Chuck writes:
That's your problem Straggler, you need to see everything before you can believe it, why?
No I don't. I simply request that whatever method of knowing being applied is able to demonstrate that it leads to conclusions which we have reason to consider accurate and reliable. The methods of knowing you are applying amount to the same methods of knowing that have failed time and time and time again. The methods of knowing being applied to come to the conclusion laid out in the OP of this thread are demonstrably successful.
Chuck writes:
You know, some people actually just wake up one day and look out the window and say "look at all the evidence of a God".
And others do the same and conclude a different god to you. Others do the same and conclude the exact opposite. I could look out of the window and cite what I see as evidence for the existence of the matrix if I was so inclined. Or Last Thursdayism. Or any number of other baselessly conceived unfalsifiable alternatives.
Chuck writes:
Isn't nature itself subjective evidence to use in the case of God(s)?
That which can be cited as evidence of anything is evidence of nothing.
Chuck writes:
Well, not ALL are the work of satan of course, many are the work of men. I think you'll agree with that right?
We have lots of examples of those that are the work of men. There are no examples that we can reliably pin to Satan that I am aware of. Inductive reasoning (remember the thread topic?) suggests that all such concepts originate from the same source. Human imagination.
Chuck writes:
I can't prove to you God exists in the way you are asking...
I haven't asked you for proof. I don't think evidence can ever prove anything. The obsession with proving and disproving things is the obsession of the theist. I simply ask for evidence that is something more than your own deep conviction rebranded as "evidence".
Chuck writes:
BUT we have subjective evidence, what good is it if you never use that evidence?
What good is your subjective evidence if there is no way to distinguish the reliability and accuracy of the conclusions it leads to from blind random chance?
Chuck writes:
You are dismissing all of it and wanting God(s) to come knoocking on your door.
If God was genuinely knocking people's doors down we would have conclusive evidence of his existence.
Chuck writes:
Why can't you take my word for it? I've experienced it and am telling you God is real.
That you are convinced of this is not in doubt. That you be correct requires more than your conviction.
Chuck writes:
What you should be doing is asking me how I came to this conclusion and will i show you what to do that YOU can know it too. Why won't you? Are you afraid you might actually have a higher power to report to and mess up your independancy?
Not really. Depending which version of god we are talking about I would either be dismayed or overjoyed to hear that he actually exists. But I don't think what I do or don't want has any bearing on reality.
If you have a method of knowing god that is able to demonstrate itself as a reliable and accurate method of knowing things then I am all ears.
Chuck writes:
BTW, this isn't at all about me trying to convert you, that's NOT why im here but it's a few valid questions IMO.
You can ask and I will answer.