Philosophy Now Forum

Ah. You're not familiar with the infinite regress problem?

It's quite interesting, actually. It's purely mathematical and deductive. You don't have to believe anything at all to see it's true -- except you have to believe in maths and logic, which I'm sure you'll say you do. But that's what makes it such a show-stopper for the Atheist set: it doesn't rely on any Theistic premises at all, just on maths and logic. And worse still, for the Atheist, it's also empirically confirmable. It's about the most purely scientific kind of proof one could offer.

"I don't personally see any evidence for God,"

And a theist says "I personally see evidence for God"

So?

So if he does, and he's telling the truth, then there IS evidence.

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2026 9:34 pm

Ah. You're not familiar with the infinite regress problem?

It's quite interesting, actually. It's purely mathematical and deductive. You don't have to believe anything at all to see it's true -- except you have to believe in maths and logic, which I'm sure you'll say you do. But that's what makes it such a show-stopper for the Atheist set: it doesn't rely on any Theistic premises at all, just on maths and logic. And worse still, for the Atheist, it's also empirically confirmable. It's about the most purely scientific kind of proof one could offer.

So it's both "purely mathematical" and "purely scientific". And also "empirically confirmable".

A neat trick.

Let's just say that we have previously discussed this and I still think that "infinite regress" mathematics does not apply to the situation.

"I don't personally see any evidence for God,"

And a theist says "I personally see evidence for God"

So?

So if he does, and he's telling the truth, then there IS evidence.

Or the theist is mistaken. The "evidence" is not sufficient or the "evidence" is a caused by something other than God or the "evidence" has been misunderstood. Or the "evidence" is wishful thinking or imagination.

There are lots of ways that it may not be THE TRUTH.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2026 12:06 am

phyllo wrote: ↑Mon Mar 02, 2026 9:34 pm

Ah. You're not familiar with the infinite regress problem?

It's quite interesting, actually. It's purely mathematical and deductive. You don't have to believe anything at all to see it's true -- except you have to believe in maths and logic, which I'm sure you'll say you do. But that's what makes it such a show-stopper for the Atheist set: it doesn't rely on any Theistic premises at all, just on maths and logic. And worse still, for the Atheist, it's also empirically confirmable. It's about the most purely scientific kind of proof one could offer.

So it's both "purely mathematical" and "purely scientific". And also "empirically confirmable".

A neat trick.

No trick. Just the truth.

Let's just say that we have previously discussed this and I still think that "infinite regress" mathematics does not apply to the situation.

And I would say that it most certainly does. And even from a purely mathematical, rational and empirical position, it can be shown that it does. But perhaps it's not that easy to shift you on that point.

"I don't personally see any evidence for God,"



So if he does, and he's telling the truth, then there IS evidence.

Or the theist is mistaken. The "evidence" is not sufficient or the "evidence" is a caused by something other than God or the "evidence" has been misunderstood. Or the "evidence" is wishful thinking or imagination.

Or the evidence is there, in plenty, but the Atheist won't even look at it, because his whole mindset is bent to avoiding the evidence, not engaging it.

There are lots of ways that it may not be THE TRUTH.

Or it may be the truth. I would suggest it is: I know plenty of rational evidence for God, as would anybody with a cursory knowledge of the history of natural philosophy. But one of the problems I've noted with Atheist's knowledge is that they seem not to want to inform themselves about their opposition. And they don't even seem very well informed about their own view, because they think it can be asserted without evidence, and they rarely consider its full implications or try to live with them.

And here's another one: what interest can an Atheist have in the truth? He believes his own brain is the product of randomness plus time, not of anything rational. So why should he trust it to be oriented to truth, rather than to, say, convenience, or survival, or preference, or some random thing?

Atheism seriously undermines confidence in the mind, therefore. And with that, it undermines the reasons we think we have to trust what our brains tell us, and what we find in logic or science, as well. Why should we trust the beliefs of a random ape, led by random processes?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2026 1:08 am @IC: What exactly do you experience when you think God is communicating with you that you don't think I experience from time to time as well?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2026 2:31 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2026 1:08 am @IC: What exactly do you experience when you think God is communicating with you that you don't think I experience from time to time as well?

I don't know what you experience, Gary. How could I? But I know what I experience. And I can speak to that.

If you want to know how God communicates, and to have your own experience of it, the solution is simple: open up the lines of communication. Pray. Take, say, 30 days. Get up each morning, and talk to God as if He's present with you. Just for a few minutes. But do it every morning. Every one.

At first, you'll struggle. You'll be tempted to say, "It's not working; this is going nowhere." But that's the testing point: are you serious, or are you just, as the cynics do, fooling around? God does not engage with foolishness. He waits for seeking and sincerity. So persist. It will pay off.

As to what you say, just say the truth. He knows exactly what you're thinking anyway, so you can't shock or dismay Him. And like Job, or Elijah, or any number of other famous believers, you can even question Him and challenge what He's doing...so long as it's done with respect, of course. But He waits until we choose to open the lines of communication. He doesn't force the relationship. It will be up to you to initiate the conversation, and then to be committed enough to it to persist.

God says, "You shall seek Me, and you shall find Me, when you seek Me with all your heart." Maybe the reason many of us don't hear from God is that we're not yet to the point of wanting to hear from Him badly enough to actually open up the dialogue. We'd rather rage than engage, if I may coin a phrase. But rage doesn't reach God. Faith does. Even small, timourous, "I'm just trying here" kind of faith.

Your struggle is often in your mind, Gary...I'm speaking of you personally, now. I know enough about you to know that blue depression hits you hard, and often. Only somebody who can get into your mind can help you with what you're struggling with. That mind needs remaking. And conversation with God is the starting point of just that.

Give it a try. That way, you won't need me to hand you my experience (as if I really could). Rather, you'll have your own.

If you want it. But you have to want it. Really want it.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2026 6:07 am I'm going to be honest with you, IC. I'm not all that interested in establishing a relationship with God. I'm only curious if God exists.

My spiritual journey has been about coming to terms with what fate has delivered upon me.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2026 6:25 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2026 6:07 am I'm going to be honest with you, IC. I'm not all that interested in establishing a relationship with God. I'm only curious if God exists.

So you want to know if He exists, so you can ignore Him, insult Him, or be His enemy? That seems an odd choice, if you don't mind me saying.

My spiritual journey has been about coming to terms with what fate has delivered upon me.

And how has that been working out for you? As I understand your descriptions of it, not very well, right?

If God is anything like my father, an overbearing and impatient male, then I'm not all that interested in knowing him. And if God is the great warden in the sky or whatever who manages this dungeon, then I'm equally not interested in knowing him. When God shows me that he is divinely good and worth knowing, then maybe I'll be interested in having a relationship with him. But from what I see in his world, there is a lot of needless suffering out there.

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2026 1:55 pm

If God is anything like my father, an overbearing and impatient male, then I'm not all that interested in knowing him. And if God is the great warden in the sky or whatever who manages this dungeon, then I'm equally not interested in knowing him. When God shows me that he is divinely good and worth knowing, then maybe I'll be interested in having a relationship with him. But from what I see in his world, there is a lot of needless suffering out there.

If you focus on what is good in the world, then God will naturally be better than if you focus on the bad.

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2026 2:16 pm Christianity is the product of many thousands of people who put in the own 2 cents.

Some of them were kind, gentle, caring, loving. And some were nasty, violent, domineering, insensitive.

Their views were incorporated into the canon.

God is almost certainly not how he is described in the books.