honest inquiry you will find evidence that God exists. When one asks whether X exists, one must ask what sort of evidence would we expect to find if X exists, and what sort of evidence would we not expect. In this case it will be volitional, morally authoritative evidence which requires an honest intention to participation on the part of the inquirer, as opposed to the reproducible, empirical sort which would afford belief alone, without requiring any meaningful commitment or investment in the question, and thus without any transformation of the will. The reason for this is explained above.

RichieDickins wrote:I don't speak for Ray, but I would argue (following Paul Moser and Kierkegaard) that God is "hidden" from disinterested observers.

In other words, the usual tripe about us not seeing him because we're not trying hard enough to discard reality. Dress this preachy bollocks up in all the flowery language you like, and it will still be a vacuous denial of reality.

If we are talking about a perfect being,

What the fuck is a 'perfect being'? In fact, what the fuck is 'prefection'? Apologetic arse-gravy and nothing more.

there is no reason to suspect that such a being would limit himself to or even take part in spectator evidence (which doesn't require any commitment or participation on the part of the observer).

Reason? What the fuck has reason got to do with the price of tea in Singapore? There is no reason to suspect that any such fucking entity exists. The rest is just spectacularly stupid apologetic flannel, and it is of absolutely no value.

A perfect being (in virtue of his moral perfection) would will what is best for all moral agents.

Moral perfection? Deary me, but you do make up some fucking tripe. Demonstrate in a critically robust fashion that there is such a thing as moral perfection, or indeed anything approaching objectve morality. Good luck with that.

This would include our coming to know him freely (because moral perfection requires respect for freedom), and freely consenting to align our behavior in accordance with his will (because he wills only what is good).

Your magic man wills only what is good, eh? Should I ask the Amalechites what they think of that assertion? Oh, no. I can't, can I, because your cretinous celestial peeping-tom's will saw to it that they're all fucking dead.

Spectator evidence would not accomplish these ends, and it would (as Kierkegaard suggests) establish an improper relationship between us, and create tension between God's moral perfection and our freedom. "There is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't" (Pascal)

In other words, once again, 'you won't experience my cosmic curtain-twitcher unless you accept my vacuous bullshit'. How many times does it have to be pointed out to you what a load of ludicrous rectal curry this is?

As I've suggested before, I think one could understand it as more of a testable claim than an argument.

You've suggested many things before, and they have pretty much without exception been unsupported wibble of the most sophomoric order.

It's the claim that through honest inquiry you will find evidence that God exists.

Honest enquiry? You wouldn't fucking know honest enquiry if it hit you in the face with a big fucking fish thus:



What is 'honest' about erecting apologetic nonsense for that which you have no supporting evidence whatsoever? What the fuck is honest about ignoring reality in support of such a ludicrous idea as a magic man creating the universe just for you, in the face of ALL the evidence to the contrary?

When one asks whether X exists, one must ask what sort of evidence would we expect to find if X exists, and what sort of evidence would we not expect.

Well, I would accept ANY evidence. Once again, good luck with that. As the Blue Wingéd One is very fond of saying, the credulous have had 5,000 years in which to present a single scrap of supporting evidence for their various flavours of astral knob-jockey. Thus far, the paucity of said evidence (read utter lack) is, to say the least, wholly underwhelming.

In this case it will be volitional, morally authoritative evidence

Morally authoritative? I only know of one moral authority, and the magic man whose knob you seem so eager to polish is not it, and doesn't remotely come close to meeting its standard.

which requires an honest intention to participation on the part of the inquirer,

There you go with that 'honesty' again. The irony here is stifling.

as opposed to the reproducible, empirical sort which would afford belief alone,

Ah, so at least you admit by implication that you envisage the utter absence of any hard evidence from reality continuing. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to support your frankly febrile wibblings then.

without requiring any meaningful commitment or investment in the question,

Interestingly, many of us have much more invested in the question than the credulous who already think they have the answer.

and thus without any transformation of the will.

Transformation of the will? What the holy fuck are you wibbling about?

The reason for this is explained above.

You've explained nothing. You have asserted. Case dismissed.

ray wrote:I have attempted the Celler Argument for God in this thread, as well as
in others sections of the forum, but they keep running away from them:

islam/i-am-muslim-t632.html

nontheism/theists-why-should-i-believe-t94-110.html#p13496

creationism/who-designed-the-universe-t709.html

.

I would recommend learning the difference between "running away from" and "refusing to dignify with a response".

Seeing as I am feeling generous though, I should point out that what you have there is not an argument. It is an unsubstantiated assertion, hidden behind a rather poor metaphor.

The assertion, of course, being that you are the one who is in posession of priviledged knowledge of some sort whilst the rest of us are the ignorant ones (or something along those lines). Tell me, do you have any way of demonstrating that this is the case or are you just talking out of the wrong end?

As far as metaphors go, it's also not that impressive. For example, in a building, a person can use various methods of reaching the roof. Critically, however, and where it differs from wibble like that which you are selling, is that you can show someone else the way to the roof. You can demonstrate that you are in posession of this knowledge. Others also have the opportunity to show superior knowledge by finding a quicker route. Furthermore, once you have reached the roof, you can also show others the stars. You can share your knowledge. Others can scrutinse your findings. This is just the tip of the iceberg of wrongness that is your "argument".

hackenslash wrote:

RichieDickins wrote:I don't speak for Ray, but I would argue (following Paul Moser and Kierkegaard) that God is "hidden" from disinterested observers.

In other words, the usual tripe about us not seeing him because we're not trying hard enough to discard reality. Dress this preachy bollocks up in all the flowery language you like, and it will still be a vacuous denial of reality.

Let's see here...

Your characterizations - discarding reality, denial of reality - are question-begging.

If we are talking about a perfect being,

What the fuck is a 'perfect being'? In fact, what the fuck is 'prefection'? Apologetic arse-gravy and nothing more.

A perfection is a property that is necessarily better to have than not. A perfect being is one such that it is impossible for something to be greater and impossible for there to be something else than which it is not greater

A perfect being (in virtue of his moral perfection) would will what is best for all moral agents.

Moral perfection? Deary me, but you do make up some fucking tripe. Demonstrate in a critically robust fashion that there is such a thing as moral perfection, or indeed anything approaching objectve morality. Good luck with that.

I have no clue what "Demonstrate in a critically robust fashion" means. And once you've defined that, is it the case that everything which exists can be demonstrated "in a critically robust fashion"?

Your magic man wills only what is good, eh? Should I ask the Amalechites what they think of that assertion? Oh, no. I can't, can I, because your cretinous celestial peeping-tom's will saw to it that they're all fucking dead.

Didn't know that you thought so highly of the Old Testament's historical reliability. Or are you attributing to me the view of Biblical inerrancy?

In other words, once again, 'you won't experience my cosmic curtain-twitcher unless you accept my vacuous bullshit'. How many times does it have to be pointed out to you what a load of ludicrous rectal curry this is?

I think you're even more articulate here than you were back at RDF, keep up the good work . But I don't see anything constituting an objection here, so I'll leave it at that.

Honest enquiry? You wouldn't fucking know honest enquiry if it hit you in the face with a big fucking fish thus:

You're right, a fish hitting me in the face would not bring to mind "honest inquiry." Nonetheless, I'm honest in my inquiries.

What is 'honest' about erecting apologetic nonsense for that which you have no supporting evidence whatsoever? What the fuck is honest about ignoring reality in support of such a ludicrous idea as a magic man creating the universe just for you, in the face of ALL the evidence to the contrary?

For one thing, it's not question-begging. I'd like to hear more about all this contrary evidence to theism though - but I'm guessing you'll retract that and say instead that there's no evidence supporting theism.

Well, I would accept ANY evidence. Once again, good luck with that. As the Blue Wingéd One is very fond of saying, the credulous have had 5,000 years in which to present a single scrap of supporting evidence for their various flavours of astral knob-jockey. Thus far, the paucity of said evidence (read utter lack) is, to say the least, wholly underwhelming.

We've discussed the evidence a number of times before, and as I remember, last time it ended with red herrings about quantum indeterminacy and virtual particles - would you like to pick up where we left off?

Morally authoritative? I only know of one moral authority, and the magic man whose knob you seem so eager to polish is not it, and doesn't remotely come close to meeting its standard.

What's your moral authority? And don't say yourself - you can't issue a moral law to yourself, I don't care what Kant says.

There you go with that 'honesty' again. The irony here is stifling.

You seem to know quite a bit about my motives. Maybe you've got some kind of critically rigorous, robust, "insert honorific adjective," reproducible evidence that I'm dishonest?

without requiring any meaningful commitment or investment in the question,

Interestingly, many of us have much more invested in the question than the credulous who already think they have the answer.

no you don't take the question seriously at all.

The reason for this is explained above.

You've explained nothing. You have asserted. Case dismissed.

You must have missed it. And excuse the tu quoque, but you're entire post has consisted of nothing but assertion (albeit colorful and entertaining).

RichieDickins wrote:I don't speak for Ray, but I would argue (following Paul Moser and Kierkegaard) that God is "hidden" from disinterested observers.

And I would argue that God cannot be hidden from disinterested observers forever unless there is no divine judgement. But according to the Christian and Muslim mythologies, everybody will be judged one day, and that would be a very tangible evidence even for the unbelievers and the disinterested observers.
Also, this God is not only hiding, but deliberately makes it harder for us to find evidence even for the interested observers. We do know that people are prone to fantasies, wishful thinking and delusions, and God so far made it impossible for outside observers to distinguish delusion from believing in him.

If we are talking about a perfect being

You are only assuming a perfect being, but for the sake of the argument, let's see where does it get us.

, there is no reason to suspect that such a being would limit himself to or even take part in spectator evidence (which doesn't require any commitment or participation on the part of the observer).

Say what? Don't you think critical inquiry doesn't require commitment or participation?

A perfect being (in virtue of his moral perfection) would will what is best for all moral agents.

Wouldn't this perfectly moral being not want every single one of his/her/its creation to make it to heaven? Isn't that what is the best for all?
Would a perfect being set up a rigged test the result of which determines eternal consequences? Would a perfect being make it beneficial for us to use our critical faculties for every question around us except for the one are of his/her/its existence?

This would include our coming to know him freely (because moral perfection requires respect for freedom), and freely consenting to align our behavior in accordance with his will (because he wills only what is good).

I'm confused... Are you saying that this perfect being doesn't know in advance what every person will choose? That would mean the this being is not omniscient, and thus is not perfect.
Or are you saying that there is no free will? In that case, how can anyone freely consent to aligning behaviours with his will?

Spectator evidence would not accomplish these ends, and it would (as Kierkegaard suggests) establish an improper relationship between us, and create tension between God's moral perfection and our freedom.

"Improper relationship"? How do you know what a perfect being with its perfect and infinite wisdom and knowledge considers proper, if you don't have perfect and infinite wisdom and knowledge? Why should I take your word for what is a "proper" relationship with this deity?
I think the tension between this alleged god's alleged moral perfection and our alleged freedom is that if God is perfect then we don't have freedom. Not my fault...
What should those believers do, who claim that there is tangible evidence for their belief? They are interested, and they believe. Is their relationship with God "improper"?

"There is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't" (Pascal)

Firstly, I find it insulting to compare disbelief to diminished capacity.
Secondly, this analogy seems to go completely against your previous point. It says that there is enough evidence for us to believe, but you seem to have previously argued that there should be no such evidence. If it were to support your previous point, it should say that there is no light (as an outside aid to discover "spectator evidence"), but if you honestly wanted to believe, then some non-spectator light would be given to you, which cannot be perceived by others, because then it would count as "spectator evidence".

dyet-b wrote:Yours is not an argument for god, it is rather a "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy mixed with blaming the victim, followed by a bad analogy.

As I've suggested before, I think one could understand it as more of a testable claim than an argument.

Testable claim? Isn't that "spectator evidence"?

It's the claim that through honest inquiry you will find evidence that God exists.

And if you don't find evidence, you were not honest enough. As I said: blaming the victim. Very nice, especially bearing in mind the alleged eternal consequences. Moral perfection... yeah, right...

When one asks whether X exists, one must ask what sort of evidence would we expect to find if X exists, and what sort of evidence would we not expect. In this case it will be volitional, morally authoritative evidence

Please define "volitional, morally authoritative evidence". Can you give an example? Has such evidence been discovered? Is it robust enough?

which requires an honest intention

Again, blaming the victim...

to participation on the part of the inquirer, as opposed to the reproducible, empirical sort which would afford belief alone without requiring any meaningful commitment or investment in the question, and thus without any transformation of the will. The reason for this is explained above.

Isn't belief the point?
Also, how can a transformation of the will take place if this perfect God knows in advance what my will is before I know it?
Are you saying that one has to be committed to participation in the inquiry, or in the belief? Belief is supposed to be the result of the inquiry. Otherwise it is just rationalising a belief. That would be rather silly.
Why is it important to have a "meaningful" commitment or investment in the question? You are blaming the victim again, btw.

The whole thing seems to be something like this:
"You can have evidence to believe in me, all you have to do is believe in me. And if you don't see the evidence, than your intentions are not honest enough. And you will be punished for disbelief. And of course, I didn't just tell you all this, since that would count as tangible evidence, but you are not supposed to have tangible evidence, because then we would have an improper relationship. And I'm morally perfect. But I never told you this either. And I'm perfect in general, but again: you didn't here it from me. Remember: the evidence for belief is belief. And now forget everything I said: no evidence!"

RichieDickins wrote::clap: Let's see here...

Your characterizations - discarding reality, denial of reality - are question-begging.

No, they're a simple statement of fact with regard to your view of the world, namely that while you look through your god-goggles you deny reality.

A perfection is a property that is necessarily better to have than not. A perfect being is one such that it is impossible for something to be greater and impossible for there to be something else than which it is not greater

Empty word salad. Demonstrate that perfection is even a viable concept.

I have no clue what "Demonstrate in a critically robust fashion" means.

Am I speaking fucking Klingon or something? It means 'show that your assertion has any basis in reality in a manner that stands up to critical scrutiny'. It's fairly straightforward English I'm employing here.

And once you've defined that, is it the case that everything which exists can be demonstrated "in a critically robust fashion"?

Yes it is.

Didn't know that you thought so highly of the Old Testament's historical reliability.

It's about as reliable as a chocolate fireguard, frankly.

Or are you attributing to me the view of Biblical inerrancy?

No, I'm demonstrating that your own book of turgid wibble shows that your magic man is no moral arbiter.

I think you're even more articulate here than you were back at RDF, keep up the good work . But I don't see anything constituting an objection here, so I'll leave it at that.

So once again you are experiencing reading comprehension issues? The objection is that your rectally extracted apologetic is fucking worthless. Would you like me to rephrase that in words of one syllable?

You're right, a fish hitting me in the face would not bring to mind "honest inquiry."

Way to miss the fucking point.

Nonetheless, I'm honest in my inquiries.

Except for the glaring case of Morton's Demon, you mean?

For one thing, it's not question-begging. I'd like to hear more about all this contrary evidence to theism though - but I'm guessing you'll retract that and say instead that there's no evidence supporting theism.

The complete lack of any robust evidence supporting your masturbation fantasy is evidence contrary to theism. Not proof, but evidence. Further, that the vast majority of claims erected by the credulous in support of their fantasies have been comprehensively eviscerated by paying attention to reality renders the remainder of those bullshit claims shaky in the extreme. Not to mention that many of these claims are completely untestable, meaning that they still amount to no more than arguments from ignorance. Not that that surprises anybody here, given the level of ignorance displayed by the various propagandists for these puerile wibblings.

We've discussed the evidence a number of times before, and as I remember, last time it ended with red herrings about quantum indeterminacy and virtual particles - would you like to pick up where we left off?

Utter shit. You have never once presented any evidence in support of your stellar pervert.

What's your moral authority? And don't say yourself - you can't issue a moral law to yourself, I don't care what Kant says.

On the contrary. I am my moral authority, and the only moral authority I recognise.

You seem to know quite a bit about my motives. Maybe you've got some kind of critically rigorous, robust, "insert honorific adjective," reproducible evidence that I'm dishonest?

Which part of 'the god-goggles stifle honest enquiry' are you struggling with?

no you don't take the question seriously at all.

Bzzzzzzzzzzz. Thank you for playing. I take the question very seriously. It's your bullshit answers I can't take seriously, extracted as they are from your anus.

You must have missed it.

Then point it out to me.

And excuse the tu quoque, but you're entire post has consisted of nothing but assertion (albeit colorful and entertaining).

My assertions are supported by your entire posting history, which consists of nothing more than very weak apologetics and arguments from abject ignorance, with liberal doses of word-salad.

dyet-b wrote:
And I would argue that God cannot be hidden from disinterested observers forever unless there is no divine judgement. But according to the Christian and Muslim mythologies, everybody will be judged one day, and that would be a very tangible evidence even for the unbelievers and the disinterested observers.
Also, this God is not only hiding, but deliberately makes it harder for us to find evidence even for the interested observers. We do know that people are prone to fantasies, wishful thinking and delusions, and God so far made it impossible for outside observers to distinguish delusion from believing in him.

Yes assuming Christian or Muslim theism, that's true. I don't find the evidence to be so ambiguous though.

, there is no reason to suspect that such a being would limit himself to or even take part in spectator evidence (which doesn't require any commitment or participation on the part of the observer).

Say what? Don't you think critical inquiry doesn't require commitment or participation?

I mean participation in a volitional sense. I'll let Moser explain it, he does a better job than I: see page 61 http://books.google.com/books?id=JZCepAbVk7kC&pg=PA92&dq=volitional+paul+moser&cd=1#v=onepage&q=volitional%20paul%20moser&f=false

Wouldn't this perfectly moral being not want every single one of his/her/its creation to make it to heaven? Isn't that what is the best for all?
Would a perfect being set up a rigged test the result of which determines eternal consequences? Would a perfect being make it beneficial for us to use our critical faculties for every question around us except for the one are of his/her/its existence?

As to the first two questions, I'm sure that's right. As to the third one, you seem to be talking about Calvinist Christian theism, according to which there is no free will. That's not my view at all, nor is it compatible with God's being morally perfect (because it makes him the author of evil). And to the forth, it's not as if receiving volitional evidence doesn't make use of our critical faculties, only a different way of using them; and it may just be that it's not logically possible for God's purpose in that regard to be achieved through the same kind of evidence that we attain in other inquiries.

This would include our coming to know him freely (because moral perfection requires respect for freedom), and freely consenting to align our behavior in accordance with his will (because he wills only what is good).

I'm confused... Are you saying that this perfect being doesn't know in advance what every person will choose? That would mean the this being is not omniscient, and thus is not perfect.
Or are you saying that there is no free will? In that case, how can anyone freely consent to aligning behaviours with his will?

Neither . God is omniscient, and we have free will (God has full knowledge of all counter-factual truths).

Spectator evidence would not accomplish these ends, and it would (as Kierkegaard suggests) establish an improper relationship between us, and create tension between God's moral perfection and our freedom.

"Improper relationship"? How do you know what a perfect being with its perfect and infinite wisdom and knowledge considers proper, if you don't have perfect and infinite wisdom and knowledge? Why should I take your word for what is a "proper" relationship with this deity?

Yes, we don't have perfect knowledge, so when we ask whether God exists, we have to clarify the terms we're using and what we mean by them, and then ask what follows regarding the sort of purposes such a God would have - that's the only way we can proceed. God as a being worthy of worship must be morally perfect, and as such he must be perfectly loving, willing what is best for everyone. Moral perfection would require the accomplishing of that end while respecting our freedom, which would mean without coersion. See pages 32, 43, 61 of Elusive God, they're all on the google book preview.

I think the tension between this alleged god's alleged moral perfection and our alleged freedom is that if God is perfect then we don't have freedom. Not my fault...
What should those believers do, who claim that there is tangible evidence for their belief? They are interested, and they believe. Is their relationship with God "improper"?

God's perfection doesn't entail that we don't have freedom - why would it? Well if someone only knows about God but doesn't know God volitionally, then that would be an improper relationship yes. Propositional knowledge is not the point, "even the demons believe, and they shudder" etc.. There may be tangible evidence (I think there is, I don't share Moser's dislike of natural theology), but it's not sufficient.

"There is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't" (Pascal)

Firstly, I find it insulting to compare disbelief to diminished capacity.

that's understandable, but it goes both ways - somebody's gotta be wrong, and whoever is is "blind" to the truth of the matter.

Secondly, this analogy seems to go completely against your previous point. It says that there is enough evidence for us to believe, but you seem to have previously argued that there should be no such evidence. If it were to support your previous point, it should say that there is no light (as an outside aid to discover "spectator evidence"), but if you honestly wanted to believe, then some non-spectator light would be given to you, which cannot be perceived by others, because then it would count as "spectator evidence".

No, there's enough evidence, but it's of the volitional morally-authoritative sort. And I said that if God exists, we shouldn't expect evidence of the spectator sort, but there may in fact be such evidence to a limited degree; theism may in fact entail at least some such evidence, such as the existence of the universe, with conditions necessary for life to exist, and so on. but more or less, the P(spectator evidence/theism) = P(~spectator evidence/theism)

As I've suggested before, I think one could understand it as more of a testable claim than an argument.

Testable claim? Isn't that "spectator evidence"?[/quote]
No I mean testable for you. If there is any morally authoritative evidence to be found, you can find out whether there is such a call: 93

It's the claim that through honest inquiry you will find evidence that God exists.

And if you don't find evidence, you were not honest enough. As I said: blaming the victim. Very nice, especially bearing in mind the alleged eternal consequences. Moral perfection... yeah, right...

The victim? Whether or not there are any eternal consequences is an entirely separate question from whether God exists. I may be a Christian myself, but as far as this sort of inquiry goes, religious doctrines are not part of it.

Please define "volitional, morally authoritative evidence". Can you give an example? Has such evidence been discovered? Is it robust enough?

Answered above I think, and in the cited pages

which requires an honest intention

Again, blaming the victim...

This would be akin to saying that in order to see whether it's cloudy outside, one has to open the blinds and look outside his window; people that don't see the clouds outside must not have opened their blinds. Ah, but that's blaming the victim!

to participation on the part of the inquirer, as opposed to the reproducible, empirical sort which would afford belief alone without requiring any meaningful commitment or investment in the question, and thus without any transformation of the will. The reason for this is explained above.

Isn't belief the point?
Also, how can a transformation of the will take place if this perfect God knows in advance what my will is before I know it?
Are you saying that one has to be committed to participation in the inquiry, or in the belief? Belief is supposed to be the result of the inquiry. Otherwise it is just rationalising a belief. That would be rather silly.
Why is it important to have a "meaningful" commitment or investment in the question? You are blaming the victim again, btw.

Because the knowledge in question is relational, it's an I/Thou sort. Say you knew all the third-person propositional knowledge about somebody, but never met them personally. Then you meet them, spend time with them and get to know them personally, from a second-person perspective; knowledge would have be gained there, but it would not be of a propositional sort, it would be relational. Eleonore Stump explains this in the beginning of this lecture: http://70.182.176.35/Media.aspx#/v/620

hackenslash wrote:

RichieDickins wrote::clap: Let's see here...

Your characterizations - discarding reality, denial of reality - are question-begging.

No, they're a simple statement of fact with regard to your view of the world, namely that while you look through your god-goggles you deny reality.

Demonstrate that claim to me a in rigorously robust style [/quote]

Empty word salad. Demonstrate that perfection is even a viable concept.

I don't know how that's done. All I can do as far as concepts go is give you a definition.

And once you've defined that, is it the case that everything which exists can be demonstrated "in a critically robust fashion"?

Yes it is.

Could you demonstrate in a critically robust fashion that you have a consciousness? Or that the external world exists? No

I think you're even more articulate here than you were back at RDF, keep up the good work . But I don't see anything constituting an objection here, so I'll leave it at that.

So once again you are experiencing reading comprehension issues? The objection is that your rectally extracted apologetic is fucking worthless. Would you like me to rephrase that in words of one syllable?

I generally don't think of "objection" as synonymous with "opinion" or "assertion"

You're right, a fish hitting me in the face would not bring to mind "honest inquiry."

Way to miss the fucking point.

I suppose I would have missed the point even if it had hit me in the face with a big fucking fish

Nonetheless, I'm honest in my inquiries.

Except for the glaring case of Morton's Demon, you mean?

That's the thing young earther's have isn't it? That's not my view.

The complete lack of any robust evidence supporting your masturbation fantasy is evidence contrary to theism. Not proof, but evidence...Not to mention that many of these claims are completely untestable, meaning that they still amount to no more than arguments from ignorance.

Insofar as the assumption of theism would lead you to expect to find robust evidence, then yes it's evidence against theism. But since you say all of theism's claims are untestable, you would expect to find no robust evidence if it were true, in which case the lack of evidence (if there is such a lack) isn't evidence against theism.

We've discussed the evidence a number of times before, and as I remember, last time it ended with red herrings about quantum indeterminacy and virtual particles - would you like to pick up where we left off?

Utter shit. You have never once presented any evidence in support of your stellar pervert.

Sure, we were discussing the Kalam argument - that's evidence

On the contrary. I am my moral authority, and the only moral authority I recognise.

But aren't you a determinist? (with respect to free will, not causality in general - I assume you don't think quantum indeterminacy is a means for freedom).

You seem to know quite a bit about my motives. Maybe you've got some kind of critically rigorous, robust, "insert honorific adjective," reproducible evidence that I'm dishonest?

Which part of 'the god-goggles stifle honest enquiry' are you struggling with?

I guess it's the part where you stated a claim without any support. I want to see some evidence for that.

My assertions are supported by your entire posting history, which consists of nothing more than very weak apologetics and arguments from abject ignorance, with liberal doses of word-salad.[/quote][/quote]

If that constitutes robust evidence, then I've got all kinds of support for theism.