Ted, arguments have premises and conclusions.
You must have missed the posts in the thread where people are claiming to have empirical evidence of the existence of God.
Libertarian asks - “What do I most treasure?”
Difficult question. Let me start with a first appoximation. I’ll answer “My life and the life of my loved ones.”
Actually, empirical evidence is exactly the kind of evidence that is used to derive axioms.
Arnold
Then here is how you experience God: Leave your family and everything you own. Then seek Him out. He will find you.
How will I know when god has found me?
He will be what you treasure most.
So how do I know that my life isn’t god? That’s what I treasure most right now.
Not any axiom I know of.
Abbr. ax. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.
(I am, admitatly, crossreferncing axiom with apriori though.)
I realize this, however this is none the less a valid argument via that definition:
P1 This sentence is not true.
C The sentence above is true.
Ted, can a truth value be assigned to the premise? Does the conclusion follow from the premise? An argument is valid if the premises are true and the conclusion follows from the premise(s). Is your argument valid?
Yes, of course that’s your god! But I thought you were asking how to perceive our God, no? 
“Where your treasure is, there your heart is also.” — Jesus
Arnold, a preacher for whom I have a lot of respect once opined that everybody has his god – that which he honors and reveres above all else. If it should be your life, you are several steps above those for whom it’s a good lay or amassing more money. But those of us who have this silly delusion about having encountered the Creator who supposedly claims to love us, from Abraham on down, think that there’s more to life than the preservation of something you will end up losing in 120 years at most. And, according to what He supposedly said, in giving up ascribing intrinsic value to things other than Him, we will find ourselves blessed with them in their proper amount and place anyway. And, in moderation, I have found this to be more than true – I have those things I used to pine for and value most, enriching my life, though they are not the be-all and end-all that they used to be.
That came dangerously close to a witness, but, oh well…
It depends on who you ask.
The problem of course is recursion and sets. It forces truth value to transpose it self.
These kind of paradoxs have been argued about for over 2000 years, and of course while there are a number of ways to deal with them no one really agrees on such a method.
If you want to eliminate self refrencial statments from logic, you can do that… however there is no logical rule against using such statments.
You cannot prove that A is A, but (thankfully!) you do not put a Pepsi can to your lips and taste Coke. Your axioms are self-evident because they match your observations.
I saw it, but I don’t think one can do it. Though I don’t deny that it is possible so long as you don’t have some sort of aproiri belief that God does not exist.
I do, however, think that one can’t offer proof against one’s belief in God (probablity or otherwise) if the believer holds aprori that God exists.
You know… you just given him an impossible task.
The only way one can believe in God is to give up what one most cherishes and seek him out.
If one does not believe in God then why would he give up all he loves in this world to seek out such a being? If he
does give up all he loves, then that’s merely proof that he in fact has best loved God all along.
I know. I’m wrong. The more I thought about it the more I realized I was using the wrong term. What I was realy thinking throughout the whole thing was “apriori axioms”. I completely admit I missused the term in the context I was trying to give. Sorry bout that =] (I seem to be making subtle mistakes all over the place don’t I? =)
Ted, I almost agree with you here!
But seriously, one could view this as a scientific experiment. Libertarian (and I believe Polycarp) are saying that if I give up what I value most, then I will receive empirical evidence of the existence of god (cause and effect.) I still don’t see any empirical evidence though, beyond the statement “God will become what you value most.” If I value above all else my belief in the abstract concept god, how is that proof of existence of god? It’s proof of existence of my faith, but I don’t see how it goes beyond that.
Also, since I value my life (and that of my loved ones) the most, how can I give those up?
P.S. Polycarp, witnessing is allowed in this forum, I don’t think you need to make apologies.
Well, for how long, and how did you sustain yourself, if you do not mind me asking?
Anyway, I am not trying to argue the OP either way in regards to God being a neurological function, but I thought it would make for an interesting debate since I am rather sure it is not an “emotion.” My conclusion is you can not prove this either way.
Neither could this man:
[/quote]
“All these [commandments] I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
— Matthew 19:20-22
[/quote]
But y’know, you never know what’s around the corner.
Whoa, Nellie! That only matters if you treasure those things. It isn’t wealth itself, but the love of it that hinders.