Political Crossfire Forums

MJB · Joined: 14 Apr 2006 Posts: 594

nygreenguy wrote: MJB wrote:

So why would you have a problem with personal revelation? Would you not like to learn the truth directly from the source? Are people reliable sources? What credibility does the average person have to critically evaluate their "revelations"? Just look at witnesses at trials, they are often the worst forms of evidence.

Human beings are not perfectly reliable sources for anything. God, however, is.

And - He is the only source, whereby man can know of His existence.

Man can misunderstand information he gathers via his physical senses, but God is not bound by use of the physical senses alone, in order to impart knowledge to man.

God is able to directly communicate Spirit to spirit, and when such knowledge comes from Him, the communication is pure and unambiguous.

wormwood · Joined: 25 Sep 2005 Posts: 2562 Location: The P-Brane

nygreenguy:

Quote: Are people reliable sources? What credibility does the average person have to critically evaluate their "revelations"? Just look at witnesses at trials, they are often the worst forms of evidence. What are you basing your doubts of God on? Could it be personal experience? How reliable is your personal experience?

Quote: Its just ive heard people say "look, i can jump, there goes newtons law of gravity" :lol: No, I meant REALLY debunked. Most of Newtonian physics has been disproved.

CursedLemon:
Quote: Comparing gravity and homosexuality in and of themselves is irrelevant. My point is that God created both of those statutes, and if God exists, then homosexuality would be something totally solid, and not up for interpretation First, it is an arbitrary comparison of two unlike concepts. Secondly, gravity is not a statute. And finally, the issue of homosexuality (if it was an issue) was a moral law. Morality, and it's laws, were supposedly created to help us deal with our free will, and teach us to make proper choices. If the whole purpose of moral laws was to inform choices so that people could please God, then obviously there is a choice involved in the scenario. You are committing a logical fallacy based on semantics.

Quote: Well...NOT like us. : As in, he is not aware of himself, he doesn't reason, and he certainly doesn't care what we do with our lives. How obtuse. Care to explain who holds this view of God?

toddytodd:
Quote: Or alien abductees, or Loch Ness monster or bigfoot witnesses, etc.
People can believe anything that they think they have experienced regardless of the abundance (or lack of) evidence. You bring up a good point, but what constitutes an experience? How do you ever truly know if an experience has occurred? Memories are faulted, and eyewitness accounts are suspect, so what can you trust? Are things that are documented on video tape the only true experiences? We know that the human mind and perception are terribly flawed when it come to what is really going on around us, but which is more real; the world we see and hear and feel, or the world of pure energy, charged particles and vibrations and oscillations? Our minds construct a world we can comprehend and function in, so in essence, our minds construct all of our experiences. At some point we have to accept what we see as "real", even if it is not what's going on. We have to trust ourselves, even though we could be wrong.
If there truly is a divine consciousness, what better medium to contact it, than consciousness? Look at most of the OT prophets. They received many of their revelations through dreams. My point is, I don't think that God is something people are supposed to realize on a mass level, I think it is supposed to be realized on a personal level first. Just my opinion, sorry for the ramble.

mODULAR mAN · Joined: 13 Oct 2006 Posts: 852 Location: censored

wormwood wrote:
Quote: Its just ive heard people say "look, i can jump, there goes newtons law of gravity" :lol: No, I meant REALLY debunked. Most of Newtonian physics has been disproved.

I really would love for you to expound on this. Do you mean at the Quantum level, because I'm having a tough time to see how F=ma, for example, has been "debunked"?

After all, Newton may have come up with a lot of theories, but there are only a few that are established "Newtonian Physics" (part of Classical Mechanics). Those happen to be the ones that have maintained their validity.

I would be interested, also, to know what MORE reliable method you have in describing the natural world?

Debunked! :lol: :roll:

perhaps, I am just taken aback by the term. Maybe you mean, "shown to be not applicable in certain situations"?

wormwood · Joined: 25 Sep 2005 Posts: 2562 Location: The P-Brane

Quote: I really would love for you to expound on this. Do you mean at the Quantum level, because I'm having a tough time to see how F=ma, for example, has been "debunked"? Fine I will expound on it then: E=mc2. If you are asking me to explain relativity, and how it relates to Newton's "law" of gravity, that would take way too long. Start here:
http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node60.html

Quote: After all, Newton may have come up with a lot of theories, but there are only a few that are established "Newtonian Physics" (part of Classical Mechanics). Those happen to be the ones that have maintained their validity. Nope. The law of conservation of momentum or conservation of energy have been proven false through quantum physics, though both are still taught in schools because of practical application.

An interesting side note would be that Newton created Calculus in a notebook to demonstrate his gravity theory, and it was calculus that later proved him wrong.

Quote: I would be interested, also, to know what MORE reliable method you have in describing the natural world?

Debunked! Are you aware of what the term "law" means in a scientific sense? Here:
Quote: Several general properties of physical laws have been identified (see Davies (1992) and Feynman (1965) as noted, although each of the characterizations is not necessarily original to them). Physical laws are:

True (a.k.a. valid). By definition, there have never been repeatable contradicting observations.
Universal. They appear to apply everywhere in the universe. (Davies)
Simple. They are typically expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. (Davies)
Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them. (Davies)
Stable. Unchanged since first discovered (although they may have been shown to be approximations of more accurate laws—see "Laws as approximations" below),
Eternal. they appear unchanged since the beginning of the universe (according to observations). It is thus presumed that they will remain unchanged in the future. (Davies)
Omnipotent. Everything in the universe apparently must comply with them (according to observations). (Davies)
Generally conservative of quantity. (Feynman)
Often expressions of existing homogeneities (symmetries) of space and time. (Feynman) Now do you understand how they have been debunked as laws?

Quote: perhaps, I am just taken aback by the term. Maybe you mean, "shown to be not applicable in certain situations"? :lol:
Ok I can be a bit verbose and pseudo-dramatic at times, but my point remains, no matter how peripheral to the actual conversation it might be. These "laws" are not really laws at all, and certainly not comparable to moral laws in any case.

CursedLemon · Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:24 pm Post subject:

wormwood wrote: First, it is an arbitrary comparison of two unlike concepts. Secondly, gravity is not a statute. And finally, the issue of homosexuality (if it was an issue) was a moral law. Morality, and it's laws, were supposedly created to help us deal with our free will, and teach us to make proper choices. If the whole purpose of moral laws was to inform choices so that people could please God, then obviously there is a choice involved in the scenario. You are committing a logical fallacy based on semantics.

How obtuse. Care to explain who holds this view of God?

Alright, I just can't explain it any better.

Sorry.

wormwood · Joined: 25 Sep 2005 Posts: 2562 Location: The P-Brane

Quote: Alright, I just can't explain it any better.

Sorry. No worries, I have just never heard of anyone who believed in a God that was unaware of itself. Sounds like something out of Call of the Cthulu :lol: .

BigGee · Joined: 18 Feb 2006 Posts: 96

BigGee wrote Quote: Quote: What is already proven about faith, is that there is no basis for argument other than it is seen as superior to those that have that faith. And so can never be discussed rationally, truthfully and genuinely with anyone who has not accepted that faith. It is their trump card (faith) in their denial of substance. From that emminates all kinds of destructive quackary .

Wormwood wrote Quote: I used to think that too. I used to think the way you do now.

Wormwood wrote Quote: It seems that when you can't come to a logical agreement that the discussion invariably delves into a "you had to be there" situation, where one must have experienced what the religious person experienced to understand. The theists are hynotized by the idea of god/higher reality, and so try to define their position by cheating, (pretending, believing, imagining, etc...) It is perfectly OK to feel that way, just don't elevate it above what is known... that is where the problem begins. We need faith in facts, not in our or some one else's imaginations.

Quote: It is hard to understand that this is the core of what having a personal God is all about. That is because it is belief and imagination, so-called higher reality, not facts.

Quote: For me, I began having strange logical intuitions that there was an intelligent governing force is the universe. It is called illogical higher reality, hallucinating, dreaming, etc... that is why it is strange.

Quote: After I felt this way logically, even if it was only a little, I began noticing weird experiences that seemed to be much more than coincidence. Ya, I had those to when I was searching for god. I also have them now, not subscribing to any god. Not only that, I keep them imaginations and coincidences in perspective so as not to decieve myself or anyone else.

Quote: Can I claim to know God or what it is like? No. End of story.

Quote: But, because of my personal experiences, I have a belief in a divine power. Some children are taught to have a belief in the tooth fairy, but anyone grown up knows it is a hoax.

Quote: If I were to argue why I think that, even using the scientific instances that first made me think, I would still inevitably come to an appeal to personal experience, which could be flawed. Is it wise or honest to accept god and give the dream world precedence over total objective reality? Wouldn't that be decieving yourself? There can be no argument otherwise. If we could just see this, we could get on with the genuine reality we have been dealt and get rid of the destructive belief in the myriad of "god groups",(faiths).

Quote: Does this make me think that I am wrong? Not really. You should know that you don't know and always be looking to upgrade... belief is not truth.

Quote: You are basing your doubt of God based on logic and personal experience as well correct? Yes. I am basing it mainly on observation, contemplation, introspection, wide scope thinking, world history... but mostly on total objective reality so that I don't decieve myself.

Quote: Your opinion could be flawed, does that shake your faith in your idea? Probably not. I am willing to upgrade, but the fact is there is really nothing substantial to base discarding total objective reality, without causing deception.... which is the exact problem on this crazy planet.

BigGee wrote Quote: The believer must justify his beliefs if he can not prove it, which would obsolete any need to believe or have faith otherwise. The believer must take a stand and not give an inch that may indicate that they might be wrong in favoring faith above raw facts. Wormwood wrote Quote: What "raw facts" are there against God? OK. The believer must take a stand and not give an inch that may indicate that they might be wrong in favoring faith above total objective reality, (as opposed to fake higher reality).

CursedLemon · Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:03 am Post subject:

wormwood wrote: Quote: Alright, I just can't explain it any better.

Sorry. No worries, I have just never heard of anyone who believed in a God that was unaware of itself. Sounds like something out of Call of the Cthulu :lol: .

Well...it's like pantheism. God simply represents what holds the universe together...not as the "father figure" of humanity.

wormwood · Joined: 25 Sep 2005 Posts: 2562 Location: The P-Brane

Quote: I used to think the way you do now. :lol: I seriously doubt that. Spend a few days in the embalming room, then come talk to me. J/K

Quote: The theists are hynotized by the idea of god/higher reality, and so try to define their position by cheating, (pretending, believing, imagining, etc...) It is perfectly OK to feel that way, just don't elevate it above what is known... that is where the problem begins. We need faith in facts, not in our or some one else's imaginations. That could be the case. Or it could be that many people are simply hypnotized by the swirling and ever changing "facts" of science. (I know I can come across as anti-science, but that is clearly not the case as I have devoted my life to it, I just don't think people should have such concrete ideas about abstract concepts. Science gives us many great things, but don't over estimate it's abilities or applications. ) Since you are so sure that science is on your side, let's see some test results that say there is no God. I am interested in your sources.

Quote: That is because it is belief and imagination, so-called higher reality, not facts. What are the "facts" and what are your sources?

Quote: It is called illogical higher reality, hallucinating, dreaming, etc... that is why it is strange. No, I am quite familiar with altered states of consciousness. This was different.

Quote: Ya, I had those to when I was searching for god. I also have them now, not subscribing to any god. Not only that, I keep them imaginations and coincidences in perspective so as not to decieve myself or anyone else. I am not referring to a common coincidence, this was several months of very specific events. You are certainly welcome to your opinion, and I would like to think that I am welcome to mine without having to hear about how I am deceiving myself because I don't agree with you... some atheists are worse than fundies with the conversion speeches IMO. I can admit that my position is based on personal perception, I wish other people could do the same as to encourage some sort of genuine conversation. To much to hope for?

Quote: Some children are taught to have a belief in the tooth fairy, but anyone grown up knows it is a hoax. How is this a response to what you quoted? This is the exact opposite of what I was talking about. Did you read what you quoted, or any of my post?

Quote: Is it wise or honest to accept god and give the dream world precedence over total objective reality? Wouldn't that be decieving yourself? That depends. Would my prophetic dreams actually come true?

Quote: If we could just see this, we could get on with the genuine reality we have been dealt and get rid of the destructive belief in the myriad of "god groups",(faiths). Define "genuine reality".

Quote: You should know that you don't know and always be looking to upgrade... belief is not truth. I do know that, and I am always looking.

Quote: Yes. I am basing it mainly on observation, contemplation, introspection, wide scope thinking, world history... but mostly on total objective reality so that I don't decieve myself So you are basing this "fact" on the evidence of your subjective personal experience which can be flawed, and objective reality? So what is it about reality that negates the concept of God? (objectively)

Quote: I am willing to upgrade, but the fact is there is really nothing substantial to base discarding total objective reality, without causing deception.... which is the exact problem on this crazy planet I have seen acupuncture work. I did my undergraduate thesis on it. There is no real way to tell what's going on inside the body when acupuncture takes place. Many scientists have theorized why it works, there are certain chemical reactions which are common, but they don't explain dummy points and other control methods. In other words, science can not verify why it works, so for a long time western science refused to believe it. Modern research usually concludes that they don't know why it works but it does. Oddly, the Chinese have been telling them how it works since it first arrived in the states, but it is an explanation the west refuses to believe. My objective experience tells me, what the Chinese say is true, over the fumbling western explanations. Even if they are somehow wrong, their incorrect explanations create a perfectly functioning system of medicine.

Quote: OK. The believer must take a stand and not give an inch that may indicate that they might be wrong in favoring faith above total objective reality, Define "total objective reality", and describe how it negates God in some way.

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5211 Location: Boston, MA

CursedLemon wrote: wormwood wrote: Quote: By "sentient and conscious", I basically mean like us. If you can't understand it that way, then I really don't know how to explain it any better. Which I am always working on. You misunderstood. Gilbert knows what sentient and conscious are, he was asking about this non-sentient, non-conscious concept of God that YOU keep referring to.

Well...NOT like us. :\ As in, he is not aware of himself, he doesn't reason, and he certainly doesn't care what we do with our lives.

And how did you come to this conclusion? Personal revelation?

CursedLemon · Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 7:47 am Post subject:

Gilbert1908 wrote: CursedLemon wrote: wormwood wrote: Quote: By "sentient and conscious", I basically mean like us. If you can't understand it that way, then I really don't know how to explain it any better. Which I am always working on. You misunderstood. Gilbert knows what sentient and conscious are, he was asking about this non-sentient, non-conscious concept of God that YOU keep referring to.

Well...NOT like us. :\ As in, he is not aware of himself, he doesn't reason, and he certainly doesn't care what we do with our lives.

And how did you come to this conclusion? Personal revelation?

If hearing the godlike voice of myself is "personal revelation", then it would seem so.

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 23762

CursedLemon wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: CursedLemon wrote: wormwood wrote: Quote: By "sentient and conscious", I basically mean like us. If you can't understand it that way, then I really don't know how to explain it any better. Which I am always working on. You misunderstood. Gilbert knows what sentient and conscious are, he was asking about this non-sentient, non-conscious concept of God that YOU keep referring to.

Well...NOT like us. :\ As in, he is not aware of himself, he doesn't reason, and he certainly doesn't care what we do with our lives.

And how did you come to this conclusion? Personal revelation?

If hearing the godlike voice of myself is "personal revelation", then it would seem so.

You're just failing the whole point behind this life is all.

By declaring yourself wise..you prove that you are not

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5211 Location: Boston, MA

CursedLemon wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: CursedLemon wrote: wormwood wrote: Quote: By "sentient and conscious", I basically mean like us. If you can't understand it that way, then I really don't know how to explain it any better. Which I am always working on. You misunderstood. Gilbert knows what sentient and conscious are, he was asking about this non-sentient, non-conscious concept of God that YOU keep referring to.

Well...NOT like us. :\ As in, he is not aware of himself, he doesn't reason, and he certainly doesn't care what we do with our lives.

And how did you come to this conclusion? Personal revelation?

If hearing the godlike voice of myself is "personal revelation", then it would seem so.

It would seem no revelation could be MORE personal.

So then what makes YOUR personal revelation more valid than anyone elses?

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

Gilbert1908 wrote: CursedLemon wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: CursedLemon wrote: wormwood wrote: Quote: By "sentient and conscious", I basically mean like us. If you can't understand it that way, then I really don't know how to explain it any better. Which I am always working on. You misunderstood. Gilbert knows what sentient and conscious are, he was asking about this non-sentient, non-conscious concept of God that YOU keep referring to.

Well...NOT like us. : As in, he is not aware of himself, he doesn't reason, and he certainly doesn't care what we do with our lives.

And how did you come to this conclusion? Personal revelation?

If hearing the godlike voice of myself is "personal revelation", then it would seem so.

It would seem no revelation could be MORE personal.

So then what makes YOUR personal revelation more valid than anyone elses?
Quote: So then what makes YOUR personal revelation more valid than anyone elses? That is a great question, which should be asked of everyone, regardless of religious belief, affiliation or lack of.
However, I think the better question that should be asked (and might have been inferred) is: How do you know that your personal revelation was God and not yourself? Is it even possible to truly know the difference between the two? Many people would say 'yes', but the truth is, it isn't possible - that is where faith plays an important role. But is faith strong enough to take this belief (or any belief) and force it upon others?
Note: These questions are to be read in a general term and not directed at anyone in particular.

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5211 Location: Boston, MA

toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: CursedLemon wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: CursedLemon wrote: wormwood wrote: Quote: By "sentient and conscious", I basically mean like us. If you can't understand it that way, then I really don't know how to explain it any better. Which I am always working on. You misunderstood. Gilbert knows what sentient and conscious are, he was asking about this non-sentient, non-conscious concept of God that YOU keep referring to.

Well...NOT like us. : As in, he is not aware of himself, he doesn't reason, and he certainly doesn't care what we do with our lives.

And how did you come to this conclusion? Personal revelation?

If hearing the godlike voice of myself is "personal revelation", then it would seem so.

It would seem no revelation could be MORE personal.

So then what makes YOUR personal revelation more valid than anyone elses?
Quote: So then what makes YOUR personal revelation more valid than anyone elses? That is a great question, which should be asked of everyone, regardless of religious belief, affiliation or lack of.
However, I think the better question that should be asked (and might have been inferred) is: How do you know that your personal revelation was God and not yourself? Is it even possible to truly know the difference between the two? Many people would say 'yes', but the truth is, it isn't possible - that is where faith plays an important role. But is faith strong enough to take this belief (or any belief) and force it upon others?
Note: These questions are to be read in a general term and not directed at anyone in particular.

This thread began with the premise that there has never been "a worldly argument - empirical, rational, or otherwise - favoring any religion in existence" that is empirically, rationally or otherwise obviously false. There is not an empirical or rational arguement ACCEPTABLE to the author of the post but there are many such arguments available on any number of religions and philosophies.

Then he also asserts HIS OWN self realized view of God as if it is somehow more valid since it comes from HIMSELF as opposed to an series of external influences and events.

We now find ourselves in the same discussion as always, which is not any more than a critic of religion/Christianity simply FEELS HE has a better more intellectually, personally sound philosophy. Of course you believe that if that is what you believe. But the fact that you or I believe something, in and of itself, does nothing to negate the philosophy of someone else. Saying something does not make it so.

There is a consistent theme which repeats this supposed Christian practice of "forcing" beliefs on others. Is speech forcing beliefs? How exactly is this "forcing" taking place?

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: CursedLemon wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: CursedLemon wrote: wormwood wrote: Quote: By "sentient and conscious", I basically mean like us. If you can't understand it that way, then I really don't know how to explain it any better. Which I am always working on. You misunderstood. Gilbert knows what sentient and conscious are, he was asking about this non-sentient, non-conscious concept of God that YOU keep referring to.

Well...NOT like us. : As in, he is not aware of himself, he doesn't reason, and he certainly doesn't care what we do with our lives.

And how did you come to this conclusion? Personal revelation?

If hearing the godlike voice of myself is "personal revelation", then it would seem so.

It would seem no revelation could be MORE personal.

So then what makes YOUR personal revelation more valid than anyone elses?
Quote: So then what makes YOUR personal revelation more valid than anyone elses? That is a great question, which should be asked of everyone, regardless of religious belief, affiliation or lack of.
However, I think the better question that should be asked (and might have been inferred) is: How do you know that your personal revelation was God and not yourself? Is it even possible to truly know the difference between the two? Many people would say 'yes', but the truth is, it isn't possible - that is where faith plays an important role. But is faith strong enough to take this belief (or any belief) and force it upon others?
Note: These questions are to be read in a general term and not directed at anyone in particular.

This thread began with the premise that there has never been "a worldly argument - empirical, rational, or otherwise - favoring any religion in existence" that is empirically, rationally or otherwise obviously false. There is not an empirical or rational arguement ACCEPTABLE to the author of the post but there are many such arguments available on any number of religions and philosophies.

Then he also asserts HIS OWN self realized view of God as if it is somehow more valid since it comes from HIMSELF as opposed to an series of external influences and events.

We now find ourselves in the same discussion as always, which is not any more than a critic of religion/Christianity simply FEELS HE has a better more intellectually, personally sound philosophy. Of course you believe that if that is what you believe. But the fact that you or I believe something, in and of itself, does nothing to negate the philosophy of someone else. Saying something does not make it so.

There is a consistent theme which repeats this supposed Christian practice of "forcing" beliefs on others. Is speech forcing beliefs? How exactly is this "forcing" taking place?

Quote: There is a consistent theme which repeats this supposed Christian practice of "forcing" beliefs on others. Is speech forcing beliefs? How exactly is this "forcing" taking place?
Speaking on my post, for me, forcing a belief is an attempt to place a particular belief into law for everyone, regardless of if everyone shares the same belief. Having an opinion, and voicing that opinion when asked, is, in my point of view, in no way 'forcing' anything on anyone. While I may think the vast majority of television evangelists are a waste of perfectly good television time, I in no way consider their broadcasts an attempt to 'force' anything - you don't like it, turn the channel. Forcing seems to only come about when there is no alternative to choose not to listen or agree.

My previous comment was referencing your excellent question: "How is one person's personal revelation more valid than someone elses?". How is one person's personal belief or experience better than the next person's? And how is one to know that their 'personal revelation' is actually a supreme thought, understood to be from God, and not themselves?
Also, I am not a bible quoter, so I may be wrong here, but aren't there a couple books of the bible that starts off as "A personal revelation of [someone]..."?. Perhaps there were other writings that started off this way and didn't make it into the bible. It would seem that their 'personal revelation' wasn't as valid as another person's revelation that had their writing put into the bible.
So the question you supplied still stands: So then what makes YOUR [or anyone's] personal revelation more valid than anyone elses?

mODULAR mAN · Joined: 13 Oct 2006 Posts: 852 Location: censored

I'll paste this in its entirety, because it is short and complete.

I'd be interested in what people think about it:

Quote: Refuting Theistic Epistemic Standards
by Francois Tremblay

The debate between atheist and theist used to be epistemically simple: generally, both sides implicitly accepted that only rational, natural evidence was acceptable. Faith was seen as a way to God but not as proof of God. Debates tended to hinge on natural facts such as the existence of the universe, causality, design, and so on. Science had not advanced sufficiently to provide ammunition to the atheistic side.

Now that cosmological and biological discoveries have defeated the classical arguments, the new current of argumentation relies on taking the battle further and questioning the very validity of reason and science as methods – as epistemic standards. To these standards, the theist opposes his own a prioris (the infallibility of the Bible, perception of “divine intervention”, divine revelation) as equal or superior standards.

I will give three ways to refute these non-rational epistemic standards, although “epistemic standards” is a bit of a misnomer given that it also applies to things like the Bible. Basically, these fatal refutations apply to any non-rational deduction or process.

1. All such standards would be circular, as they would assume the existence of God in order to prove the existence of God.

Acceptance of the Bible or divine revelation presumes the truth of a great number of presuppositions which he cannot justify, and which lead to circularity. I gave examples of such presuppositions in my article ‘The Impossibility of Divine Intervention’.

To accept the Bible as an epistemic standard, for example, we would need to justify propositions such as:

"I believe that God exists."
"I believe that God can, and does, intervene in the universe."
"I believe that God can speak to human beings."
"I believe that humans can understand God and write his words in a book."

But if we need to believe that God exists to accept the standard by which we say that God exists, we have a circular argument. All theistic standards are circular because they rely on something outside of the human mind as source.

2. Doing so contradicts the contingent nature of the theistic worldview itself, which cannot contain any principles. He must either accept our epistemic playing field or lose by default.

This argument is already fully described as the ‘Argument from Correct Choice’. It is much stronger than refutations 1 and 3, because it denies the theist’s use of any standard, rational or otherwise. Even if the theist uses a rational deduction, he could not justify that deduction, as the theistic worldview precludes the existence of principles (including the logic he is using to make the deduction).

3. Demonstrating that another epistemic standard is valid is impossible without the use of reason, since only reason is derivable from foundational principles.

To prove that the standard is valid would require the theist to demonstrate it. But such demonstration would have to proceed from rational methods, such as the senses (we would need to perceive that demonstration), logic (we would need to understand that demonstration), etc. Therefore any such attempt presumes that reason is valid, and the believer must still remain within the limits of reason.

On the opposing claims of Reformed Epistemology, see my refutation in ‘Plantinga’s Basic Beliefs: Not Quite Basic’.

Suppose that a believer tells you that he accepts divine revelation as an epistemic standard, and that this permits him to hold a belief in God as true. Let’s go through the points again:

First, how can we accept that “divine revelation” is indeed a communication from God (that is, actually “divine”) unless we presuppose the existence of God? And since “divine revelation” is used to prove the existence of God and yet presupposes the existence of God, it is a circular argument. It also begs the question of how the believer knows that he can understand God, that he is communicating with God and not Satan, and so on and so forth.

Second, how can the theist claim that “divine revelation” is a correct principle if he cannot hold any principles at all? God could very well decide to transform his “communications” into delusions or schizophrenia, without the believer being able to make the difference. Without a necessary standard, the theist is ultimately forced to nihilism.

Lastly, how can the theist show us that “divine revelation” is a correct standard without appealing to rational processes? He could tell us about some “revelations” he received, but how can we perceive and understand what he is saying without the senses? If he likewise tries to point to the practical consequences of these “revelations” (such as a better life), we must ask him how he knows that the consequences are positive without a rational standard.

Last updated: February 2, 2005
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/against/

I have noticed (as he stated in the first paragraph) that increasingly Theists are using the Bible (e.g., John on this Forum), or personal revelation as "proof" of their position. I can't help but think it is the combination of science pushing god further into the gaps, and the age of personal religion (a sense that "whatever I think is OK") - that is, Liberalism. It used to be that the church was the authority and any break was consider heretical.

I am encouraged by this move away from theocracy, I just think the job is only half done.

So, this paper is interesting since it nips in the bud, any idea of personal revelation as correct.

BTW, here is the link to the "Argument from Correct Choice" he mentions.
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_correct_choice/

CursedLemon · Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 12:04 pm Post subject:

John wrote: You're just failing the whole point behind this life is all.

By declaring yourself wise..you prove that you are not

I was slightly joking.

CursedLemon · Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 12:05 pm Post subject:

Gilbert1908 wrote:

It would seem no revelation could be MORE personal.

So then what makes YOUR personal revelation more valid than anyone elses?

This is me rationalizing, and presenting my thoughts to you. It's for you to ponder, not for me to prove right.

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

I haven't seen an answer to this question - if I over looked it, I apologize. I think it is a very good question and am interested in the responses.
"So then what makes [anyone's] personal revelation more valid than anyone elses?"