Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2017 10:05 AM
395 online now:
Coyote, Faith, jar, JonF, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (7 members, 388 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 811,998 Year: 16,604/21,208 Month: 2,493/3,593 Week: 606/882 Day: 38/86 Hour: 2/11

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Subjective Evidence of Gods (Straggler & Chuck77 Only)
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1 of 12 (623533)
07-10-2011 7:46 PM


Great Debate (Straggler & Chuck77 Only)
Over in the Peanut Gallery the never-ending inductive atheism debate continues......

But Chuck77 has specifically cited subjective evidence as something that should be taken into account. Nor is he alone in advocating this form of "evidence" in this context. So I would like to start a thread specifically on the nature and validity of subjective evidence as applied to belief in gods.

I would like to ask the following:

1) What subjective evidence in favour of the existence of gods is there? Can someone provide some actual examples of this form of evidence?

2) Is subjective evidence limited to entities that can be empirically detected or not?

3) On what basis (aside from belief) is the cause of these subjective experiences attributed to supernatural entities rather than to fluctuations in the matrix, undetectable telepathic aliens manipulating our minds or any other conceivable cause of such things?

4) Is belief itself a form of evidence on which we can justify belief?

Edited by AdminPD, : Great Debate Warning

Edited by AdminPD, : Color Change


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Chuck77, posted 07-12-2011 12:56 AM Straggler has responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 12 (623535)
07-11-2011 8:42 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Subjective Evidence of Gods thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Straggler, posted 07-15-2011 3:24 PM AdminPD has responded

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 12 (623614)
07-12-2011 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
07-10-2011 7:46 PM


Re: Great Debate (Straggler & Chuck77 Only)
Hi Straggler, well this is my first "Great debate" so i'll go easy on you

Anyway, this was my first response to your 4 questions in the PNT's.

Straggler writes:

Over in the Peanut Gallery the never-ending inductive atheism debate continues......
But Chuck77 has specifically cited subjective evidence as something that should be taken into account. Nor is he alone in advocating this form of "evidence" in this context. So I would like to start a thread specifically on the nature and validity of subjective evidence as applied to belief in gods.

Why dont we make it a "Great debate". Me and Him. That way, I can focus on Him and what he's asking and not the inevitable Straggler stragglers demanding answers on top of his already asked questions. After we've hashed it out some the thread can be opened for evereyone.

My subjective evidence is based on my christianity. Im not sure if he wants a more generalization about "god(s) or my God? I can go either way I suppose but im more familiar with evidence for my own faith. Also, why I feel it's the truth as opposed to all the other faiths.

I would like to ask the following:

1) What subjective evidence in favour of the existence of gods is there? Can someone provide some actual examples of this form of evidence?

Any "evidence" i.e. The Bible, answered prayer etc. is subjective. Some more than others. All you want are examples? I once prayed that my shoulder pain would be taken away. I prayed this prayer as I layed my right hand on my left shoulder:

"I wish above all things that you may prosper and be in health, even as your soul prospers." 3 John 1:2 KLV.

That's God speaking to me/us thru His word. Immediatly after I prayed it I was healed. No more pain.

2) Is subjective evidence limited to entities that can be empirically detected or not?

You mean like tea leaves? Tom Cruise of the Church of Scientology? To me, the Bible ( just one piece of evidence) is a supernatural book given to us by God himself. Prophets, peoples testimonys, dreams can be evidence.

3) On what basis (aside from belief) is the cause of these subjective experiences attributed to supernatural entities rather than to fluctuations in the matrix, undetectable telepathic aliens manipulating our minds or any other conceivable cause of such things?

In my instance and MANY others I know we know who it is we are communicating with. I know for a fact, based on my own experience that it is God almighty im talking to. Not E.T. As well as many others that can attest to the same exact thing.

I suppose UFO enthusiasts could say the same thing, if they couldn't would probably wouldn't be having this debate. I do believe we have more evidence than other faiths as to why ours (Christianity) is the thuth. There can't be two truths. I don't believe in Relativism. If I believe in that, I may as well drive down any street I want, wheather it's a one way or not. I'll find out that it's not relative. I feel the same way about religions.

4) Is belief itself a form of evidence on which we can justify belief?

Sure, if your belief is the result of the supernatural being bringing you into a relationship with Himself. It isn't me/us reaching out to a supernatural being. It's Him reaching out to me/us. Wheather it's in the Bible, a prophetic message or a shooting star, TV preacher, at some point that supernatural being became real.

The supernatural being is speaking, therefore it's no longer a question to me wheather He exists, but a fact. Just like you don't "believe" in Evolution we don't "believe" in God. We know God is real.

So, im not sure this is what you want. I guess I could try to argue all faiths have a reasonable argument but that might stretch me a little thin. I'd be more comfortable talking form experience i.e. the Christian God. I'll do my best to try to convince you that the Christian God exists. If not then just start the thread and i'll add what I can to it.

I know this is a logically invalid conclusion based on RAZD's concepts scale, and although I greatly respect RAZD im willing to argue my position, atleast.

Maybe it's better to say (for arguments sake) that i'll do my best to atleast try to show Straggler that there is a good possibility that the Christian God exists above all these other god(s) or the Matrix, even tho my position is that He does exist.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That was from my comment last night in reference to Stragglers PNT.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I should note this comment from Straggler from the peanut gallery

Straggler writes:

Chuck writes:

What kind of evidence do you need? Empirical evidence?

I will happily discuss whatever evidence you put forward.

So, I also think I need to clarify a few things concerning the Bible. Im going to be using it as one of the pieces of "subjective" evidence. Not on a stand alone basis tho. It will be tied to experiences that support my existance of God. Since it's validity is always in question i'll point out a couple things I believe just to lay a foundation that (I) think gives it credibility for me to use in own life. Also, some other points I think are important.

1) The earth was made in a "mature" state with the appearance of age. What other conclusion is there(for me)? Adam and Eve were both made mature, the animals, trees etc. So why not the earth too. I don't believe God was trying to trick anyone by doing this, it's just the way He did it. That's my answer to the old/young earth debate.

2) The flood in the Bible simply COULD have been refering to a local one.

3) If God really exists then of course he could have kept Jonah alive in the Whales belly for 3 measly days. After all, He's God. If He ordered the fish to swallow Jonah then He was responsible for keeping Him alive. It's not a Scientific explanation but a supernatural one. God is in control and nothing can happen outside of His sovereignty.

4) Cains wife was either His sister or Niece. Mutations back then didn't have the effect they do today. Life was still "fresh" and it took generations for this to catch up to humanity. ( not an issue I want to discuss but giving some background as to why I believe this).

5) I believe there is tons of evidence for the Bible as a real historical document telling us the true history of the world. Wheather God chose evolution or special Creation as the method is besides the point if He exists or not. Agree?

6) I'd rather not talk about the way God runs the Universe as opposed to Him existing i.e. " How can you believe in a loving God when he ordered the "killing" of all those people/children in the OT?"

God has His way of doing things and who are WE to question His methods. If you can conclude that He in fact does exist then we can debate his MO. If not then lets stay on the topic of His existance and not His methods.

7) Are you a true 100% Atheist or Agnostic, etc.? Im not sure I know.

8) Like I said this is all subjective evidence or we wouldn't even be having this debate. If I can show it's a GOOD probability that the Christian God runs the Universe and not be grouped in with Osiris or Mithra, the FSM ( Ramen') or any of those Mystery/fake Religions (that were mostly all written AFTER the NT) plus the real ones today claiming God as there "god" then I think I've done a pretty good job. Also just because a few religions have some similarities with the Christian Faith doesn't mean Christianity is false like the rest. Heres an example:

From Wiki:

Futility, or the Wreck of the Titan

" Futility, or the Wreck of the Titan was an 1898 novella written by Morgan Robertson. The story features the ocean liner Titan, which sinks in the North Atlantic after striking an iceberg. The Titan and its sinking have been noted to be very similar to the real-life passenger ship RMS Titanic, which sank fourteen years later."

Similarities between Titanic and Titan:

-Unsinkable

The Titanic was the world's largest luxury liner (882 feet, displacing 53,000 long tons), and was once described as being practically "unsinkable".

The Titan was the largest craft afloat and the greatest of the works of men (800 feet, displacing 75,000 tons), and was considered "unsinkable".

-Lifeboats

The Titanic carried only 16 lifeboats, plus 4 Engelhardt folding lifeboats,[3] less than half the number required for her passenger capacity of 3000.

The Titan carried "as few as the law allowed", 24 lifeboats, less than half needed for her 3000 capacity.

-Struck an iceberg

Moving too fast at 22½ knots,[citation needed] the Titanic struck an iceberg on the starboard side on the night of April 14, 1912 in the North Atlantic 400 miles away from Newfoundland.

Also on an April night, in the North Atlantic 400 miles from Newfoundland (Terranova), the Titan hit an iceberg while traveling at 25 knots, also on the starboard side.

-The Unsinkable Sank

The unsinkable Titanic sank, and more than half of her 2200 passengers died.

The indestructible Titan also sank, more than half of her 2500 passengers drowning.

Went down bow first, the Titan actually capsizing before it sank.

The names being similar (Titan = Titanic - ic)

http://en.wikipedia.org/...tility,_or_the_Wreck_of_the_Titan

Amazing. So, did the Titanic ever exist? Of course it did! That book was written in 1898 and the Titanic sank, in 1912. It DOES NOT mean the Titanic never sank OR exsisted because of the similarities of the two, as astonishing as they are.

BTW, I've changed my opinion on a few things since i've been here, so if you could refrain from bringing up old comments I have made on other threads would be nice. Although if you do, I'll do my best to explain them.

ps. Im not going to turn this into a Bible debate, don't worry. Im just pointing out I think it's a good source of "subjective" evidence for God but will refrain from using it as much as possible. If I use it as a souce for an experience i've had it's only normal I would include it in this debate. It will be directly tied to an experience and won't use it on a stand alone basis.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 07-10-2011 7:46 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Straggler, posted 07-12-2011 3:19 AM Chuck77 has responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 4 of 12 (623629)
07-12-2011 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Chuck77
07-12-2011 12:56 AM


Re: Great Debate (Straggler & Chuck77 Only)
You use the word “evidence” but don’t actually seem to cite anything other than belief. If we are to meaningfully talk about subjective experiences as a form of “evidence” we need to distinguish between these two things don't we? Let's focus on that.

Straggler writes:

On what basis (aside from belief) is the cause of these subjective experiences attributed to supernatural entities rather than to fluctuations in the matrix, undetectable telepathic aliens manipulating our minds or any other conceivable cause of such things?

Chuck writes:

In my instance and MANY others I know we know who it is we are communicating with. I know for a fact, based on my own experience that it is God almighty I’m talking to.

How exactly do you know this? Can you describe exactly what this claim of “fact” is based upon?

Straggler writes:

Is subjective evidence limited to entities that can be empirically detected or not?

Chuck writes:

You mean like tea leaves?

No. I mean is God able to be empirically detected? Is God audible? Visually detectable? If not how exactly are you detecting his presence and communicating with him? Is it all inside your head?

Straggler writes:

Is belief itself a form of evidence on which we can justify belief?

Chuck writes:

Sure, if your belief is the result of the supernatural being bringing you into a relationship with Himself.

If you are seriously suggesting that believing in God qualifies as evidence of God's existence and that such evidence in turn justifies belief in God then I can only point out the blatant circularity of this.

Chuck writes:

Any "evidence" i.e. The Bible, answered prayer etc. is subjective.

Not all evidence is subjective. If it was we wouldn't have objective evidence for anything would we?

Chuck writes:

I once prayed that my shoulder pain would be taken away.

How many such prayers around the world have not resulted in the desired outcome? How many of your own prayers have not had such effects? Have you ever heard of confirmation bias?

Chuck writes:

The supernatural being is speaking, therefore it's no longer a question to me whether He exists, but a fact. Just like you don't "believe" in Evolution we don't "believe" in God. We know God is real.

Evolutionary theory is supported by masses of objective empirical evidence, is falsifiable and is able to make testable predictions. It is an extremely high confidence theory for these reasons but – No – I wouldn’t say that it is known to be true in the absolute philosophical sense you seem to mean. All science is tentative to some extent. Uncertainty is simply a necessary fact of evidence based investigation. But anyway - Subjective experiences of the sort under discussion here really have nothing to do with evolutionary theory at all.

Chuck writes:

We know God is real.

I am sure you believe this. But belief isn’t evidence is it?

So – Can you give an example of a subjective experience that reliably indicates the existence of God and explain why you think this experience was caused by God rather than any of the other conceivable things that could be responsible for causing that experience?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Chuck77, posted 07-12-2011 12:56 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Chuck77, posted 07-12-2011 4:40 AM Straggler has responded

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 12 (623636)
07-12-2011 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Straggler
07-12-2011 3:19 AM


Re: Great Debate (Straggler & Chuck77 Only)
Straggler writes:

How exactly do you know this? Can you describe exactly what this claim of “fact” is based upon?

The same way you know when you call your friend Joe that it's Him. To become a Christian the Bible says on Romans 10: 9 "If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

I did that as well as (millions? Thousands?) as we all had the same result. We are born anew with a ear/heart for God. When he speaks wheather it's in our heart our thougths, dreams, thru The Bible, a preacher, a circumstance, we know it's Him. The evidence is that tons of people can attest to this. You know, eye witness accounts just like courts allow.

Straggler writes:

No. I mean is God able to be empirically detected? Is God audible? Visually detectable? If not how exactly are you detecting his presence and communicating with him? Is it all inside your head?

God can be audible yes. Many Christians have had an experience with God speaking audibly to Him. Not me tho.

Jesus can appear to anyone he chooses. Wheather it's in person or just sensing His presense. No it's not in your head. Just like if your friend Joe stopped by, you would know it wasn;t your imagination. Again, there is a lot of evidense for this happening. Sain people who have prayed that important prayer. Can they make Jesus appear on demand? I don't know. Ive personally never seem jesus visually but felt His presense undeniably.

Straggler writes:

If you are seriously suggesting that believing in God qualifies as evidence of God's existence and that such evidence in turn justifies belief in God then I can only point out the blatant circularity of this.

Certainly not. The devil "believes" in God. Believing isn't enough. You have to act on what you believe. There are principles in the christian faith. One being sowing and reaping. Give and it shall be given. I've seen this principle in action. A friend of mine was believeing God for a car. He simply sowed a "seed" (money) into someones life and expected it to grow(produce that which he was believing God for). It did. Someone gave him a car at church a short time later who had no idea he was believing God for a car. People can attest to this and it's a principle at work that you can't deny. Coincidence? I personally don't think so.

Straggler writes:

Not all evidence is subjective. If it was we wouldn't have objective evidence for anything would we?

Of course I agree. I assume you know when I say "all' you know I mean ALL the evidence I use HERE is subjective.

Straggler writes:

How many such prayers around the world have not resulted in the desired outcome? How many of your own prayers have not had such effects? Have you ever heard of confirmation bias?

How many times have you ever called Joe and he didn't answer? Was he busy? Was he tired?

IOW, maybe it wasn't a good time. God's ways are not ours. He may have a higher purpose for doing what he does other than being a genie. Of course I havn't been healed EVERY time, no one has. Have you ever grown or matured or learned from a situation that wasn't immediatly resolved? In no way is un-answered prayer a proof of the non-existance of an all knowing God. He knows what's best for us and ultimately uses it for our own good.

Straggler writes:

I am sure you believe this. But belief isn’t evidence is it?

Like I've been saying, evidence (this evidence) is subjective. What would a jury say?

Do you know how many people who have prayed that prayer of Salvation that have been set free from drugs, smoking, pornography addiction, alcoholism etc etc...?

It's not a coincidence that EVERY believer has some kind of story that ALL of us can relate too. It's not a placebo effect on steriods.
It's the real deal.

Do you want to try it? All you have to do is sincerly pray that prayer and truly believe based on what im telling you ( faith is when you start to believe it could be true and the more you hear i.e. addictions gone, miracles happening, healing etc. the more faith you have) and then YOU can actually know what im saying is true. You see, it's testable and im not saying that smugly.

It's not blind faith. This is the kind of faith that is rewarded, all you have to do is believe, THEN you can know and your FAITH is rewarded. No longer "blind faith". It takes believing to find out. You can't NOT believe and ask God to prove Himself to you JUST to make sure Chuck is right. In HIS eyes there is enough already to go on. Tho, im not God and if he chose to show up in front of you right now who am I to question it.

Oh, and incidently, if you said he did and stuck to it for months I would know. We are all connected with God (same spirit), the same God. We know eachother bye our "fruits" (labors). You would love your Christian brothers and Sisters and have a thirst for being around them. Icluding reading about God, etc.

IOW, you cannot fake it so long without being exposed as a fraud. That's how real this is. It's not a formula and you can't just recite verses to prove you are truly saved. We all share the same "Holy Spirit" of God on the inside of us. It is a testimoy to all believers. I'll explain this more if you want me to.

Straggler writes:

So – Can you give an example of a subjective experience that reliably indicates the existence of God and explain why you think this experience was caused by God rather than any of the other conceivable things that could be responsible for causing that experience?

To you? Probably not. To a jury, maybe. I suppose if you fight tooth and nail and are not willing to consider anything I say without empirical evidence then nothing I say will mater. Again, I cannot produce any empirical evidence as to the existance of God. If I could we wouldn't be here. I can site hundreds of stories that (to me) prove the existance of God, but to you it would just be feul for further ridicule. IMO.

So, I guess we have to establish what kind of evidence is permissible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Straggler, posted 07-12-2011 3:19 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Straggler, posted 07-12-2011 6:31 AM Chuck77 has responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 6 of 12 (623639)
07-12-2011 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Chuck77
07-12-2011 4:40 AM


Re: Great Debate (Straggler & Chuck77 Only)
Chuck writes:

In my instance and MANY others I know we know who it is we are communicating with. I know for a fact, based on my own experience that it is God almighty I’m talking to.

Straggler writes:

How exactly do you know this? Can you describe exactly what this claim of “fact” is based upon?

Chuck writes:

The same way you know when you call your friend Joe that it's Him.

Well let's get specific - Exactly how do you know that your friend Joe is real rather than imaginary?

Chuck writes:

What would a jury say?

If I expressed to a jury my deep conviction that the act in question wasn't committed by me but was instead undertaken by my friend Joe whose presence they will only be able to detect if they embrace belief in his existence - I think the jury would quite justifiably consider me to be delusional.

Chuck writes:

This is the kind of faith that is rewarded, all you have to do is believe, THEN you can know and your FAITH is rewarded.

Likewise Allah? Vishnu? If I believe in them no doubt my faith will be rewarded in them too. No?

Chuck writes:

Straggler writes:

No. I mean is God able to be empirically detected? Is God audible? Visually detectable? If not how exactly are you detecting his presence and communicating with him? Is it all inside your head?

God can be audible yes.

Then our audio detection and recording instruments should be able to record God speaking shouldn't they?

Chuck writes:

Not me tho.

Yet you communicate with God - How so? Are you claiming to have some sort of god detecting sixth sense?

Chuck writes:

Jesus can appear to anyone he chooses.

As apparently can Allah, Vishnu, Zeus etc. etc etc. Isn't it amazing how numerous mutually exclusive deities can all appear at will and thus all provide "evidence" of their mutually exclusive existence? Maybe this suggests that the standards of evidence believers are applying leaves something to be desired?

Chuck writes:

Ive personally never seem jesus visually but felt His presense undeniably.

Do you think feelings derived from deep personal conviction are a reliable method of distinguishing between wishful thinking and fact?

Chuck writes:

The evidence is that tons of people can attest to this.

Are you aware that argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy?

Chuck writes:

It's not a coincidence that EVERY believer has some kind of story that ALL of us can relate to

Of course it isn't coincidence. The objective evidence strongly favours the conclusion that humans are extremely psychologically prone to putting unjustifiable faith in feelings and believing things for reasons that have little to do with veracity and everything to do with the very human need and desire for such things to be true.

Chuck writes:

It's not blind faith. This is the kind of faith that is rewarded, all you have to do is believe, THEN you can know and your FAITH is rewarded. No longer "blind faith". It takes believing to find out.

If you believe then the evidence will be forthcoming - Hallelujah. This is exactly the sort of recipe for confirmation bias, selective reasoning and ultimately false conclusions that the methods of science have been constructed to combat.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Chuck77, posted 07-12-2011 4:40 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Chuck77, posted 07-13-2011 12:38 AM Straggler has responded

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 12 (623728)
07-13-2011 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Straggler
07-12-2011 6:31 AM


Re: Great Debate (Straggler & Chuck77 Only)
Straggler writes:

Well let's get specific - Exactly how do you know that your friend Joe is real rather than imaginary?

Do you know that your parents are really your parents? Have you ever had the blood work done? How do you know you weren't switched at birth to some other folks?

You just assume everything went right and your parents are who they say they are? Well get the blood work done to falsify this hypothesis then we can talk about what ifs and your philosophic GIBBERISH.

Everything is subjective until you can PROVE it. Im taking the same position as bluegenes as "knowing" God exists as he "knows" "the only source of supernatural beings is the imagination". It's pretty arrogant of me to think I "know" God exists, huh?

Funny, I've not seen you say the same to bluegenes. Confirmation bias indeed. Think about WHY you think bluegenes theory holds any weight.

Straggler writes:

Likewise Allah? Vishnu? If I believe in them no doubt my faith will be rewarded in them too. No?

Maybe, have you tried? Let's see, test it? Like I said, you can test the Bible and the words of God to see it they are true. Certianly you can attribute some good things to other religions. There's a lot of good that can come from belief.

Personally, I believe all these other religions have latched onto Christianity and stolen from IT. If you like I can pick everyone and how they took from the Bible. Christianity is the original faith, starting with Adam and Eve.

Straggler writes:

Then our audio detection and recording instruments should be able to record God speaking shouldn't they?

And would you believe it if someone did get it on audio?

Straggler writes:

Yet you communicate with God - How so? Are you claiming to have some sort of god detecting sixth sense?

YES, my spirit. You see Straggs, YOU are a triune being. Spirit, soul and body. Right now, in your current state your spirit is dead to God. How can you communicate with someone who is a spirit if your spirit is dead? Blame Adam.

After you accept Jesus for who He really is, then you and me can end this debate and go over to the Bible study forum and rejoice over your new found faith and before you know it you'll be PM'ing bluegenes Bible versus.

Straggler writes:

Maybe this suggests that the standards of evidence believers are applying leaves something to be desired?

Maybe, I suppose if you buy a new car and you get a defect then all cars are defective? Don't trust any dealership huh? You put them all on the same level of quality? Or do some stand out as more reputable than others? Are you just a follower Straggler and take anyones word? Or do you put some thought into why you make the decisions you do?

Straggler writes:

Do you think feelings derived from deep personal conviction are a reliable method of distinguishing between wishful thinking and fact?

If I went by the way I feel I'd never get outta bed in the morning.

Straggler writes:

Are you aware that argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy?

I wonder if the Supreme Court has ever heard of this? I assume they didn't since a majority ruling is needed to decide hearings.

That's why there is nine Supreme Court justices and not eight. Going with your way of thinking they have been doing this wrong the whole time. Maybe if you had your way there would only be one justice?

I think YOUR argument is the logical fallacy.

Straggler writes:

If you believe then the evidence will be forthcoming - Hallelujah. This is exactly the sort of recipe for confirmation bias, selective reasoning and ultimately false conclusions that the methods of science have been constructed to combat.

Well, this is the CRUX of the debate isn't it? Now you're asking me to bring Science into it and if I can't then all I have is confirmation bias?

Well, since bluegenes can't bring Science in to prove HIS theory then I guess all HE has is confirmation bias too, Right Straggs?

Confirmation bias anyone?

Also Straggler, I understand what bluegenes is saying, that there is no red ball in the room. In order to falisify his theory simply spot the red ball that isn't there. Im asking for evidence of Him to prove the red ball isn't there, all I need to do is simply look, the non existance of the red ball IS the proof, right? He needs to do nothing? The burden is on me to prove the ball is there when it isn't?

If you cannot find the red ball anywhere in the room, then the red ball does not exist, in the room.

The problem is, is that there IS a red ball in MY room. Who is bluegenes or you to say YOUR room is the ONLY room? ( I need to learn to do italics- sorry for the caps). I have a red ball in my room and there's plenty of witnesses that feel the same.

I say there is more subjective evidence FOR God than against. You cited unanswered prayer as one against. Well, would you say a defective car is proof of the non-existance of cars?

So, I suppose it's up to you to prove there is no ball in MY room. I say there is, and the subjective evidence supports it.

If the burden is one me to produce a red ball, where there isn't one thus not able to falsify the theory, then you need to come out of your room, where the ball doesn't exist and see that there are other rooms, not just yours. Isn't that bias of you? Thinking your room is the only room?

Come out of your room Straggs.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Straggler, posted 07-12-2011 6:31 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Straggler, posted 07-13-2011 2:22 PM Chuck77 has responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 8 of 12 (623799)
07-13-2011 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Chuck77
07-13-2011 12:38 AM


Re: Great Debate (Straggler & Chuck77 Only)
In my last post I asked you this question:

Straggler writes:

Exactly how do you know that your friend Joe is real rather than imaginary?

Not only did you evade the question but in doing so the contradictions in your position have begun to unravel. You started out in this thread stating that you know for a fact that God exists. However you now seem to be declaring that anything which cannot be proven is merely a subjective assumption. Unless you are claiming proof of God’s existence it would seem that by the terms of your own argument your “knowledge” of God’s existence is based on nothing more than a subjective assumption.

Chuck writes:

You just assume everything went right and your parents are who they say they are?

Whilst absolute certainty isn’t possible nor can this conclusion be accurately described as a mere assumption. But let us consider this issue of uncertainty with regard to whether or not Joe is real or imagined. We can come back to my parentage later if you so wish.

Chuck writes:

Everything is subjective until you can PROVE it.

No. Everything is uncertain until proven. But not all unproven conclusions demand equal uncertainty. Consider the following subjective experience:

SCENARIO1: I am walking back from the pub. After a beer too many I am a little bit the worse for wear. It’s late. Nobody is around. There are no witnesses. I bump into Joe, a friend who lives locally. He greets me with a shake of the hand, tells me that he is going to the all-night-shop to get some milk and also informs me that a mutual friend of ours has become a father of a healthy baby girl in the last hour or so. Noticing my unsteadiness and bleary eyes he laughingly sends me on my way home with a pat on the back and a wave.

Now I have no PROOF that I met Joe on the way back from the pub last night. I cannot even PROVE that Joe actually exists to a degree of absolute philosophical certainty. And I am sure that you cannot PROVE that God exists or PROVE that you have subjectively experienced his presence. So where does that leave us? Is my knowledge of Joe’s existence and even my knowledge of meeting him last night really on an equal footing to your “knowledge” of God’s existence and the subjective experiences you attribute to his presence?

I say not. What do you say?

Chuck writes:

It's pretty arrogant of me to think I "know" God exists, huh?

It may or may not be arrogant. But it does demonstrate that you are conflating deep personal conviction with knowledge.

Chuck on audio recording the voice of God writes:

And would you believe it if someone did get it on audio?

If the recorded voice of God told us verifiable things that it would be impossible to know otherwise this would indeed add great weight to the claims of those who say they communicate with God. It would be strong evidence that they have actually experienced something objectively real and significant rather than imagined and of little consequence to anyone but themselves.

Chuck writes:

Straggler writes:

Yet you communicate with God - How so? Are you claiming to have some sort of god detecting sixth sense?

YES, my spirit.

So before it is even possible for you to have these god detecting experiences that you want us to accept as evidence we must first baselessly assume that you have an undetectable immaterial spirit. This is not an evidentially strong position is it?

Chuck writes:

If I went by the way I feel I'd never get outta bed in the morning.

Yet you consider feelings of God’s presence to be reliable evidence of God’s actual existence. Aside from conviction you have no more basis for attributing these feelings to God’s presence than to fluctuations in the Matrix or any other conceivable cause. So how can you call these experiences evidence of God?

Chuck writes:

Now you're asking me to bring Science into it and if I can't then all I have is confirmation bias?

No. Your confirmation bias manifests itself in attributing the cause of your subjective experiences to God. There is no reason to suppose such experiences are caused by God other than your conviction that they are.

Chuck on argumentum ad populum writes:

I assume they didn't since a majority ruling is needed to decide hearings.

Majority decision making has been found to be one of the better methods of deciding how best to organise and govern a society. But it has also been found to be a woefully unreliable and inaccurate method of discerning what is actually real and what is not. If it worked we wouldn't bother conducting scientific research to find things out we would just ask people what they believe about the nature of reality and then take a vote.

Chuck writes:

There's a lot of good that can come from belief.

Both good and bad can come from belief. Whether the belief in question is false or otherwise. But this has nothing to do with the validity of subjective evidence.

Chuck writes:

Christianity is the original faith, starting with Adam and Eve.

This is just historically inaccurate but of absolutely no relevance to this discussion whatsoever either way.

Chuck writes:

You put them all on the same level of quality? Or do some stand out as more reputable than others?

Certainly some claims of knowledge are better founded than others. But it is you who is suggesting that all things which are not proven are equally subjective.

Chuck writes:

Im taking the same position as bluegenes as "knowing" God exists as he "knows" "the only source of supernatural beings is the imagination".

Bluegenes himself is more than capable of explaining why you are wrong about his position. See Message 1218.

Chuck writes:

I say there is more subjective evidence FOR God than against.

The question in this thread is whether or not the subjective experiences you attribute to God are evidence of God's existence at all. If someone had the exact same subjective experience and chose to attribute that experience to a fluctuation in the matrix would that experience qualify as evidence that the Matrix exists?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Chuck77, posted 07-13-2011 12:38 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Chuck77, posted 07-15-2011 12:35 AM Straggler has responded

Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 9 of 12 (623963)
07-15-2011 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Straggler
07-13-2011 2:22 PM


Re: Great Debate (Straggler & Chuck77 Only)
Straggler, im taking the impossible position here. Obviously you think subjective evidence is useless. That's fine with me. I havn't brought the Bible into this at all(really) except for to make a few points. It's to vast a subject for me to debate and much easier for you to defend a postion where the burden is on me. That was my mistake.

I think debating the Bible is a better approach than debating God. Debating something that is material atleast would be easier( not that God isn't material/all things, but we can atleast trace the Bible back to it's origins). If I could prove the existance of God i'd be the first. Really, what am I going to cover that William Lane Craig hasn't already? I could steal all of His stuff and put it in my own words here? Im trying to do this without using other peoples quotes, books etc...and im not going to do any better than Craig V Hitchens. Im sure you've seen a few of those debates and it covers this subject pretty good, better than me or you.

Thanks for taking up my offer to "debate" with me. I read some of the peanut gallery posts concerning you picking on the "new" guy and thought to myself that doesn't seem to make much sense as it's about the topic and not the "new" guy. It's not about new or old, but about knowledge. When im here for 5 more years then I can prove the existance of God to you better than now? Better than Craig has or tried?

So, maybe you want to open this up as you originally intended or leave it to comment on in the future and start a new thread to see what other people can contribute.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Straggler, posted 07-13-2011 2:22 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Straggler, posted 07-15-2011 8:09 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 10 of 12 (623996)
07-15-2011 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Chuck77
07-15-2011 12:35 AM


Re: Great Debate (Straggler & Chuck77 Only)
Chuck writes:

Straggler, im taking the impossible position here.

It is only impossible because with only a small amount of thought it becomes evident that what you are calling "evidence" amounts to nothing more than deep personal conviction.

Chuck writes:

Obviously you think subjective evidence is useless.

I think that claiming that you can know something because you have had a feeling or a vision or a dream or some other wholly subjective experience is a deeply deeply flawed approach to distinguishing between knowledge and belief.

Chuck writes:

When im here for 5 more years then I can prove the existance of God to you better than now? Better than Craig has or tried?

Chuck this obsession with proof that you and so many other theists exhibit is a considerable stumbling block to communication. To the extent of absolute philosophical certainty nobody can prove that God does or doesn't exist. But to that pedantic and pointless degree nor can anybody prove that their friend "Joe" does or does not exist. This doesn't mean that both are equally evidenced or that it is equally reasonable to believe in the existence of both Joe and God. It simply means that we are talking about evidenced based conclusions and degrees of certainty rather than absolute knowledge.

With that in mind maybe you can try and better understand the arguments of those who propose that gods are more likely to be products of human imagination than to genuinely exist.

Chuck writes:

Wheather it's in person or just sensing His presense. No it's not in your head. Just like if your friend Joe stopped by, you would know it wasn;t your imagination.

You say that you have never seen, heard or otherwise empirically experienced God. But you do claim to have non-empirically felt the presence of God and communicated with him via your immaterial and undetectable spirit. In order for anyone to accept your subjective experiences as a form of evidence they must first assume that you actually possess an immaterial spirit that allows you to interact with God in this non-empirical manner.

But why would anyone make this baseless assumption rather than conclude that it is far more likely that these experiences are sourced from the internal workings of the human mind in a way that we know humans are demonstrably capable of and prone to doing?

Aside from human belief there is nothing to link the experiences that are being cited as evidence in favour of God's existence to the actual existence of God.

That is the problem with subjective "evidence".

Edited by Straggler, : Grammar


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Chuck77, posted 07-15-2011 12:35 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 11 of 12 (624053)
07-15-2011 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPD
07-11-2011 8:42 AM


Open Up The Topic?
Given that Chuck doesn't want a 1 on 1 anymore can this thread be opened up more generally as originally intended when I wrote the OP?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminPD, posted 07-11-2011 8:42 AM AdminPD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by AdminPD, posted 07-15-2011 8:19 PM Straggler has not yet responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 12 of 12 (624089)
07-15-2011 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Straggler
07-15-2011 3:24 PM


Re: Open Up The Topic?
Topic opened in Misc. Fresh start.

AdminPD


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Straggler, posted 07-15-2011 3:24 PM Straggler has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017