The Final Argument.
Throughout the many varied arguments claiming there is a god and why there isn’t the question of evidence is always a central concern. The end result is usually a discussion of the validity of faith vs reason and issues of how we know what we know, i.e. questions of epistemology. However, that implies an oversimplification of the issue, or rather from the argument of reason which goes; since there is no empirical observation or detection then a belief without such evidence cannot be claimed as a truth, and where faith is simply belief without evidence. Such a position denies that subjectivity might have value.
Ultimately the theist asserts that they know a god exists because it communicates with him/her directly once they have come to a sincere acceptance or need. The argument goes that the skeptic can never achieve this state because they are not using the subjective emotional sincerity needed. In other words the alleged god will only reveal itself via a sincere subjective process. Clearly that is beyond current empirical methodologies and a scientific approach.
For example Lightgigantic offers - With theism, however there is the claim of direct perception (which does involve the mind and the senses) and also a process to attain such a state (namely purify the consciousness). Christians and Muslims have similar variations.
My objection is that the claimed knowledge from such a subjective process cannot be distinguished from delusion which is a more credible alternative than the acceptance that a super being exists capable of creating a universe. I further object on the basis that the claimant has no process to verify that their alleged subjective knowledge is real, i.e. we only have their word for it. To my mind this becomes entirely a matter of credibility, but not proof either way.
My question for debate then becomes – is there any basis where we could establish that such a subjective process without any form of individual or independent verification could in fact offer a truth? While it seems on the surface that this could be easily and summarily dismissed by non-believers it is however the crux of the theist position and deserves some deeper attention if there can be any.
Throughout the many varied arguments claiming there is a god and why there isn’t the question of evidence is always a central concern. The end result is usually a discussion of the validity of faith vs reason and issues of how we know what we know, i.e. questions of epistemology. However, that implies an oversimplification of the issue, or rather from the argument of reason which goes; since there is no empirical observation or detection then a belief without such evidence cannot be claimed as a truth, and where faith is simply belief without evidence. Such a position denies that subjectivity might have value.
Ultimately the theist asserts that they know a god exists because it communicates with him/her directly once they have come to a sincere acceptance or need. The argument goes that the skeptic can never achieve this state because they are not using the subjective emotional sincerity needed. In other words the alleged god will only reveal itself via a sincere subjective process. Clearly that is beyond current empirical methodologies and a scientific approach.
For example Lightgigantic offers - With theism, however there is the claim of direct perception (which does involve the mind and the senses) and also a process to attain such a state (namely purify the consciousness). Christians and Muslims have similar variations.
My objection is that the claimed knowledge from such a subjective process cannot be distinguished from delusion which is a more credible alternative than the acceptance that a super being exists capable of creating a universe. I further object on the basis that the claimant has no process to verify that their alleged subjective knowledge is real, i.e. we only have their word for it. To my mind this becomes entirely a matter of credibility, but not proof either way.
My question for debate then becomes – is there any basis where we could establish that such a subjective process without any form of individual or independent verification could in fact offer a truth? While it seems on the surface that this could be easily and summarily dismissed by non-believers it is however the crux of the theist position and deserves some deeper attention if there can be any.
