So you have concluded that the President can not be "proven" to exist without direct perception... and...??
actually its more that the president is proven to exist (directly) when the seer conforms to certain criteria (that on the whole revolve around falling in to line with the values/interests of the president)
Most people only perceive the President indirectly - but through a process that is known, understood, and one that rationally leads to being evidence for the existence of the President (note I said that it is evidence for, not proof of...). And it is the weight of such evidence that leads people who do not have direct perception to conclude that the President exists.
that's fine (actually one could say the same about god too)
For one who disregards such calls for evidence on the grounds that it is not direct (as an atheist does in their challenge over god's existence) it is neither here nor there however
So what is the equivalent for God? Where is this indirect perception of God, and how does it rationally lead to conclusions of God's existence?
I already gave the example that one can rationally conclude that somewhere someone is acting in the role of president if one can observe a community/nation that has functioning utilities, etc ... and that this is similar to the argument of intelligent design (and to which the atheist will quickly quip about a call for a lack of direct evidence as sufficient to rationalize some other conclusion - a conclusion which they also lack direct evidence I might add ...)
It is seemingly the utter lack of such rational evidence (i.e. evidence that rationally supports) for God's existence that it seems to become a case of direct perception or nothing.
I think I have brought to your attention several times before that one brings issues of rationality and logic to a set of values. IOW its a fallacy to suggest that logic supports a singular set of values - the extensive range of arguments on sci - from star wars vs star trek to a personal vs a godless universe - clearly illustrate this.
And yes, one does need to have an understanding of the qualities of God, just as one does need to have an understanding of the qualities of the President. But if the President never utilised those qualities, how are we to know of his existence?
Therefore until God actually utilises the qualities by which it is identified...
If you then try to argue that God has already utilised his qualities (e.g. initiated life, if that is to be one such quality) then we again go back to the question of evidence to rationally support the claim not only that they have been utilised but also that God is the sole owner of such a quality. E.g. if a quality of God is that he started the Universe then you would need to provide evidence to support that the universe started (a given) but also that universe-starting is a quality that only God has.
Haven't we had this discussion before?
That in terms of cause and effect in the universe, the ultimate cause must necessarily be singular for as long as one is working out of a singular set as the context?
And if your definition of God is the "cause of causes" or some such then you are unfortunately left with trying to provide evidence that everything had a cause. And good luck with that one.
Even in empiricism, it is sometimes required to be familiar with the qualities of several things in order to be familiar with one in particular that stands as contingent or contextualizing several.
For instance a detailed discussion or critique of global warming requires not only more than just an observation of a thermometer, but also a compliance with certain procedures (for instance, even a calculation on global warming with the most up to date equipment and references doesn't look good if one one doesn't triangulate one's findings on numerous locations on the globe) .
In the same sense, a qualitative model of god encompasses a qualitative model of this phenomenal world and the living entity which renders the empirical model of evidence obsolete from the onset. IOW if you are already working out of the values that the universe is a chance arrangement of matter that gave rise to life (another value for which there is no direct evidence I might add), then one is situated in a way of seeing that doesn't reveal much.
For instance god is celebrated as displaying the universal form (or the ability to reveal to a living entity - who of course is situated in a localized aspect - to see everything and everywhere as existing through the localized aspect of god. There are references to god displaying this form to atheists who are not convinced of such displays (thinking them to be some sort of hallucination or mind control).
IOW such displays only evidence as much as the values encompass.
IOW a big problem with the issue is that the atheist insists on whatever qualitative model one has for god be evidenced through an empirical model (or a model that focuses on what one brings before the senses) when a model that focuses on how one utilizes one's senses (ie a model that focuses on the desire that drives the senses - or one's material conditioning) is what is recommended ... which in turn gives rise to a host of experiences that establishes the vocabulary for clarifying evidence for god.
IOW its kind of like trying to evidence a high end claim of physics through the language of primary school science.
The analogy of the president begins to illustrate this point.
I mean what do you think one is directly assessing in determining the evidence of the president?
Does one sit in on his diplomatic meetings to observe him in action?
Or even if one did sit in one, do you think they would be in a position to comprehend the nuanced details of a surcharged diplomatic meeting?
Or do you think that political science requires some setting iof the ground work for the personalities involved?
