All we have to determine truth about the external world in a naturalistic perspective are the five physical senses and our ability to reason. Our five senses along with our reason cannot operate perfectly, or without limitation, yet this does not invalidate their use in ordinary life, and for the pursuit of science. And this is where group accountability comes in, because on more important matters, we make reference not only to our own ability to gather and analyze data, but also to others collectively, whose agreement in oversight lends our own views some additional authority. It is not a mistake, therefore to ask for some material proof or evidence to consider objectively, especially such as can be reviewed analytically and critiqued by multiple observers.1. If it's true our senses are normally too unreliable (e.g. if Plantinga's EAAN is true), then I don't see how it will help if we have a group of individuals in a concerted effort to find the truth with their likewise faulty senses. I don't see how you justify the leap. It'd be like the blind leading the blind, wouldn't it?
Because God is by the definition I learned omniscient and omnipotent, God is also fully knowledgeable and capable of presenting sufficient and overwhelming evidence to convince all those He targets to do so, at least in the material world. It is not an unreasonable expectation, at least in the context of naturalism, to expect such a divine response if God truly wishes for one to believe. Although God is also by definition supernatural, then the reasonable expectation of believers is that God would prefer supernatural as opposed to natural means to reveal Himself.
If God operates in the supernatural realm alone, then I cannot place any limits or bound His operation by any desires I have, especially in seeking revelation of Himself. So unless God chooses to reveal Himself supernaturally or naturally (I suspect you could say the Scriptural revelations are combinations of both) to the believer, then God cannot be known. I also cannot deny the charge of Romans 1 if that is the case, because God has left behind some evidence in nature of His supernatural existence and operation. But the problem with that is, I cannot be shown by the material senses and reason that a supernatural realm even exists in the first place, let alone constitutes a superior reality as a frame of reference. So I feel that any accusation of moral failure for failing to perceive such is ultimately unjustified.
2. As an aside, we have more than five senses. For instance, there's proprioception, nociception, thermoception, and equilibrioception (which is technically more than one sense), among others.
3. Just because we can't sense God with our normal senses doesn't mean we can never sense God.
a. For one thing, God could bypass our senses and communicate directly with our minds.
b. Also, we can sense God through sensing other things with our senses. For example, we cannot directly sense time with our senses. There is no physical organ responsible for sensing time itself in the same way there are physical organs responsible for sight, smell, taste, etc. However, we can still sense the passage of time through what we see and hear, from whence we can infer its existence.
4. On a related note, how do we know you're a person, Byron? Perhaps you're a cleverly designed android which perfectly mimics a human being. Far better than the mechas in A.I., the replicants in Blade Runner, Cameron in The Sarah Connor Chronicles, or the skin job cylons in the new BSG. We can sense your corporeal properties, but we can't directly sense your mind or consciousness. Since we can't sense such hallmarks of personhood, could we therefore justifiably assert you are not a person?
5. You say you don't believe in God because you can't sense him. But this argument is a double-edged sword. Some people say they do believe in God because they can sense him. As such, the arguments would seem to cancel one another out.
That said, the fact that you can't sense God isn't epistemically on equal footing with the fact that someone else can sense God since sensing God is a positive form of evidence for his existence while the inability to sense God is neutral on the existence or nonexistence of God.
Patrick
ReplyDelete"For example, we cannot directly sense time with our senses. There is no physical organ responsible for sensing time itself in the same way there are physical organs responsible for sight, smell, taste, etc."
That's because there was no need for humans to develop that direct causal sense as a function of the evolutionary development. It was not needed. But our bodies do sense time, not in minutes and seconds and hours, but rather through the diurnal linking of our physiology of the terrestrial nature of our existence on this planet. We know that as the sun goes down, our body prepares for sleep, an absolute necessity for proper body care and maintenance, by the production of melatonin in our brains in preparation for sleep, for body shutdown to undergo REM [deep sleep] without which we would generally malfunction as a organism and die. Sleep deprivation is injurious to human health and survival.
We are purely terrestrial, products of this planet, fitted to this planet through the process of biological evolution.
http://www.vincentcheung.com/other/questempiric.pdf
ReplyDeleteNot that I agree with Byron or Papalinton, I think Cheung would do well to read something like Alston's The Reliability of Sense Perception, and there's other problem with his view that we cannot know anything from sense perception when coupled with other claims in his epistemology, but alas I beat a dead horse.
ReplyDeleteQuite so, but these answers to Cheung are not available to the atheist.
ReplyDeleteYes, but not for the reasons Cheung thinks (it requires another argument, like maybe something from evolutionary psychology), and some of Cheung's questions can be dismissed because of their reliance on a particular approach to epistemology. There's no reason to believe that atheists must be internalists and infallibilists and strong/classical foundationalists with respect to knowledge.
ReplyDeletePapalinton said:
ReplyDeleteBut our bodies do sense time, not in minutes and seconds and hours, but rather through the diurnal linking of our physiology of the terrestrial nature of our existence on this planet. We know that as the sun goes down, our body prepares for sleep, an absolute necessity for proper body care and maintenance, by the production of melatonin in our brains in preparation for sleep, for body shutdown to undergo REM [deep sleep] without which we would generally malfunction as a organism and die. Sleep deprivation is injurious to human health and survival.
1. Your comment completely misses the point. If we can perceive the "passage" of time even though we lack a specific organ to sense time, then why can't we perceive God?
2. You can't say time is physical, for time doesn't literally "pass."
3. Our circadian rhythm isn't identical to time. At best, our bodies would only be sensing the rhythm of our internal clocks.
4. At best, you're just saying we can sense the effects of time. Not time itself.
5. Several non-sentient things display similar characteristics. As the sun sets, certain flowers close their petals to prepare for nighttime activity. Likewise sunflowers track the sun across the sky. Tides result from the rise and fall in sea level caused by gravitational forces exerted by the moon as well as the rotation of the earth. When the sun goes down my air conditioning runs less. Do flowers, tides, and my A/C "sense time"?
6. However, if you're suggesting we can draw inferences about the existence of time from things we directly perceive, then we can also have an indirect knowledge of God's existence.
7. BTW, you have a mistaken understanding of sleep. Deep sleep is associated with non-REM sleep, not REM sleep. In REM sleep, the EEG displays active high-frequency and low-amplitude rhythms, while non-REM sleep displays three distinct EEG stages with higher-amplitude and lower-frequency rhythms. In other words, there's (a) REM sleep, (b) stage 1 non-REM sleep, (c) stage 2 non-REM sleep, and (d) stage 3 non-REM sleep. Stage 3 non-REM sleep is what's considered "deep sleep," which is marked by its delta waves, among other things.
8. But thanks for warning us about the dangers of sleep deprivation!
We are purely terrestrial, products of this planet, fitted to this planet through the process of biological evolution.
1. This is an assertion without an argument. You can't simply leap from your description of our circadian rhythm to your conclusion that we therefore evolved per neo-Darwinism.
2. "Fitted" would seem to imply some kind of teleology to the evolutionary process. Yet this isn't possible if natural selection is "blind," as many evolutionists will tell you.
Patrick
ReplyDelete"If we can perceive the "passage" of time even though we lack a specific organ to sense time, then why can't we perceive God?"
We perceive the passage of time only through sensing the effects of time, just as you say. In relation to god, we can perceive of a god, but it is solely the capacity of the brain to neurally construct ideation of one, just as we can imagine science fiction worlds and construct alien creatures and operationalize them into a narrative with believability and character.
In respect of REM, my intention was not to lay down the science, rather to draw the importance of it to our diurnally sensitive physiology. But what you say is correct.
Papalinton said:
ReplyDeleteWe perceive the passage of time only through sensing the effects of time, just as you say.
Actually, that's not exactly what I said. Re-read what I wrote above.
But I'll take it as a concession. Thanks.
In relation to god, we can perceive of a god, but it is solely the capacity of the brain to neurally construct ideation of one, just as we can imagine science fiction worlds and construct alien creatures and operationalize them into a narrative with believability and character.
1. This is another assertion in lieu of an argument. You say so, but you don't show why.
2. If you're suggesting belief in God is nothing more than the byproduct of certain cognitive processes such as temporal lobe stimulation, then at best you're jumping to conclusions. It's unwarranted.
Let's say for the sake of argument it's true that studies have shown we can stimulate certain areas of the brain and thus produce religious experiences including an experience of God.
For one thing, as Alvin Plantinga has pointed out: To show that there are natural processes that produce religious belief does nothing, so far, to discredit it; perhaps God designed us in such a way that it is by virtue of those processes that we come to have knowledge of him.
For another, simply because some religious experiences might be produced this way does not justify you extrapolating it to all religious experiences. Take phantom limbs. Patients can feel pain in their phantom limbs which have been amputated. The sensation of pain is real, but its location is not (insofar as modern medical science understands). However, this doesn't mean everyone should doubt arms or legs exist.
In respect of REM, my intention was not to lay down the science, rather to draw the importance of it to our diurnally sensitive physiology. But what you say is correct.
Again, thanks for conceding the argument.
Patrick
ReplyDeleteI am not conceding an argument, I am giving credit where credit is due. I am in search of the *truth*, no matter where it is found. And if a statement is based on fact and reflects truth in the statement or idea, I accord credit.
Earlier you said, "However, if you're suggesting we can draw inferences about the existence of time from things we directly perceive, then we can also have an indirect knowledge of God's existence."
We know time exists. There are innumerable methods and experiments to substantiate the passing of time. Indeed humans have even invented instruments that can apportion time. They are called watches, clocks,even time pieces.
As far as a god is concerned, not only have we failed to acquire any substantive evidence for a god-being, neither have we accumulated any indirect knowledge of a god-being existence.
Patrick, human research, investigative, exploration and analysis, that constitutes the corpus of human knowledge has proceeded at an exponential rate since the judeo-christian tome was written. Much of the focus of that research is no longer predicated on the 'personal' or cathartic experience. Third person language about data is far more developed than our primitive first person language about experience.
This is the line being redrawn that demarcates the antiquated scholarship with a different form of scholarship. And this contemporary form of scholarship has singularly been unable to signal or capture any indication suggesting either a [genuine and veritable] active supernatural world or [putative] sentient beings that inhabit such a dimension.
Generally, absence of evidence is not regarded as evidence of absence. But in the case of a god[s], an exception must be made. Over the many thousands of years, humankind has yet to affirm in any substantive way the existence of a god, that will put paid to every other religion. And there have been countless religions over time that have each singularly declared the existence of their particular god[s], and these religions have come and gone. New religions continue to pop up; eg Scientology, Mormonism, while others are consigned to history and down to the last couple hundred followers eg the modern Essenes.
So no concession Patrick, but a follower of truth wherever that might lead me.
Papalinton said:
ReplyDeleteWe know time exists. There are innumerable methods and experiments to substantiate the passing of time. Indeed humans have even invented instruments that can apportion time. They are called watches, clocks,even time pieces.
The issue isn't measuring time to prove time exists. Once again, you need to re-read what I've written above.
What's more, you aren't reading my comments in context. At best, you're simply picking and choosing some tangentially related comment I make without regard to why I'm saying what I'm saying and using it as a pretext to talk about whatever it is you want to talk about.
As far as a god is concerned, not only have we failed to acquire any substantive evidence for a god-being, neither have we accumulated any indirect knowledge of a god-being existence.
You keep making assertions. But assertions aren't arguments.
Patrick, human research, investigative, exploration and analysis, that constitutes the corpus of human knowledge has proceeded at an exponential rate since the judeo-christian tome was written.
What are you talking about? This is vague. For one thing, how do you define terms such as "the corpus of human knowledge"? Do you mean scientific and technological knowledge? Do you mean mathematical knowledge? Do you mean wisdom and intelligence? Do you mean logic and reason? Do you mean to imply people today are somehow more logical and reasonable than people in the past? That Richard Dawkins is more reasonable than Aristotle? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
Besides, for someone who is so apparently enamored with human scientific and technological knowledge such that he uses it as a club to beat down on Christians as if all Christians are scientifically illiterate, I've already shown above (as well as in the past) how poorly you yourself grasp science as well as its presuppositions.
Much of the focus of that research is no longer predicated on the 'personal' or cathartic experience.
Are you suggesting "research" in the past was "predicated on the 'personal' or cathartic experience"? If so, this is naive or muddle-headed at best.
Also, you should try reading a book like The Double Helix by James Watson which illustrates the more "personal" aspects of modern scientific discovery.
Third person language about data is far more developed than our primitive first person language about experience.
Too bad for psychologists like Valerie Tarico who often use "primitive first person language about experience" in their "research"!
This is the line being redrawn that demarcates the antiquated scholarship with a different form of scholarship.
Yet again, what are you talking about, Papalinton? The fact of the matter is that what you've said so far has little to no relevance to my post or subsequent comments. It's off topic. You're just rambling on and on. You're galloping around in circles on your hobby horse without so much as a care in the world for what the point of this post is.
And this contemporary form of scholarship has singularly been unable to signal or capture any indication suggesting either a [genuine and veritable] active supernatural world or [putative] sentient beings that inhabit such a dimension.
ReplyDeleteYet another assertion desperately seeking an argument.
BTW, here's a phrase you might try looking up sometime: chronological snobbery.
Generally, absence of evidence is not regarded as evidence of absence. But in the case of a god[s], an exception must be made.
What justifies your special pleading?
Over the many thousands of years, humankind has yet to affirm in any substantive way the existence of a god, that will put paid to every other religion.
At the risk of stating the obvious, even if everyone disaffirmed the existence of God, it wouldn't then imply God doesn't exist. God's existence or nonexistence isn't dependent upon whatever we happen to think or not think about him. Oak trees would still exist even if everyone "has yet to affirm in any substantive way" their existence. Truth isn't founded on consensus.
So no concession Patrick, but a follower of truth wherever that might lead me.
So how do you explain why you have so often resorted to emotional tirades, ad hominems, and the like rather than reasonable argumentation against us in the past? Such as when you say stuff like: "Are you the local resident bully?"; "how does one defend a fable?"; "Inside every christian brain there is a god-shaped vacuum"; "There is no dignity or value in the christian death. Just the wild-eyed scrambling of the gullible and the untutored for an undeserved seat on the direct express line to the pearly gates"; "such behaviour reeks of narcissism, conceit and vanity"; "This [Triablogue] is a sycophants forum"; "What a pathetic bunch of woosy faery believers masquerading as god's soldiers"; and on and on we could go with your many emotive comments to us in the past.
In fact, how do you explain how you can't even stay on topic in this thread? How do you explain your failed arguments in this thread? How do you explain your multiple assertions and unsubstantiated opinions in this thread?
Papalinton,
ReplyDeleteYour claims about time don't allow you to conclude, based on what you've said, that "time exists," if you mean "exists" in some mind-independent way. Nevertheless, if it does exist, you are making an inference from the *effects* of time to its actual existence, much like natural theology does.
Now, you go on to make some claim about exponential increase in knowledge. However, it's really an increase in a subset of our knowledge, those things pertaining or amenable to mechanistic investigation, those things non-teleological, personal, moral, and normative. One could argue that in these others areas, our knowledge has been decreasing. To claim that knowledge gained through one form on inquiry is better than another is a value judgment, and seems hard to justify apart from a particular stance. So, while you can create a better DVD player, it not at all clear that your myopic approach can create a better person (let alone tell us what a person is), or tell us whether we ought to create better DVD's. You may, like Procrustes, simply declare these things that don't fit into third-person, non-normative analysis "unimportant," and so lop them off or stretch them, but this is, again, another philosophical, non-scientific, and value judgment.
You then go on to make some claim about the history of humankind and the knowledge or evidence of God. But here you get very specific, and one wonders why. You see, with "time" you confidently asserted that "We know time exists." Notice the vague nature of the claim. You totally skipped over questions like: A-theory or B-theory, exists as a construct or mind-independently (reductionism or Platonism), McTaggert's arguments, presentism, eternalism, time travel, fatalism, the topology of time, etc., etc., etc. These can be considered akin to the numerous "world religions."
So, if you were to argue consistently, you'd argue that there's no evidence for time since throughout human history we've not been able to provide any evidence or argument that will "put to paid" the other religious views of time. On the other hand, if you want to stick with the vague agreement that "time" exists (though there are atheists with respect to time, you reject all other theories of time except your own, they just go one further!), then why don't you do the same with religion? There's billions of people, the overwhelming majority of earth's population, who claim that "god" exists. It's like there's a fishbowl and almost everyone standing around it says, "There's something in the bowl", though they disagree on the precise details of that something, and then there's the one party pooper who says, "Nope, nothing in the bowl." So, if you want to get specific, you undermine your argument; if you want to stay vague, you undermine your argument.
You don't appear to be a follower of truth, you seem to have an unsophisticated and merely sophistic atheology, and you use that ignorance to try and club people over the head with, hoping that if you're loud enough and use the word 'science" enough, people won't see through your bluffs and ill-thought-out views.
You totally skipped over questions like: A-theory or B-theory, exists as a construct or mind-independently (reductionism or Platonism), McTaggert's arguments, presentism, eternalism, time travel, fatalism, the topology of time, etc., etc., etc. These can be considered akin to the numerous "world religions."
ReplyDeleteNo they cannot be considered akin - that's the Courtier's Reply. Don't let him get away with that, Papa Linton!
Thunh,
ReplyDeleteIf you'd like to go to school too I can oblige you as well. I took license with world religions for literary effect, the main point is they're competing views about the nature of time. My point with Papalinton should have been obvious and your sophistic response doesn't get around the argument.
Subjective experiences are unreliable compared to what we have to measure time.
ReplyDeleteTime can be proven by pointing to any change in the arrangement of matter in the world. This is objective and more than one person can verify that & so I don't need to know fancy theories to prove time.
But subjective impressions are unreliable - animists have subjective impressions about trees and rocks. Children see faces in the headlights and grills of cars. Yet GK Chesterton seems to have believed based on nothing but subjective impressions!
But you have nothing objective anymore - no burning bushes, pillars of fire, etc. All you have is an unreliable mental phenomenon, therefore you are unjustified in allowing religious experience to ground any part of your belief.
It's not that you can't perceive God through R.E. or that God couldn't use R.E. as a means to manifest himself. It's that by induction (which you use in everyday life) we know that this particular type of experience (subjective, without any connection to sensory input) is unreliable, so it cannot be trusted here.
Patrick should concede Byron's point on this issue - the only hope you have left are attempted "historical" proofs that try to prove specifically Christianity (the other proofs would at most prove deism).
Subjective experiences are unreliable compared to what we have to measure time.
ReplyDeleteIf time doesn't exist, you're not measuring it. Nice beg. Oh, and nice straw men viz. "subjective experiences". Shoot, anyone can "win" a debate if they get to play like this.
Time can be proven by pointing to any change in the arrangement of matter in the world.
Really? So you can just assume that time exists and then prove it? Perhaps change is just an appearance too? The field is divided here too. There's a lot of theories of change, you reject all except yours, others just go one further and reject yours. If you give me some gratuitous assumptions, I can get to theism pretty quickly too.
"But you have nothing objective anymore - no burning bushes, pillars of fire, etc. All you have is an unreliable mental phenomenon, therefore you are unjustified in allowing religious experience to ground any part of your belief."
Look, if you want to parade your ignorance of the theistic proofs around for all to see, be my guest. But this is just ridiculous to anyone with so much as a sophomore's knowledge of the theistic proofs.
Anyway, the point is, again, that there are many, many theories of time, and they cannot all be true; just like all religions cannot be. So if the existence of contradictory theories means that one cannot believe his theory, then you/papa cannot believe in your theory of time. If you claim that the vast majority of philosophers, scientists, etc., believe in time, though disagree on the details, then this generalized thesis is similar to people believing that a "god" exists while differing on details. So at best you're self-refuting, at worst your special-pleading.
Thnuh Thnuh said:
ReplyDeletePatrick should concede Byron's point on this issue.
1. Why? Byron hasn't even responded to my point. And, for all of Papalinton's rambling, he hasn't responded to what I've said either. Just read or re-read my responses to him above.
2. But since you don't quite get it, I'll sum it up for you:
a. Byron originally took issue with what we can know with our senses. He said: "All we have to determine truth about the external world in a naturalistic perspective are the five physical senses and our ability to reason...unless God chooses to reveal Himself supernaturally or naturally...to the believer, then God cannot be known...I cannot be shown by the material senses and reason that a supernatural realm even exists in the first place..."
b. Apart from other problems with "determin[ing] truth about the external world in a naturalistic perspective," I pointed out that God could bypass our senses and reveal himself to our minds.
c. I also said we could sense God through sensing other things with our senses. For instance, we can't directly sense time with our senses. There is no physical organ responsible for sensing time itself in the same way there are physical organs responsible for sight, smell, taste, etc. But we can still sense the passage of time through what we see and hear. So if we can sense the "passage" of time even though we lack a specific organ to perceive time, then why can't we perceive God?
3. While I can't be held responsible for your inadequate sense and sensibility, I suppose I could hold out hope this somehow gets through your senses and makes sense to you!
I pointed out that God could bypass our senses and reveal himself to our minds.
ReplyDeleteThis is logically possible, but this pathway would be a mental event not connected to sense input, which would be too unreliable to depend on. To argue for what I mean, let me start with your earlier reply to PL:
To show that there are natural processes [temporal lobe stimulation] that produce religious belief does nothing, so far, to discredit it; perhaps God designed us in such a way that it is by virtue of those processes that we come to have knowledge of him.
I'd say yes, that is possible. But this falls into the category of "impressions that are not produced by the normal channels".
But when we look at other sorts of phenomena that fall in that category, such as people with abnormalities like schizophrenia, or people who take hallucinogenic drugs and see false things, we are forced to conclude 'this category is unreliable', so that even if truths about God were being revealed this way, we would still be obliged to doubt it.
To analogize, if a journalist wishes to communicate a true idea through an article, he won't publish it in the National Enquirer. It will be just as true in the Enquirer as if he published it in, say, the Washington Times. But we would be obliged to doubt it because it appears in the Enquirer. I'm saying based on other data, this class of phenomena is unreliable.
This is akin to the argument against historicity: why would God choose something as unreliable as history for self revelation?
I agree with c., but that would entail sense content from which one could deduce God, but as 2 Peter says, all things continue as they have since the beginning. The only "miracles" being done today are by people like Todd Bentley, not R.C. Sproul. It's not wicked and adulterous to honestly confront this head on.
CHAN: I pointed out that God could bypass our senses and reveal himself to our minds.
ReplyDeleteTHNUH: This is logically possible, but this pathway would be a mental event not connected to sense input, which would be too unreliable to depend on.
ME: No, it would be connected to God. And, minimally, S "sees" X only if X causally contributes to the production of the experience, and contributes in the appropriate way. Moreover, there are many "perceptions" that "are not connected to one or more of the "five" sense inputs. For example, take rational insight, like those mathematicians or philosophers or scientists have. Sometimes these people have "aha" moments, and "see" with the "mind's eye" some truth or principle or theorem or solution. Many reliable mental events that count as perceivings are not connected to "sense input."
"I'd say yes, that is possible. But this falls into the category of "impressions that are not produced by the normal channels".
What's "normal" on a naturalistic worldview? Is this simply a point about *statistics*? How would one get from that to "unreliable"? Moreover, something can be "normal" in one domain and abnormal in another. Have you tried solving some philosophical conundrum or mathematical equation by, say, audition?
Moreover, this point totally misses Patrick's response to you. God so designed us, perhaps, that those "normal channels" will produce belief in God in the appropriate environment and when the perceiver is at least open or non-resistant to the perception; for surely you'd agree that when people don't want to "see" something, they often won't, even when it stares them smack dab in the face.
Your claims about drug or psychosis induced belief is too vague and ambiguous to take seriously. Are you claiming all beliefs produced in this state should be considered unreliable, or just some? If the former, what would that argument look like? I personally have done over 20 hits of acid in my life and have eaten I don't know how many eighths of shrooms in my life. Reports of seeing pink elephants are highly exaggerated. Anyway, it's not as wacked as many people seem to think. Are you comparing belief in God via, for lack of a better word, "mystical experience," to beliefs produced while on drugs or in a state of psychosis? How would that argument go? Is it like this:
[1] Some beliefs in God may not be produced through normal channels, call these 'G-beliefs'.
[2] Some beliefs obtained while on drugs or in a state of psychosis are not produced through normal channels either.
[3] Some (all!?) beliefs obtained while on drugs or in a state of psychosis are not reliable.
[4] Therefore, G-beliefs are not reliable either.
Are you serious? Is this what passes for "reasoning" at the hands of atheists?
CONT . . .
CONT . . .
ReplyDelete"But we would be obliged to doubt it because it appears in the Enquirer."
I've had numerous examples of false reports from the Enquirer. So i don't afford it the principle of credulity. At first, maybe it was innocent until proven guilty. After it's been *SHOWN* to be guilty, I am obliged to doubt (most? all? some?) stories that appear on the Enquirer. However, this hasn't been done with perceptions of God. You're begging the question.
"This is akin to the argument against historicity: why would God choose something as unreliable as history for self revelation?"
Kind of rests on you showing "history is unreliable," that's just a huge, sweeping, hyper-skepticcal claim that I see absolutely zero reason to believe. And what is this "argument" anyway? Is there premises that move via rules of inference to some conclusion?
I agree with c., but that would entail sense content from which one could deduce God"
Why think it "entails" that? Do you know what 'entailment" is? If so, show the "entailment." Moreover, we don't "deduce" anything from sense content, if you think you do, give me some "sense content" and "deduce" something from it.
"but as 2 Peter says, all things continue as they have since the beginning. The only "miracles" being done today are by people like Todd Bentley, not R.C. Sproul. It's not wicked and adulterous to honestly confront this head on."
Really? This is meant to be serious? The point is that history keeps going and there's no final and definitive return of God from the heavens to restore his kingdom and make his enemies submit. Peter wasn't saying that each and every *part* of the world has been the same or repeated since the beginning. That's a ridiculous interpretation and you should be ashamed of yourself for subjecting adults like me to this kind of pre-school silliness.