[JakeW]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

The comments were on sensory input vs mental "feeling" vs creative interpretation. You have made it clear that you claim no extra input; simply that you mentally assume all input proves your diety.

My point's were on that vein and I DO assume all input proves God's existence, but I disagree that I am claiming no extra input. I am trying to say that assuming that physical stimuli are vaild descriptors of reality is false. And that we all have in us the 'extra input' directly from God.

A christian woldview doesn't hold that the natural world is all that there is, and that therefore no one can know things about the super-natural.

"Simple eyeball inspection of isolated and particular situations in the physical world cannot answer metaphysical questions like [the nature of existence, the sorts of things that exist, the classes of existent things, limits of possibility, the ultimate scheme of things, reality versus appearance, and the comprehensive conceptual framework used to make sense of the world as a whole]" (Dr. Greg Bahnsen) (boldness added by Jake)

My ramblings were trying to point simply to the fact that trying to base our knowledge of reality on our own sensory interpretations is unreliable, both because our senses are not objective, AND because our physical world doesn't hold in it the entirity of reality. (That is that trancendantal matters aren't accounted for)

The fact that many different examples of how sensations in this physical word can describe objects in the physical world doesn't have anything to do with sensations of trancendant objects (God). Pix's argument is based on the assumption that there is no external stimuli for God feelings, and my point is that there is. It is God. That the rules for 'blue' and 'cold' are exactly the same as those for God feelings and that one is just as reliable as another.

So I definitly claim extra input, or at least to not be actively suppressing the input that we all have.

I believe (and see no reason not too) that feelings of God are as valid as feelings of cold or blue. I believe that feelings of God DO come from an external stimuli and that that stimuli is the presence of God all around us at all times. I believe that God also is transcendant and that there can be a non-empirical source of knowledge or information about reality.

In an article also by Dr. Greg Bahnsen:

"1.there cannot be a non-empirical source of knowledge or information about reality.

We are brought, then, to number (1) above, the first and foundational step in the case against metaphysics. What are we to make of the assertion that "all significant knowledge about the objective world is empirical in nature"? The most obvious and philosophically significant reply would that if the preceding statement were true, then - on the basis of its claim - we could never know that it were true. Why? Simply because the statement in question is not itself known as the result of empirical testing and experience. Therefore, according to its own strict standards, the statement could not amount to significant knowledge about the objective world."

I apologize again for not being clear or concise in my writings here in this thread, but I hope that this explains how I feel at least a little better.

Jake

[dungscooperdave]

Originally Posted by mustbenothing

I am firmly convinced that every fact is a proof of God's existence. The mere fact that there are facts demonstrates God's existence. The fact that torturing babies for fun is evil demonstrates God's existence. The heavens declare His glory, and the earth His majesty. Is it really the case that we have not experienced or witnessed God's existence? You think not, I think so. But, no matter the case, we certainly cannot claim that the Christian thinks that we are to believe in the existence of God with no justification whatsoever.

Psalm 19:1
The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

Except that we can explain things without the existence of god or any supernatural thing being a necessary part of the hypothesis. Therefore, due to Occam's Razor, we cut the existence of god off from the hypothesis because it is unnecessary baggage.

For example, an atheist does some experiments (like releasing a rock and observing it fall to the ground) and concludes that gravity is true, that is, that any two given bodies are attracted to one another, and that this attraction varies directly with the mass of the bodies and inversely with the square of the distance between the bodies.
Now a theist does the same experiments and concludes that gravity is true, that is, that any two given bodies are attracted to one another and that this attraction varies directly with the mass of the bodies and inversely with the square of the distance between the bodies. The theist also asserts that this phenomenon is caused by god.

The difference is that the experiments say absolutely nothing about the existence of god, yet because he is a theist, the theist asserts that god is the cause of the phenomenon while he has of yet no evidence to base this assertion off of.

Therefore, by Occam's Razor, we would have to rule out that the existence of god is proven by "every fact". While the existence of god may be consistent with every known fact, it is not necessarily supported by every known fact, and therefore until evidence for the existence of god can be produced, one ought to first not assume that he does exist until proof of his existence can be produced.

[JakeW]

Originally Posted by dungscooperdave

...therefore until evidence for the existence of god can be produced, one ought to first not assume that he does exist until proof of his existence can be produced.

What makes you believe that all of reality is reflected in our empirical measurements?

Jake

[JerryLove]

Offer a reasonable other standard. Anything else smacks of "completely arbitrary".

[JakeW]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Offer a reasonable other standard. Anything else smacks of "completely arbitrary".

I think it ALL smacks of "completely arbitrary"

There is no more evidence that everything *has* evidence then there is for the existence anything transendental. I think it's just a matter of what you *choose* to believe.

It does make demands for evidence and proof seem a little silly though when you have to presuppose that reality is completely quantified by what we can empirically verify. Espescially when there's no evidence for that assumption.

As for your request for a reasonable other standard, I can only assume that you mean to judge the "reasonability"? I don't think that we're gonna agree on what's "reasonable".

Jake

[JerryLove]

Then you have fallen upon the trancendental argument; no knowledge is valid because everything is arbitrartily assumed; and your argument is rendered moot by its own premise... problem solved.

[dungscooperdave]

Originally Posted by JakeW

I think it ALL smacks of "completely arbitrary"

I think I actually agree with you for once Jake. For how do we know that we can trust empirical methods of verification as our ultimate source of truth and knowledge? The decision to use empirical verification methods as our ultimate source of truth and knowledge is itself also an arbitrary decision.

I think John's been brainwashing me.

[JakeW]

Originally Posted by dungscooperdave

I think I actually agree with you for once Jake. For how do we know that we can trust empirical methods of verification as our ultimate source of truth and knowledge? The decision to use empirical verification methods as our ultimate source of truth and knowledge is itself also an arbitrary decision.

I think John's been brainwashing me.

Hehee that John guy.... quite sneaky!

As for agreeing with me, I guess we're both having a banner day, I agreed with pixnaps yesterday..... too shocking

Jake

[JakeW]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Then you have fallen upon the trancendental argument; no knowledge is valid because everything is arbitrartily assumed; and your argument is rendered moot by its own premise... problem solved.

Isn't that exactly what I said? That ALL of the arguments are founded on unprovable assumptions?

Coulda sworn it was....

Jake