> Assuming a loving god exists, shouldn't that being give us a way to tell the difference between false beliefs and true beliefs?
Oh, sure, I think that makes sense. I mean, supposing god exists and wants us to know he/she/it exists, it makes sense to me that some sort of revelation has to be there. But this god, being per se infinite, has to accommodate finite creatures. That seems like a challenge.
> Assuming I'm the god of the universe, then the test would be as easy as "Anyone that thinks 'all hail cogman10!' will see a gold star in the periphery of their vision." Heck, I could simply have all my creations be born with the innate knowledge that I exist and these are my rules.
I guess I would say that the universe itself seems to be repeatable and testable, at least at the scales we can measure so far. Of course there's a lot we don't understand, but that's kind of expected if your deity of choice is infinite.
I'm not sure what Mormonism teaches, but the Bible at least says that everyone knows that God exists, and that they suppress that knowledge. Maybe that's begging the question, though I doubt such claims are merely axiomatic (i.e., without some kind of reasonable argument). At least the request for something repeatable and testable that expresses the divine in some way would be answered by the universe you inhabit. This doesn't really lead to a Personality, which I think you'd have to arrive at in a different way. But I don't think persons—divine, if they exist, or otherwise—are repeatable that way.
> Wouldn't the act of asking for literally anything demonstrate the minimal amount of faith?
I don't know. Maybe the point of the saying is that no one has faith the size of a mustard seed?
> But, assuming there is some law of the universe that I'm bound by (making me not all powerful), then I'd surely know how to communicate specifically with cogman10 to let them know that I exist beyond doubt (and to do that for everyone). If I didn't know that, then I must not be all knowing.
It seems to me that one of the essential problems that most religious systems have to deal with the challenge of creaturely freedom and divine omnipotence. One possible supposal is that freedom is somehow incompatible with the desire for incontrovertible, watertight evidence, and that the two exist on a continuum. Perhaps the maximal amount of evidence is provided for the maximal amount of creaturely freedom?
Again, I think I understand the objection, but I'm not sure whether it adequately addresses the challenges that come along with it. I appreciate you thinking about the problem and talking about it, though. I have a lot of questions like this, too, and it's helpful to push some electrons into the ether instead of just talking to myself about it.
Oh, sure, I think that makes sense. I mean, supposing god exists and wants us to know he/she/it exists, it makes sense to me that some sort of revelation has to be there. But this god, being per se infinite, has to accommodate finite creatures. That seems like a challenge.
> Assuming I'm the god of the universe, then the test would be as easy as "Anyone that thinks 'all hail cogman10!' will see a gold star in the periphery of their vision." Heck, I could simply have all my creations be born with the innate knowledge that I exist and these are my rules.
I guess I would say that the universe itself seems to be repeatable and testable, at least at the scales we can measure so far. Of course there's a lot we don't understand, but that's kind of expected if your deity of choice is infinite.
I'm not sure what Mormonism teaches, but the Bible at least says that everyone knows that God exists, and that they suppress that knowledge. Maybe that's begging the question, though I doubt such claims are merely axiomatic (i.e., without some kind of reasonable argument). At least the request for something repeatable and testable that expresses the divine in some way would be answered by the universe you inhabit. This doesn't really lead to a Personality, which I think you'd have to arrive at in a different way. But I don't think persons—divine, if they exist, or otherwise—are repeatable that way.
> Wouldn't the act of asking for literally anything demonstrate the minimal amount of faith?
I don't know. Maybe the point of the saying is that no one has faith the size of a mustard seed?
> But, assuming there is some law of the universe that I'm bound by (making me not all powerful), then I'd surely know how to communicate specifically with cogman10 to let them know that I exist beyond doubt (and to do that for everyone). If I didn't know that, then I must not be all knowing.
It seems to me that one of the essential problems that most religious systems have to deal with the challenge of creaturely freedom and divine omnipotence. One possible supposal is that freedom is somehow incompatible with the desire for incontrovertible, watertight evidence, and that the two exist on a continuum. Perhaps the maximal amount of evidence is provided for the maximal amount of creaturely freedom?
Again, I think I understand the objection, but I'm not sure whether it adequately addresses the challenges that come along with it. I appreciate you thinking about the problem and talking about it, though. I have a lot of questions like this, too, and it's helpful to push some electrons into the ether instead of just talking to myself about it.