Originally posted by josephw
I guess I was suggesting that to deny the existence of God based on the lack of sensory evidence shouldn't be a basis for excluding the possibility that knowledge of the existence of God isn't beyond our grasp. In other words the knowledge of the existence of God is accessed by other means.
At this point I'm not sure how to describe just how that works. It seems it would suggest we have another faculty which is designed to perform that function.

With the other senses comes the possibility of objectively testing their accuracy.

How would you propose to objectively test the accuracy of your sixth sense of God?

If you can't objectively test it, how apt is the analogy to the other senses?

Or suppose my metaphysical sixth sense suggests to me there is no God. Should I claim you don't possess it because you don't share my intuition?

Originally posted by LemonJello
This example should be apt since josephw is a homophobic bigot. (He thinks it is an "obimination".)

I do read these forums some, LJ 😉.

😀

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Or suppose my metaphysical sixth sense suggests to me there is no God. Should I claim you don't possess it because you don't share my intuition?

He could always claim that your metaphysical sixth sense is deficient, like someone who needs
really thick glasses. Something spiritual would have to be doing the 'speaking,' to which
JW could always say is God, but because of your, er, myopia, couldn't properly interpret.

My example refers to people who are convinced by means of their clear spiritual 'hearing' that the
moral positions and actions that they are taking are correct, but who irreconcilably disagree. I'd
be interested in hearing JW's response to such a situation.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
He could always claim that your metaphysical sixth sense is deficient, like someone who needs
really thick glasses. Something spiritual would have to be doing the 'speaking,' to which
JW could always say is God, but because of your, er, myopia, couldn't properly interpret.

My example refers to people who are convinced by means of their clear s ...[text shortened]... y disagree. I'd
be interested in hearing JW's response to such a situation.

Nemesio

I think josephw probably has something like Calvin's sensus divinitatis in mind -- some sort of cognitive faculty through which the belief is formed, or implanted, in the believer. Or Plantinga has described it as a disposition to form theistic belief in certain circumstances, such as when faced with the starry cosmos or the complexities of the natural world. To the fact that people such as myself do not believe, josephw could respond that my divine faculty has been corrupted by sin; or that it still needs time to gestate; or that I really do believe but delude myself otherwise; or that my belief is currently in some sub-conscious realm; etc.

With respect to Calvin's sensus divinitatis, the beliefs implanted are pretty minimal (maybe just like God exists; He created stuff), and it would require the sensus divinitatis working in concert with external witness to arrive at the sort of beliefs in your example.

But then, again, who really knows what josephw might have in mind?

Originally posted by Nemesio
I do read these forums some, LJ 😉.

😀

I thought that might be the case. I just like to reiterate sometimes. 😀

Originally posted by LemonJello
I think josephw probably has something like Calvin's sensus divinitatis in mind -- some sort of cognitive faculty through which the belief is formed, or implanted, in the believer. Or Plantinga has described it as a disposition to form theistic belief in certain circumstances, such as when faced with the starry cosmos or the complexities of the na ...[text shortened]... liefs in your example.

But then, again, who really knows what josephw might have in mind?

Then again, this could merely be a disposition to attribute agency; to take up the "intentional stance" willy-nilly. Perhaps this is an evolutionary spandrel.

Originally posted by bbarr
Then again, this could merely be a disposition to attribute agency; to take up the "intentional stance" willy-nilly. Perhaps this is an evolutionary spandrel.

Yes, and I happen to think that is much more plausible. And if one has what he takes to be a reasonable de facto challenge against theism, then I'm guessing this will be the natural thing for him to think. Even in the lack of support either way, I would think this would be more parsimonious as an explanation for why the starry sky can strike this particular chord.