Fwd: Re: Faith: rational or irrational?

[djf500@york.ac.uk]

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


*This is the second time i've sent this. I didn't receive it first time and 
it didn't appear on the archive. I assume this is because of problems with 
the server. If everyone has had this before, let me know so that I know 
it's a problem my end.*

Hi,

Matt (H) says:

"I think I disagree about you as regards evidence for the non-existence of 
God. Were there a God I think that perhaps there would be some tangible 
evidence of his existence, for example, he might intervene in human affairs 
in order to bring about certain effects."

(He does acknowledge that he's not sure.) I'm sorry to keep coming with 
examples from my scepticism course from last year, but...

All of the sceptical hypotheses (BIV, Evil Demon...) *stipulate* that the 
world would be exactly the same if they in fact obtained. I'd say that was 
the point of the examples. When we're discussing the existence of God, the 
hypothesis (or thesis, from some) is that the God possibility actually 
obtains, so whatever they mean, they must mean something where the world is 
as it is. It strikes my that sceptical possibilities and the God 
possibility are similar in this respect, and so I can't see how to 
distinguish empirical evidence that is for and against the existence of 
God. So, in so far as MH holds the quoted statement above, I disagree with 
him - how sure he is about it I don't know.

Cheers,
Daniel.

P.S. I don't know how to deal with the objection to my point that some 
think God to be physically active, as it were, in the world. However, for 
the objection to come to bear on my point it needs to say that God 
intervenes obviously *against* the usual run of things.




Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml