It looks the way it logically is, your emotional reaction to it notwithstanding. If you can't find the empirical measure then all your posturing amounts to nothing more than a subjective reaction and you might as well be the guy on the street corner you likely find offensive.
I thought you might be the guy to help me find the measure.
I've been perfectly clear about it. Either there's an objective, empirical (or other equally objective) litmus to meet or there isn't.
Can you be clear on what it is?
The isn't underscores the insufficiency of empiricism (or other objective approaches) and the inherently subjective nature of our approach to the question of God.
So you think empiricism isn't up to the task but subjectivity does it?
Two things then:
* Can you be convincing in a subjective way?
* What is it about the question of the existence of your god that makes a subjective approach more appropriate? Is that god's existence a matter of opinion?
You can't show me a photograph of all sorts of things, existent and non. If I produced a picture of a resurrected Jesus walking across my pond I'm betting that would only begin all sorts of additional challenges and questions that wouldn't settle a thing.
Oh no, not critical inquiry. That would be awful.
So we're right back to settling. If you want proof you should understand what would suffice. And for the what would suffice to be meaningful beyond your subjectivity it would have to be empirically (or otherwise objectively) verifiable and the means methodologically reproduceable.
Why are you telling me what I would or wouldn't believe? Isn't that the point of subjectivity?
I personally think the best argument against the existence of god is an aesthetic one. That is based in both observation and personal taste. Ask me about it some time.
What's that litmus again? If you can't name it you can't be satisfied and the question/challenge isn't meaningful.
Litmus is an extract from a lichen that, when chemically treated responds to changes in hydronium ion concentration by changing colour between red and blue. Can you be as clear about the existence of your god as I can about summarising the chemical nature and behaviour of litmus? Don't forget, I didn't provide any evidence just then. As with the photograph, proper detailed explanations could do it.
But I don't know why you are convinced about your god so I can't know how to ask you to be convincing. Again, all I can conclude from that is you aren't actually convinced yourself.
When you insist on proof you by and large are absent some other means of objective verification on the point, which you also fail to produce as a standard.
I find it amusing that when I post on ToL, and especially when the interlocutor is a creationist, I am always expected to have the highest standards and the best evidence-based responses!
I could have a holiday from that, couldn't I. Maybe I could just baldly assert on every front as is done in scripture and in temples, mosques, synagogues and churches across the world, not just the way I did on the non-existence of gods, but on any topic!
But I do try to set high standards of probity when it's possible.
This is serious business and you're a member of the Body.
Uh oh. Shall I step out for a minute?
Stuart
