Musika:
Its not so much the evidence but the definitions. Because atheists have a strong tendency to define evidence and God in a particular fashion, they inevitable demand the answers in a language that the problem can't answer. Kind of like discussing 3d problems in the exclusive language of 2d.
If the main problem is the definition, why haven't you provided a definition that you're comfortable with, somewhere in the last 400 posts?
Do you intend to provide a working definition that you're happy to go on with?
Note that, if you are going to do this,
you need to do it. Inviting me to search google on your behalf won't be sufficient, because there's no guarantee that what I find there will suit you. Bear in mind, once again, that the people here are having a discussion with you, not with google. We want to hear your thoughts and your arguments. If you need to consult or refer to sources, that's fine, but you need to at least indicate what the relevant points are here.
I might compare Jan's rather weak effort earlier, where he asserted that he basically agrees with anything William Lane Craig has to say on the topic, without actually elaborating on anything specific that Craig might have said. In other words, Jan just wants to send us off on a wild goose chase. I hope you can do better.
You proposed a method to examine the presence of a subject by contemplating its absence. In this case, this method is not valid, because it becomes difficult to explain how one proposes to remove reality from reality for the purposes of studying reality.
Are you telling me that it is impossible to contemplate a universe without God in it? If so, tell me why you think that is the case.
I am just talking about what is required for methods you advocate for knowing God. If these methods arrive at problems, you own them.
It sounds like you're saying that asking for evidence for God is a "bad method". Do you think it is invalid to ask for evidence of God, then?
In short, upon God revealing it. Its kind of like trying to determine intricate details on the life of an artist simply by observing a painting in the museum. You could perhaps arrive at some general conclusions, but to get detailed info, you have to go through the channels of history, which is basically personal testimony. There is simply no alternative to this.
Observing the painting in the museum would be fairly suggestive that the artist was real. This is because in our shared experience paintings are usually created by artists. You're correct that I would need more than a single painting to get details of the artist's life, although I might be able to deduce certain things from it.
Is there anything analogous to the painting that we can agree on when it comes to God? I know that the temptation might be to point to the entire universe as God's painting, but you and I do not agree in advance that universes are usually created by gods.
We might possibly avoid this impasse if you can point to something about the universe which could not have been caused by anything but God. Can you do that?
Note that we are free to enquire into the artist's life
after we have established that the artist is real. Similarly, after we establish that God is real, then we might continue to explore what can be said about God's life and actions etc. But first things first.
Initially, yes.
That said, it is a gradual process. Arriving at the stage of directly perceiving God is the final stage, not the introductory one (at least as far as surmounting conditioned life is concerned).
To me, this flies in the face of the testimony of people who have sudden religious conversions, such as so-called born-again Christians. Would you have it that such people need to be "primed" in advance for their religious conversion, by religious experts?
Also, typically, people first learn about their religion from their parents. How do such non-experts manage to impart the ability to know that God is real into their children? Or does that process usually require the intervention of higher religious authorities, in your opinion?
What would you say is the average time and/or education in religion that is necessary before a person can directly perceive God? And, out of curiosity, are you at that level yourself, or yet to reach it? If you're there, when and how did you get there, personally?
In my case, its more a case of applying the testimony of religious authorities.
How?
We have been over this subject before in other conversations (aka, the Andaman islanders, etc). Its not so much about being beyond empiricism, but being beyond the individual or cooperative empirical efforts of a specific population.
By "specific population" here, do you mean the whole of humanity, when it comes to the question of the reality of God? Or are you perhaps referring to the population of atheists? If it's atheists, can you tell me what faculties or resources atheists lack, so that that they are unable to appreciate the relevant empirical evidence for God?
As previously discussed with the Andaman islanders etc.
Is that a "No", then?
Strike "concrete". The word was unnecessary. I am interested to see if you can come up with anything. Period.
