"God reveals in places that a scientific epistemology is incapable of fully engaging"

this is very much the point of view I was trying to get across in an earlier discussion with George.

Adherence to a strict empirical/rationalist grounded theory approach is not necessarily conducive to being able to make the sorts of cognitive leaps that we might perceive as being evidence of God.

An interesting discussion. I would like to go along to the debate, but the student seats are sold out and I'm unemployed these days. I'll do as George intends and look for it online.

Now we have Sells and Shumack on the same thread! Is there no rest for the wicked and the godless who are happy living in the real world?

Humans should have strangled the first prelate at birth!

"Adherence to a strict empirical/rationalist grounded theory approach is not necessarily conducive to being able to make the sorts of cognitive leaps that we might perceive as being evidence of God."

Antiseptic, I'm confused. Are you saying that the ability to make cognitive leaps is evidence of God? Or that some cognitive leaps are evidence of God? Because I don't see the connection.

Of course, if by 'cognitive leap' you mean 'a wild assumption', and your argument is that only a wild assumption can lead a rational person to believe in God, then I agree completely.

Now all you have to do is explain why the results of a wild assumption should have any bearing on the truth.

jon..<<science is the application of exactly the same methods..you and every other rational person use every morning>>..

yes the same blind faith..preferance's

<<to decide what to have for breakfast,>>

yes your either..a vitabritz/weetbix..porrage or bacon/eggs
or scrambled eggs..kipper/mash..by rote/habit.. each day

,<how hot to make your shower>>

same automated response preferance..EVERY DAY*..
same/sasme
..unthinkingly hot or cold or
bath or shower..same autonomous preferances

<<what route to take to work.>>

same bus same time robotic sdameness
same time same place same fellow commuters..even same seat..same upsets,..same routten..

every weekday..every holiday,..
doing the same..rote robotic somnambulism..just *do your job
samre same

same ignoirant blind faith..lol..NOT*,<<99.99% of your daily decision making is already based on the methods of science;>>

lolthats sofunny

then..lets turn back the question..<<why are you so desperately keen to sequester>>..the 99.9 robotic rotein..leaving the rest of us<< the remaining .01%?>>

anyone else noting the secular advert blitz..
of the atheist foundation..name changes?.

jon..<<Now all you have to do..is explain why the results
*of a wild assumption should have any bearing on the truth.>>

right back at ya ol mate

Thanks Richard for a thoughtful article.

Theists have always claimed that God is a relational, personal being, rather than the impersonal force of other philosophies. Furthermore, the Christian scriptures paint a picture of a God who interacts with mankind in various ways, and ultimately in the incarnation. Because of this, Paul Moser’s criticisms of the search for “spectator evidence” make sense to me.

I wouldn’t say that spectator evidence is totally uncalled for, but it does make sense to consider whether we can truly conduct an entirely neutral search for God as if he is mostly just the answer to a cold, philosophical conundrum. No. The scriptures claim that God is a relational being, that humans are relational beings, and thus it makes sense that God may reveal himself to different people in different ways. If God exists, then we finite humans must ultimately open our hearts to him rather than expect that arguments and allegedly objective reasoning will settle “the issue”.

Another philosopher who has written on types at evidence for God is C.Stephen Evans of Baylor University. He argues that if God were to exist, then we would expect evidence for him to meet two conditions: The evidence would be widely available and easily resistible. Call this WAP (Wide Accessibility Principle) and ERP (Easy Resistibility Principle). A definitive philosophical proof for God would violate the ERP principle, as would undeniable evidence of a scientific nature. In fact high level scientific evidence could fail the WAP condition too. The standard arguments for God’s existence fail as definitive proofs, however there are signs underlying the theistic arguments which ultimately provide evidence both against the naturalistic picture of the world proposed by atheists, and for Theism.

Evans’ expands on his ideas in his book Natural Signs and the Knowledge of God. It provides easily the most illuminating discussion on “The God Debate” that I’ve read. He delivered a series of three lectures last year which are available on YouTube. Here’s the first:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm2H5dQ84Oc

Check it out- I’m hard pressed to think of a better way to spend a few hours :-)

the godless have always denied the obvious in order to justify their lifestyles. Pseuso science is used purely to try and give their dogmas some 'intelletual'basis. The corruption of humanity is obvious to anyone seeking truth. Oh that right the IPCC are exempt! The 'moral ' superiority of athiests is nothing short of sickening.