Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Subjective Evidence of Gods
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 46 of 468 (624587)
07-18-2011 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Dr Adequate
07-18-2011 9:33 PM


Re: C.S. Lewis
I originally had read a critique of Lewis by Loftus a few months ago. I did not critically read this to notice that it is a slam on Loftus.
Loftus wrote a critique of "CS Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion" on Amazon that was picked up by a few sites. I was taken in by the attempt at parody. I thought it was the same or something similar.
My bad.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-18-2011 9:33 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 47 of 468 (624588)
07-18-2011 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Straggler
07-18-2011 5:16 PM


Re: Subjective Evidence of Gods
Hi Straggler
Straggler writes:
Some beliefs have a firmer evidential basis than others.
But what constitutes "a firmer evidential basis than others" is again a subjective conclusion. I know we disagree but it is my belief that the evidence for an external intelligence as the root cause for this world is on much firmer ground than a non-intelligent cause.
Straggler writes:
Well I would argue not. As per Inductive Atheism
Here is the quote from your OP on that thread.
quote:
The only known source of supernatural concepts is the human imagination. Scientific inductive reasoning thus leads to the tentative theory that ALL supernatural concepts are derived from human imagination. This theory can be falsified by presenting another source of such concepts. Either the existence of such an entity or a supernatural concept derived from a non-human source. This theory predicts that where the source of any specific supernatural concept becomes known that source will turn out to be human imagination. This theory is not weakened by assertions that unevidenced sources might exist (anymore than evolutionary theory is weakened by Last Thursdayism)
I'm prepared to accept that a great deal of what I subjectively believe I know about God has come from human imagination.
CS Lewis writes:
quote:
My present view--which is tentative and liable to any amount of correction--would be that just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God's becoming incarnate as Man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth in general is not merely misunderstood history ... nor diabolical illusion ... nor priestly lying ... but, at its best, a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination
I recently read a book entitled The Evolution of God by Robert Wright. Wright describes himself as a agnostic materialist. I very much enjoyed and respected his point of view. It was his view that our concept of god has evolved over time. I would agree with him although I would argue that God does continue to reach out through human imagination so that our knowledge of Him as well as His desires for us continues to evolve.
Straggler writes:
That good evidence leads to strong belief often leads to the mistaken conclusion that a strong belief must be based on valid evidence.
Absolutely. Essentially, both of us have looked at the world subjectively and come to very different decisions. We both have strong beliefs and one of us is very wrong.
Straggler writes:
That man is a moral animal is an observable phenomenon. To ask why man is a moral animal is a very valid question.
But to take a question that demands an evidenced answer (such as why man is moral) and then cite the phenomenon that requires explanation as evidence for your subjectively preferrred cause (i.e. the Christian God) ultimately amounts to conflating deep personal belief with a form of evidence.
Actually, I only said that argument led me to Theism. How to get to Christianity from there is another discussion entirely.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Straggler, posted 07-18-2011 5:16 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Straggler, posted 07-19-2011 3:31 AM GDR has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 48 of 468 (624590)
07-18-2011 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Dr Adequate
07-18-2011 9:33 PM


Re: C.S. Lewis
Dr A writes:
Neither of you seem to have noticed that that was written by a crazed Christian fundamentalist.
I wondered what his point was.
Edited by GDR, : I read Theo's post

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-18-2011 9:33 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 49 of 468 (624605)
07-19-2011 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by GDR
07-18-2011 10:42 PM


Re: Subjective Evidence of Gods
GDR writes:
But what constitutes "a firmer evidential basis than others" is again a subjective conclusion.
Not at all. Some methods of knowing and forms of evidence are just demonstrably superior to others. For example if you want to know when the next solar eclipse will occur you could:
A) Close your eyes, meditate and just seek to feel when this will next occur
B) Enter a dream state and seek direct guidance from the spirits
C) Open the Bible/Koran/Torah/Vedas and seek inspiration from the text as to when this will happen
D) Read sheeps entrails or tea leaves or cloud formations or gaze into a crystal ball or whatever
E) Build a giant temple where you can pray to the Sun god and the moon god to ask them when they will next battle each other
F) Observe the motions of the planets, construct a theoretical framework as to their motions, verify it through successful prediction and then use it to predict when the next eclipse will occur
Now you may say "But predicting eclipses is nothing like the sort of knowledge I am talking about" but this would miss the point. The point is that if the form of evidence you are advocating is unable to show itself as leading to conclusions that can be remotely trusted then the only reason you are calling it "evidence" at all is because it supports your belief.
In effect the belief and the "evidence" that supports it are just extensions of each other with nothing to link the two things aside from your conviction that one supports the other. It amounts to citing belief itself as a form of evidence.
GDR writes:
I recently read a book entitled The Evolution of God by Robert Wright.
I read that book too. It's a good book.
GDR writes:
Straggler writes:
That good evidence leads to strong belief often leads to the mistaken conclusion that a strong belief must be based on valid evidence.
Absolutely. Essentially, both of us have looked at the world subjectively and come to very different decisions. We both have strong beliefs and one of us is very wrong.
But not all beliefs are equally evidenced. In fact some beliefs (e.g. biblical creationism) are just evidentially invalid.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by GDR, posted 07-18-2011 10:42 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by GDR, posted 07-19-2011 11:25 AM Straggler has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 50 of 468 (624679)
07-19-2011 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Straggler
07-19-2011 3:31 AM


Re: Subjective Evidence of Gods
Straggler writes:
Now you may say "But predicting eclipses is nothing like the sort of knowledge I am talking about" but this would miss the point. The point is that if the form of evidence you are advocating is unable to show itself as leading to conclusions that can be remotely trusted then the only reason you are calling it "evidence" at all is because it supports your belief.
In effect the belief and the "evidence" that supports it are just extensions of each other with nothing to link the two things aside from your conviction that one supports the other. It amounts to citing belief itself as a form of evidence.
But predicting eclipses is nothing like the sort of knowledge I'm talking about.
Seriously though it isn't. An eclipse is something that is repeatable, predictable and verifiable. I can hold theistic or atheistic views and still find that the sun comes up in the morning and life goes on.
We would both agree that there are natural laws such as gravity etc that allow for our existence.
We both agree that there appears to be a moral code and that the more that moral code is followed in any particular society the better off that society is.
The question is only about the basis for the natural laws and moral code. Whether we conclude that they are formed by an intelligent law/code giver or whether they came about by chance, (or whatever other word you want to use), we can still have conclusions that can be trusted.
There is something of a double standard here in that we have both come to conclusions about why we exist. We both exist and we ask why. The fact that we exist is evidence of something No matter how much science answers as to how we exist it can't answer the question of whether or not there is a prime mover.
Let's say that a scientist some day is able from base elements able to create life in a petri dish. That wouldn’t prove anything about a prime mover. I would say, great so that is how God did it. You presumable would say, so that is how it just happened.
Straggler writes:
But not all beliefs are equally evidenced. In fact some beliefs (e.g. biblical creationism) are just evidentially invalid.
I agree, but that isn't what we are talking about. The title is "The Subjective Evidence of Gods" and not any particular theology.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Straggler, posted 07-19-2011 3:31 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Straggler, posted 07-19-2011 12:57 PM GDR has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 51 of 468 (624695)
07-19-2011 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by GDR
07-19-2011 11:25 AM


Re: Subjective Evidence of Gods
GDR writes:
But predicting eclipses is nothing like the sort of knowledge I'm talking about.
Well I asked for that!!
GDR writes:
Seriously though it isn't. An eclipse is something that is repeatable, predictable and verifiable. I can hold theistic or atheistic views and still find that the sun comes up in the morning and life goes on.
Of course you can. But that isn't really the point.
If that which you are citing as evidence can never ever be demonstrated to lead to conclusions that can be verified then on what basis do you think this form of "evidence" is remotely capable of leading to conclusions that are ever going to be correct?
Furthermore there is extensive evidence to suggest that the sort of subjectively derived conclusions about god that you are advocating are far more likely to be wrong than right.
GDR on inventing life writes:
I would say, great so that is how God did it.
And you would be in extensive company. Humans have attributed god(s) as the cause of just about every phenomenon that has seemed mysterious and puzzling to them at one time or another. But in how many cases have these subjectively derived conclusions been correct. In how many cases have these subjectively derived conclusions regarding godly causes been wrong?
The sort of evidence you are advocating has a 100% failure record!
GDR writes:
No matter how much science answers as to how we exist it can't answer the question of whether or not there is a prime mover.
But we can examine the evidence that suggests that humans have a deep proclivity to invoke godly causes on the basis of subjective evidence when in fact there is no godly cause.
GDR writes:
There is something of a double standard here in that we have both come to conclusions about why we exist. We both exist and we ask why. The fact that we exist is evidence of something
The fact that we exist leads to questions that can be investigated. But I wouldn't call our existence evidence in and of itself of a particular conceivable cause. How can the same thing qualify as evidence for a whole raft of mutually exclusive alternatives?
GDR writes:
Straggler writes:
But not all beliefs are equally evidenced. In fact some beliefs (e.g. biblical creationism) are just evidentially invalid.
I agree, but that isn't what we are talking about. The title is "The Subjective Evidence of Gods" and not any particular theology.
Sure. But the point is that not all evidence is equally valid and as a result not all beliefs are equally evidentially supported. We have good evidential reasons to consider some beliefs as more likely to be correct than others.
And beliefs that are based on things like human imagination are very very unlikely to be correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by GDR, posted 07-19-2011 11:25 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by GDR, posted 07-19-2011 2:20 PM Straggler has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 52 of 468 (624716)
07-19-2011 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Straggler
07-19-2011 12:57 PM


Re: Subjective Evidence of Gods
Straggler writes:
If that which you are citing as evidence can never ever be demonstrated to lead to conclusions that can be verified then on what basis do you think this form of "evidence" is remotely capable of leading to conclusions that are ever going to be correct?
But that is true about any of our views concerning God, god, gods or lack of God, god or gods. Let's just look at a living cell. It is incredibly complex. It appears, ( a subjective term), to be intelligently constructed. Why does it exist at all and why has it taken the form it has? This is a very different question than asking how it was formed. As I have said before, we have come to different conclusions based on essentially the same information.
The point being I can ask you the very same question that you have asked me in the quote above. It applies equally to both of us.
Straggler writes:
And you would be in extensive company. Humans have attributed god(s) as the cause of just about every phenomenon that has seemed mysterious and puzzling to them at one time or another. But in how many cases have these subjectively derived conclusions been correct. In how many cases have these subjectively derived conclusions regarding godly causes been wrong?
The sort of evidence you are advocating has a 100% failure record!
That isn't correct. I can just as easily say that the sort of evidence I am suggesting has been 100% correct, and that your view has been 100% wrong. Remember again, that we are only talking about the "subjective evidence of gods", and not about any particular god(s). Neither of us are able to empirically prove that our subjective views are correct.
Straggler writes:
But we can examine the evidence that suggests that humans have a deep proclivity to invoke godly causes on the basis of subjective evidence when in fact there is no godly cause.
I agree. But so what? It seems to me that if a god or gods exist then that is what we should expect. I view science to be a natural theology, and that it is one of the tools that we have been inspired with to learn more about God and His creation. It is a tool that we can use to correct our theology as our understanding of God continues to evolve.
Straggler writes:
The fact that we exist leads to questions that can be investigated. But I wouldn't call our existence evidence in and of itself of a particular conceivable cause. How can the same thing qualify as evidence for a whole raft of mutually exclusive alternatives?
Fair enough. How about then instead of evidence we call it a question to be answered. It goes back to - "why is there something instead of nothing". Do you think that science on its own can ever answer that? (Remember, I don't mean how something happened but why it happened.)
Straggler writes:
Sure. But the point is that not all evidence is equally valid and as a result not all beliefs are equally evidentially supported. We have good evidential reasons to consider some beliefs as more likely to be correct than others.
I agree, but we are talking about subjective evidence for which we have come to different conclusions with both of us believing that the subjective evidence strongly supports our different conclusions. I think that the subjective evidence for the idea that the living cell had an intelligent origin is far stronger than that it just happened by random chance. I assume you would disagree but I can't come back with any objective evidence to support my subjective belief.
Straggler writes:
And beliefs that are based on things like human imagination are very very unlikely to be correct.
Yet another subjective POV. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the concept of relativity start out as an idea of Einstein’s imagination which he later proved true empirically. Same thing for Newton and others. When human imagination leads us to our concepts of god(s) it can't be verified empirically but it can be to a degree, over time, verified experientially.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Straggler, posted 07-19-2011 12:57 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2011 4:35 PM GDR has replied
 Message 57 by Straggler, posted 07-19-2011 6:04 PM GDR has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 53 of 468 (624727)
07-19-2011 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by GDR
07-19-2011 2:20 PM


The Ultimate Question
It goes back to - "why is there something instead of nothing".
I was thinking of starting a thread on that, would anyone be interested?
Some preliminary thoughts.
(1) God would not constitute an explanation, since God counts as something.
(2) If anything constituted an explanation then the existence of everything was contingent on that thing, then that thing would stand in need of an explanation, and so wouldn't be the answer we were looking for.
(3) Any attempt to prove a priori that there should be something rather than nothing would necessarily involve proving that a state of affairs in which nothing existed would be self-inconsistent. Which it isn't.
(4) It beats the heck out of me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by GDR, posted 07-19-2011 2:20 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by PaulK, posted 07-19-2011 5:07 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 55 by GDR, posted 07-19-2011 5:34 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 54 of 468 (624733)
07-19-2011 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Dr Adequate
07-19-2011 4:35 PM


Re: The Ultimate Question
I would certainly contribute to such a thread. Starting from your first point (which I raised with GDR some time back) that "God" cannot be the answer, because God is "something".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2011 4:35 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 55 of 468 (624736)
07-19-2011 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Dr Adequate
07-19-2011 4:35 PM


Re: The Ultimate Question
Dr Adequate writes:
I was thinking of starting a thread on that, would anyone be interested?
I'd participate but I think that it could be done within this thread as we are talking about subjective evidence and I don't think, I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong", that we can go outside of that in the discussion. Essentially, as I see it, any objective evidence has to be dealt with subjectively in order to propose any answer that we might come up with. However, there may be merit in having this as a separate thread, I'm not sure.
Dr Adequate writes:
(1) God would not constitute an explanation, since God counts as something.
Not really. I think that when the question it asks it is referring to our material world. Why do we exist - why do atoms exist - why does the universe exist - why does sentience or wisdom exist etc. The term "something" does not IMHO refer to anything that might or might not exist outside of time, space and matter.
Dr Adequate writes:
(2) If anything constituted an explanation then the existence of everything was contingent on that thing, then that thing would stand in need of an explanation, and so wouldn't be the answer we were looking for.
Yes and no. In saying this you are ruling out any explanation that includes a pre-existent intelligence making the whole discussion moot. Also in saying that you are limiting any pre-existent intelligence to something that experiences "change" in the same way, and the same order as we do.
Dr Adequate writes:
(3) Any attempt to prove a priori that there should be something rather than nothing would necessarily involve proving that a state of affairs in which nothing existed would be self-inconsistent. Which it isn't.
It is the same thing as trying to wrap our minds around the concept of infinity.
Dr Adequate writes:
(4) It beats the heck out of me.
It's not so hard. In the beginning, God........

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2011 4:35 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 07-19-2011 5:50 PM GDR has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 56 of 468 (624738)
07-19-2011 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by GDR
07-19-2011 5:34 PM


Re: The Ultimate Question
quote:
Not really. I think that when the question it asks it is referring to our material world. Why do we exist - why do atoms exist - why does the universe exist - why does sentience or wisdom exist etc. The term "something" does not IMHO refer to anything that might or might not exist outside of time, space and matter
In other words you assume a special meaning that is awfully convenient to you - and seems to have nothing else to recommend it. Any reason to think that "something" doesn't just mean "something" ?
quote:
Yes and no. In saying this you are ruling out any explanation that includes a pre-existent intelligence making the whole discussion moot. Also in saying that you are limiting any pre-existent intelligence to something that experiences "change" in the same way, and the same order as we do.
I have no idea how you come to such a reading.
quote:
It is the same thing as trying to wrap our minds around the concept of infinity.
That does not seem to make much sense either.
It seems that your argument is based on special pleading - exempting God from the requirement for explanation by choosing idisyncratic definitions and complaining that expecting such an explanation is equivalent to ruling out the possibility of God a priori.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by GDR, posted 07-19-2011 5:34 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by GDR, posted 07-19-2011 6:16 PM PaulK has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 57 of 468 (624740)
07-19-2011 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by GDR
07-19-2011 2:20 PM


Re: Subjective Evidence of Gods
GDR writes:
I think that the subjective evidence for the idea that the living cell had an intelligent origin is far stronger than that it just happened by random chance.
The whole "chance" thing is a complete misapprehension which is beyond the scope of this thread.
GDR writes:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the concept of relativity start out as an idea of Einstein’s imagination which he later proved true empirically.
If this were true anyone could have "imagined" relativity. Einstein was a highly trained physicist whose knowledge combined with an intuitive grasp of the underlying logic of physical reality has been matched by few others. Newton and maybe Feynamn spring to mind as possible equals in this respect.
So - No - relativity is not the result of subjective evidence. It is the result of scientific knowledge combined with deep insight, logic and then verifiable conclusions as per the scientific method.
GDR writes:
Straggler writes:
If that which you are citing as evidence can never ever be demonstrated to lead to conclusions that can be verified then on what basis do you think this form of "evidence" is remotely capable of leading to conclusions that are ever going to be correct?
But that is true about any of our views concerning God, god, gods or lack of God, god or gods.
That humans are deeply prone to inventing gods for wholly human reasons that have nothing to do with the actual existence of gods is not a conclusion based on subjective evidence.
That god(s) actually exist is a conclusion essentially derived from nothing more than treating deep conviction as a form of evidence.
GDR writes:
The point being I can ask you the very same question that you have asked me in the quote above. It applies equally to both of us.
Not at all. I am citing empirical evidence and we can demonstrate that empirical evidence leads to reliable conclusions. Can you demonstrate that the subjective evidence you are citing in favour of god leads to reliable conclusions?
If not the two conclusions are not evidentially equal.
GDR writes:
That isn't correct. I can just as easily say that the sort of evidence I am suggesting has been 100% correct, and that your view has been 100% wrong.
Really? On what basis?
If this is true you should be able to give an example of subjective evidence of gods which is demonstrably correct.
Meanwhile I can cite numerous examples of subjective evidence of gods which has been found to be entirely misleading and utterly worthless as a form of evidence.
GDR writes:
I agree, but we are talking about subjective evidence for which we have come to different conclusions with both of us believing that the subjective evidence strongly supports our different conclusions.
If something is so vague as to be able to be cited in support of a whole raft of mutually exclusive conclusions it cannot meaningfully be advocated as "evidence" for any of them.
How can it be evidence for two things which contradict each other?
GDR writes:
"why is there something instead of nothing". Do you think that science on its own can ever answer that?
Nothing can answer that including God. If God exists he will be sitting there wondering why it is he exists rather than nothing. How could it be otherwise?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by GDR, posted 07-19-2011 2:20 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by GDR, posted 07-19-2011 7:15 PM Straggler has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 58 of 468 (624741)
07-19-2011 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by PaulK
07-19-2011 5:50 PM


Re: The Ultimate Question
PaulK writes:
In other words you assume a special meaning that is awfully convenient to you - and seems to have nothing else to recommend it. Any reason to think that "something" doesn't just mean "something" ?
I guess it all depends on how you want to phrase the discussion. Yes I agree that if god(s) exist it constitutes something, in somewhat the same way that wisdom constitutes something. I think that essentially the discussion then is, "does some intelligent something exist outside of our material world that is responsible for our existence".
PaulK writes:
I have no idea how you come to such a reading.
I understand Dr A as saying that if I am going to suggest that we exist as the result of some external intelligence that I also have to account for the creation of that intelligence. All I'm saying is that in that question he presupposes that this creative intelligence would have to experience change, (what we call time), in the same way that we do.
PaulK writes:
It seems that your argument is based on special pleading - exempting God from the requirement for explanation by choosing idisyncratic definitions and complaining that expecting such an explanation is equivalent to ruling out the possibility of God a priori.
I agree it is special pleading. If I can't evoke a creator without having to answer for the creation of the creator then I have nothing to offer. When asked the question all I can honestly say is I don't know. The only possible partial answer is that the time that we experience is part of this creation and so we would thus require an intelligence outside of our 4D universe to be its creator.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 07-19-2011 5:50 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Straggler, posted 07-19-2011 6:18 PM GDR has replied
 Message 62 by PaulK, posted 07-20-2011 1:38 AM GDR has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 59 of 468 (624742)
07-19-2011 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by GDR
07-19-2011 6:16 PM


Re: The Ultimate Question
If the ultimate question is - "Why is there something rather than nothing?" wouldn't God himself have to ask that same question?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by GDR, posted 07-19-2011 6:16 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by GDR, posted 07-19-2011 7:19 PM Straggler has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 60 of 468 (624750)
07-19-2011 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Straggler
07-19-2011 6:04 PM


Re: Subjective Evidence of Gods
Straggler writes:
The whole "chance" thing is a complete misapprehension which is beyond the scope of this thread.
I have yet to figure out what word to use that keeps everyone happy. Maybe just non-intelligent origins. How is that?
Straggler writes:
If this were true anyone could have "imagined" relativity. Einstein was a highly trained physicist whose knowledge combined with an intuitive grasp of the underlying logic of physical reality has been matched by few others. Newton and maybe Feynamn spring to mind as possible equals in this respect.
So - No - relativity is not the result of subjective evidence. It is the result of scientific knowledge combined with deep insight, logic and then verifiable conclusions as per the scientific method.
This may be semantics but Einstein took what he knew and with his imagination envisaged a reality that went beyond Newton's deterministic world. He then proceeded to verify empirically the idea that he had come up with through his imagination.
I'm just saying that we do the same thing with our understading of god(s) but we don't have the luxury of being able to prove our thoughts empirically. Scientists come up with different theories which prove to be wrong. Theisists come up with ideas that are also wrong with the difference again being that we can't prove it. My favourite theologian N T Wright often says in his talks that about a third of what he says is going to be incorrect with the problem being he doesn't know which third it is.
Straggler writes:
That humans are deeply prone to inventing gods for wholly human reasons that have nothing to do with the actual existence of gods is not a conclusion based on subjective evidence.
Amen. Couldn't agree more. We keep trying to create god in our own image for our own ends. We use to have a sign on the fridge that said: "most people want to serve God but only in an advisory capacity".
IMHO we see a good example of that in the OT where they keep trying tyo turn Yahweh into a god that will keep them supernatural stregth militarily, or essentially a god thatgives them earthly power.
Straggler writes:
That god(s) actually exist is a conclusion essentially derived from nothing more than treating deep conviction as a form of evidence.
I don't see it that way. I see it as trying to understand the "empircal fact" that we exist and for what if any purpose.
Straggler writes:
Not at all. I am citing empirical evidence and we can demonstrate that empirical evidence leads to reliable conclusions. Can you demonstrate that the subjective evidence you are citing in favour of god leads to reliable conclusions?
Can you demonstrate that the subjective evidence you are citing in favour of the non-existence of a creative intelligence that is fundamental to our existence, (does that work for you ) leads to reliable conclusions?
GDR writes:
That isn't correct. I can just as easily say that the sort of evidence I am suggesting has been 100% correct, and that your view has been 100% wrong.
Straggler writes:
Really? On what basis?
On the basis that neither of us can prove whether we are right or not.
Straggler writes:
If this is true you should be able to give an example of subjective evidence of gods which is demonstrably correct.
That we exist and can contemplate the existence of god(s).
Straggler writes:
Meanwhile I can cite numerous examples of subjective evidence of gods which has been found to be entirely misleading and utterly worthless as a form of evidence.
I don't buy into the "God of the Gaps" argument either. Also, as I said, I believe in God that is constant but I also believe that our understanding of God continues to evolve.
Straggler writes:
How can it be evidence for two things which contradict each other?
The evidence remains the same. It is our subjective views on how to interpret the evidence which is at odds.
Straggler writes:
Nothing can answer that including God. If God exists he will be sitting there wondering why it is he exists rather than nothing. How could it be otherwise?
Really well put. Maybe He does, but so what. (I know, "turtles all the way up". ) If He created us then does it really matter how He came into existence. The answer though is unknowable and any answer is only a wild guess at best. My own guess is that eternal life involves the ability to move around in time the way we move around in space.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Straggler, posted 07-19-2011 6:04 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Straggler, posted 07-20-2011 2:44 PM GDR has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024