what would it take to convert you to the other side

The devil can work in mysterious ways as well. I do not think that is possible. come up with all the hypotheticals you wish.BTW the otherside is atheism, not merely a conversion to a new FAITH

I would need two things: omnipotence and simultaneous proof of my sanity.

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

True. But the same answers would apply to both situations (a theist becoming an atheist and a theist converting to a different religion), so it would be valid to ask what it would take for a theist to convert to a different religion.So what would it take?

Of course that would depend on the individual. A person of relatively weak faith would be more likely to hold tightly to a given Faith, even a given Sect of a given Faith then a person with stronger faith.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."--Stephen RobertsSo if we pick a god we both disbelieve in then we are starting from the same place. I don't believe in Zeus. You don't believe in Zeus. We are both atheists when it comes to a belief in Zeus. So what would convince you that Zeus exists?Whatever it is that would convince you that Zeus exists is the very same thing that it would take for me to believe in the God of Abraham.

Why not just say "nothing"? That nothing would convince you of atheism?

I am not an atheist, and do not really care about that side of the context.many things could cause a theist to switch:Disillusionment (sp?) - I was raised RCC, and when I was 18 I left for a while and experimented with protestantism, but it was too strict, and seemed more like mythology, too many creationists and literalists for me, so i switched back to RCC a few years ago.Marriage - my father became a RCC member when I was 7. everyone of us was but him, and he went to mass with us all the time, so he joined the club.Birth - If I married a Jew girl, our children would be Jews by birth.Slavery - You think West Africans were Christian when enslaved?Economic advantages?simple choice - I have felt the pull towards christianity, but personally choose to go with the RCC, after years of looking around.there are probably more but I cant think of any ATM. God would have to send me message, perhaps a calling.Edited by Artemis Entreri, : forgot one

The difference it makes is to your currently valuing God demonstrating himself one way over another way. The suggestion isn't that you generally value empirical and direct equally but that you should do so when it comes to God revealing himself to you. You'd know it was God in the same way you know basic reality is real. You know this not by empirical means but by assuming it is so because the alternative, solipsism, is useless to you.Empiricism is no more essential than any other means God might utilise to demonstrate his existance. One means is as good as another. But the particular case we are dealing with here leads you to realise that your sense of 'reliability' is provided to you by God. If you happen to have the same sense of reliability via personal revelation then isn't the one means as good as the other?Direct revelation needn't be empirical in that it need not involve transmission via the empirical sense.

See, that's nonsense. Direct revelation is never superior to empirical revelation.
Why? Empirical revelation does not depend on your biases or your initial viewpoint. If God exists and there is empirical evidence for this fact, then God existing is a fact regardless of whether somebody chooses to ignore the evidence or assert that it doesn't exist. Anybody, anyone at all, could go and see that evidence and observe the fact of God existing.If the only thing you have is direct revelation, then you're no better off. The only place you had evidence of God before your revelation was inside your mind; the only place you have evidence of God after the revelation is inside your mind.If you have both, then the direct revelation is not necessary at all. Because you would already have an empirical revelation that could not discarded as a product of your mind; the direct revelation does not serve any useful purpose whatsoever and is inferior to the empirical revelation. But direct revelation in the absence of empirical revelation to back it up or confirm it is indistinguishable from the imagination, and is effectively pointless."It was God speaking to me!"
"No, it was you imagining God talking to you."If you had empirical revelation as well, you could then refute it with:
"But here is the evidence, objective and real, that shows it was God talking to me!"At that point, everybody would look at your claim, look at the evidence, and conclude that God was indeed talking to you (or be labelled an idiot for ignoring such clear evidence). Without that confirmation, a rational person is far more likely to conclude you're a nutter.
Direct revelation is not sufficient. Empirical revelation is necessary to validate the idea that God really was talking to you, because otherwise an equally valid alternative is the much more simple one: it's all in your head. Yeah, you'd know God talked to you. But that's absolutely useless to anybody else.{off-topic: I have a couple of theological points that extend from there, which would call into question the basis of believing in a deity that would either not provide direct revelation to everybody, or not provide empirical revelation for somebody to provide to everybody. Somebody start a thread if you want to debate them, I'm not keen on beginning something I couldn't finish.}

You seem to have leapt in without taking in to account the argument. If you peddle backwards but a few posts (addressed to Modulous) then you'll arrive at the start of the argument (the next post, to nwr, sums it up more or less too)Edited by iano, : No reason given.

What I'm saying is that God demonstrating his existance to your empirical satisfaction simultaneously dissolves empiricism as the means whereby you know God exists.Empicism would no longer stand as the independent-of-the-subject means whereby you verify the existance of that subject. You would realise the trust you placed in empiricism-as-truthgiver was merely assigned to it by God, the subject of the empirical verification.

Hi Omni. Yeah, that's me alright - on one of the three sunny days we had here last year. Respectable? Only on the surface. Righteous? Thankfully- Destruction of it as an independent-of-God way to verify Gods existance I should have said. God turning up empirically would bring you to the realisation that your trust in empiricism (as truthgiving aid) is the result of God's "magiking" trust into existance this way.But couldn't he magick trust into existance by any number of means. And if so, why the a priori picky-ness about the means he demonstrates his existance by.I'm not saying you shouldn't prefer empiricism over other truthgivers at this juncture. I'm suggesting you couldn't prefer empiricism over other truthgivers at that juncture.

God demonstrates his existence empirically and thereby removes empiricism as the means by which you know He exists?Really?--Percy

It would appear so - especially if including the other half of my statement.

How does god show that she is the source of empiricism other then empirically?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!