How God could fail to convey His message?

[thedoc]

Nope. Even if you could know for sure that the video was not faked, Descartes showed you could not know the phone pole was real. You could only say you were, say, 99.999% sure...but never absolutely sure.

Unfortunately the difference between 99.999% sure and absolutely sure is lost on most people, only a few realize that there is a difference. The other problem is that most people don't actually see what is in front of them, they see what they expect to see. Their mind fills in with information that has previously been remembered, and what they are seeing takes on a false image.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Nope. Even if you could know for sure that the video was not faked, Descartes showed you could not know the phone pole was real. You could only say you were, say, 99.999% sure...but never absolutely sure.

Unfortunately the difference between 99.999% sure and absolutely sure is lost on most people, only a few realize that there is a difference. The other problem is that most people don't actually see what is in front of them, they see what they expect to see. Their mind fills in with information that has previously been remembered, and what they are seeing takes on a false image.

Yes, the religious of the world are in fact that way, seeing only what they want to see, for fear!

[surreptitious57]

For someone apathetic you are spending a lot of time talking about a thing about which you claim to have no opinion

Outside of rational or philosophy forums I barely reference my atheism or apatheism. I discuss it on them because I like
engaging with others on serious subject matter. But when I am actually offline then I hardly ever think about it as I said

[Terrapin Station]

Someone probably answered in this vein already, but just in case they didn't:

How God could fail to convey His message?

* By dialing the wrong number.
* His microphone is off.
* He fails to translate it into his recipient's language.
* He's read too much Heidegger, with the upshot that he tends to say incoherent things.

[Immanuel Can]

The author of the definition is simply naive.

He is.
Quit misquoting me, you realize that's lying right! Figures!!!!!

I didn't. It was a cut-and-paste from your last reply. You quickly forget what you sent.

I might believe that you missed me saying, 'that you saw it on your own camera,' if it weren't for the fact that I know you purposely ignored it to suit your agenda.

It wouldn't make any difference. You don't understand Descartes, I guess. Have you read him?

But what you have to come to terms with, is that your belief system, compared to science, is much, much, much, (did I say MUCH), lower in PROBABILITY.

Prove it. Show me your probability calculus for that. It's only fair, if you make such a claim.

And relatively speaking your belief system in a god is probabilistically extremely low, as compared to the scientific method. (Did I say, "extremely?")

You don't know anything about scientific method, it seems. You actually think it's something that can be "compared" to belief in a God. It cannot. All it can do is either show or not show how likely that belief would be, in relation to the available material evidence. That's a probability calculus, and you owe me yours now.

By the way, did you know that the scientific method was invented by Francis Bacon, an ardent Christian theologian? Apparently, he regarded it as entirely helpful to his beliefs. I know: I've read him too. His essay "Of Truth" would be a good starting point for you.

[Immanuel Can]

Nope. Even if you could know for sure that the video was not faked, Descartes showed you could not know the phone pole was real. You could only say you were, say, 99.999% sure...but never absolutely sure.

Unfortunately the difference between 99.999% sure and absolutely sure is lost on most people, only a few realize that there is a difference.

True: but we have not discussed the correct probability estimate for the existence of God. And that should prove considerably higher.

The other problem is that most people don't actually see what is in front of them, they see what they expect to see. Their mind fills in with information that has previously been remembered, and what they are seeing takes on a false image.

True dat.

[Immanuel Can]

serious subject matter.

Interesting admission. So you're apathetic about "serious subject matter"? That makes little sense.

[Arising_uk]

[Of course its only a calculated belief based on experience of 'it' - that all matter and reality is part of it.

Okay but what's 'it' a part of?

Ah nothing much really. I can only quiz by making a statement and getting a binary answer if the statement is correct or not - by way of three taps on my right knee - if im 'right' ergo the left knee is 'incorrect'!

Have you asked 'it', "Are you just a creation of my mind?"?

[attofishpi]

[Of course its only a calculated belief based on experience of 'it' - that all matter and reality is part of it.

Okay but what's 'it' a part of?

Dunno - perhaps the multiverse.

Ah nothing much really. I can only quiz by making a statement and getting a binary answer if the statement is correct or not - by way of three taps on my right knee - if im 'right' ergo the left knee is 'incorrect'!

Have you asked 'it', "Are you just a creation of my mind?"?

Just did as im typing - a single tap on my left knee

Did i tell you about the time many years ago - when God was really putting me to the test. I sat down at my dining table and contemplated. I looked at my thumb and i saw a 'fibre' like a string of a cob web protruding from the tip of my thumb. As i looked at it, it grew a little and then an extension kinked out at a different angle. I held my hands up then all my fingers started growing these 'fibres'. I connected the tips of each set of fingers from each hand and as i pulled my hands apart - these 'cob-web' like 'fibres' were all connected and stretching between the tips of my fingers. This lasted for about five minutes and then they all disappeared.
Amazing what the mind can conjure isn't it.

[SpheresOfBalance]

The author of the definition is simply naive.

He is.
Quit misquoting me, you realize that's lying right! Figures!!!!!

I didn't. It was a cut-and-paste from your last reply. You quickly forget what you sent.
You went back saw I was right and changed who said what. Yet still you bust my chops as to my failing memory. Which it is, but no more than any others I'm sure. In this case however, I was in fact correct, you had misquoted me.

I might believe that you missed me saying, 'that you saw it on your own camera,' if it weren't for the fact that I know you purposely ignored it to suit your agenda.

It wouldn't make any difference. You don't understand Descartes, I guess. Have you read him?
At college we briefly covered him along with others, so I've neither spent an entire class on him alone, nor read any books devoted solely to him. But to be honest I started college back in 1993, and really haven't revisited such studies so as to maintain a memory of accuracy. You know, "if you don't use it, you loose it!" But I do understand what you're talking about, I'm no dummy. In fact I can say this about it: When you use Descartes argument, you're really splitting hairs, and in fact to use his thoughts on this matter it equally undermines your argument, as well as the opposing view. So that argument doesn't really gain you any ground, as it applies to everything mankind believes he knows.

But what you have to come to terms with, is that your belief system, compared to science, is much, much, much, (did I say MUCH), lower in PROBABILITY.

Prove it. Show me your probability calculus for that. It's only fair, if you make such a claim.
If we are sitting in the park, feeding the ducks, and suddenly you point to thin air and say, "see that alien probe." And I and your fellow friends, twenty of us, look in the direction you're pointing then say, "there is nothing there;" it's you that has the burden of proof, not us! So prove it's not the case. My point is not the number of people that say otherwise, rather that the probe in not visible! You speak of an invisible god, so it's your burden of proof.

And relatively speaking your belief system in a god is probabilistically extremely low, as compared to the scientific method. (Did I say, "extremely?")

You don't know anything about scientific method, it seems. You actually think it's something that can be "compared" to belief in a God. It cannot.
Yes it can, as it deals in probablities!

All it can do is either show or not show how likely that belief would be, in relation to the available material evidence.
Exactly!

That's a probability calculus, and you owe me yours now.
Incorrect, see above, 'my and your visit to the park!' It's you that owes me, and everyone else that oppose you in this matter. The opposite would be true if it were you pointing to something that visually exists, and we said it didn't.

By the way, did you know that the scientific method was invented by Francis Bacon, an ardent Christian theologian? Apparently, he regarded it as entirely helpful to his beliefs. I know: I've read him too. His essay "Of Truth" would be a good starting point for you.
Don't be condescending, which seems to be your modus operandi. I'm very bright, just not an English major!

[thedoc]

I'm very bright, just not an English major!

Don't break your arm.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I'm very bright, just not an English major!

Don't break your arm.

Which is supposed to mean...

[thedoc]

I'm very bright, just not an English major!

Don't break your arm.

Which is supposed to mean...

Private joke, - which, like everything else, you just don't understand.

[Immanuel Can]

Prove it. Show me your probability calculus for that. It's only fair, if you make such a claim.
If we are sitting in the park, feeding the ducks, and suddenly you point to thin air and say, "see that alien probe." And I and your fellow friends, twenty of us, look in the direction you're pointing then say, "there is nothing there;" it's you that has the burden of proof, not us! So prove it's not the case. My point is not the number of people that say otherwise, rather that the probe in not visible! You speak of an invisible god, so it's your burden of proof.

That's not a probability calculation...it's just an analogy. It's not a particularly good one, either, because it artificially tilts the table. Let's take a more equitable example. You and I are sitting in the park feeding the ducks.

I say, "I really loved Paris this summer."

You say, "I wasn't IN Paris this summer. I've never seen Paris. I don't even believe it exists. Who do you think you're fooling? Prove to me Paris is real."

I say, "I didn't say you were in Paris. I said I was."

You say, "Look, you can't expect me to believe in some city I've never been to."

I say, "Why don't you go look for it yourself?"

You respond, "I'm not going to do that! I'm an A-Parisist. I don't believe Paris exists, and if you do, you're a fool."

That's what Atheists are saying. They're saying, "If I haven't seen it, then it doesn't exist, and everybody who thinks it does is a superstitious moron." That's not an argument...it's just an attitude.

But I still don't see how you derive probability from the admission that you personally have not seen any evidence for God. That's a silly as saying that if you've never seen Paris it cannot exist. Paris may or may not exist...your lack of experience with Paris is completely irrelevant to whether or not it does, or whether there is any evidence it does.

You don't know anything about scientific method, it seems. You actually think it's something that can be "compared" to belief in a God. It cannot.

Yes it can, as it deals in probablities!

No, it is not, and it cannot. Scientific method is just a pattern of inquiry, not an ideology about the probability of God. As such, it is neutral as to the probability of its subject matter. It treats them all the same way.

That's a probability calculus, and you owe me yours now.

Incorrect, see above, 'my and your visit to the park!'

That's not what a "probability calculus" is. You need to show me how you generate the numbers that indicate the relative probability of the two proposals: i.e. that God exists, and that He does not. You have not even tried to do that...

It's you that owes me, and everyone else that oppose you in this matter. The opposite would be true if it were you pointing to something that visually exists, and we said it didn't.

You are the owner of the claim about the relative probabilities. Unless you were full of hot air, you said it because you know exactly what the probabilities are. That's why you owe us the calculus now: you claimed...I didn't.

I'm very bright, just not an English major!

I didn't say you weren't. However, Bacon's a pretty important guy, whether you're into history, science, theology, literature, philosophy or whatever. He's one of the biggies.

[attofishpi]

Do you agree that a person could be shown clear evidence of God but left without the evidence to provide to others

One of the criteria for accepting evidence is that it must be viewed by more than one so as to reduce or eliminate bias

Without such inter subjectivity it cannot be accepted although this is merely one necessary factor since there are others

I accept your point for the masses.

So does this mean you would only accept evidence provided by others, negating whether YOU personally were convinced by evidence of God?