David Marshall "Knows" God is Not Silent!

One of the arguments why Richard Carrier is not a Christian is that God is silent. David Marshall, author of several Christian apologetic books, says instead that he knows God is not silent. He said of Carrier and me that our claim is one we "cannot possibly know to be true. " Really?

Marshall, do you mean that we cannot PROVE God is silent? Is that the standard here? Such a standard is utterly unreasonable. That Which Disconfirms UFOs From Mars Also Disconfirms God’s Existence.
John: It's not a matter of proving it, it's a matter of knowing it. You can't even know it. And given that the language of nature is "read" similiarly by so many billions, and given the other ways that God speaks, you should be more skeptical of your own, perhaps unduly biased, intuitions.
David, seriously, what are you talking about? Are you saying there is objective evidence coming from the subjective experiences of people around the world that all point to YOUR particular God concept or theology? If so, then tell us what all of them agree about after having these experiences. The lowest common denominator is that there is a supernatural force out there. But even then you must explain the numbers of people who have not had any such experiences, such as atheists and agnostics. To see some atheist demographics check this out.

Do atheists count? If so, there is no common denominator at all.

You also have to explain why you think a majority of people in any given time period are correct. Popular opinions of one time period have given way to the advances of science. Just think the geocentric universe as but one of many examples. You would probably be the first person on some issues to say the majority opinion is not necessarily correct.

And you also need to explain why religious people disagree about the content of said experiences. Your theory must be able to explain any disagreements. My theory is that religious experiences are subjective and therefore all in the brain, and that religious people interpret their experiences through the lens of their religious culture. Religious people have experiences and the brain interprets them within the confines of what categories they have been taught in their respective religious cultures.

There is no need to posit a God who provides these experiences, especially the one you believe in, since your concept of God is a very specific one unlike other concepts. Your God is sending mixed messages to religious people around the world, some of which are misogynist, warlike, extremely ascetic, hateful, homophobic, racist, and so forth.
Think he'll have more to say? ;-)


Eric J.S. said...

John has provided the kind of evidence he would be expecting in order to believe in a theistic god. The only problem is that I would probably not like his god because I need to figure out what is good on my own grounds. I cannot know god is good just by seeing him behave. In some ways, I can trust a god like I can trust a person. In others, I guess if there were a god who was overly familiar with me I can see me relying on him if he was kind and never hurt anybody and trustworthy.

Nobody deserves to be hurt, anyways, even as a punishment in my book. Incarceration and the such are mere utilitarian practicalities. War is a result of people not wanting to be slaves or pushed around by people willing to be violent. I would assume a good god would have no interest in wars other than to prevent them, much less start them in order to expunge native people from the land they occupy in the bloodthirstiest way possible. Yeah I am looking at that god who to have supported Manifest Destiny, Crusades, Holy land wars, global domination schemes, etc....