Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 158 (8147 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-20-2014 5:12 PM
70 online now:
GDR, Jon, Modulous (AdminModulous), nwr, ooh-child, PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Tangle (9 members, 61 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MikeManea
Post Volume:
Total: 738,152 Year: 23,993/28,606 Month: 1,294/1,786 Week: 156/423 Day: 66/90 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
32NextFF
Author Topic:   Subjective Evidence of Gods
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 4560
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 91 of 468 (625181)
07-21-2011 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Mazzy
07-21-2011 4:41 PM


Lies?
Can you not understand what you read or are you just a liar for Jesus? Quote mining is as low as spamming.

This is what the link you provided says.

Here is the headline

quote:
When Comet LINEAR broke apart last year it revealed what many scientists thought all along: Water in Earth's oceans could have come from outer space.

That one line destroys your interpretation. You had to have read it in order to get to the part you posted.

More from the article

quote:
"The idea that comets seeded life on Earth with water and essential molecular building blocks is hotly debated, and for the first time, we have seen a comet with the right composition to do the job," said Michael Mumma of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. Mumma is the lead author of a paper about this research that appeared in the May 18th issue of Science.

And what is the next line after what you posted?

quote:
However, Comet LINEAR apparently was born in a part of the solar system where water was more Earth-like.

Do you really think we will not look at the sources?

Now that I have destroyed your credibility you may apologize to everyone here for your dishonesty and quote mining.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Mazzy, posted 07-21-2011 4:41 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 49 days)
Posts: 2812
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 92 of 468 (625185)
07-21-2011 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Mazzy
07-21-2011 4:47 PM


Re: Subjective Evidence of Gods
Mazzy writes:

bluegenes writes:

Every planet in the universe is in exactly the right circumstances to be itself. This is inevitable.

The coastline of Australia is exactly right to fit the continent. This is inevitable.

What a ridiculous reply!

If you had understood my reply, you wouldn't say that. Now think. All planets have exactly the correct circumstances and history to be what they are, and for everything that is part of them. Saturn is just right for its gases, rings and many moons, but that is no reason for those features to be described as "lucky", or to say that Saturn was intelligently designed for the benefit of those features.

The fact that the coastline of Australia fits the continent exactly does not indicate intelligent design, does it? The fact that Australia is just right for the plants and animals that live there does not mean it was intelligently designed for them. They will inevitably match their environment, because if they didn't, they'd perish, as the dinosaurs did when the circumstances on earth were no longer suited to them.

Mazzy writes:

Every planet in the universe is in the right circumstance to be itself and they are lifeless, so far, and all had equal opportunity to evolve life eg Mars, given that these researchers have spent huge resources in demonstrating how life can survive in lava, in sunless environments, in ice, etc.

Life is not what planets are for, and they certainly did not all have equal opportunity to evolve life. Rings, like Saturns are not what planets are for. Planets just are what they are, and whatever features the have will suit them exactly.

Mazzy writes:

All this research is aimed at demomnstrating how the universe is seeded with the requirements of life and not so much as a confirmed bacteria to wave back at us. These are the facts. The rest is speculation.

Once again, life isn't the purpose of the universe. It just happens to be a feature of this planet, and could be a feature of others, although it may not be common. What point are you trying to make? Do you think that Saturn was intelligently designed for the sake of its rings, merely because it's just right for them?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Mazzy, posted 07-21-2011 4:47 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12831
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 93 of 468 (625194)
07-21-2011 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Mazzy
07-21-2011 4:47 PM


Every planet in the universe is in the right circumstance to be itself and they are lifeless, so far ...

And so another creationist dogma is destroyed by science:

That the number of corporeal Creatures is unmeasurably great, and known only to the Creator himself; may thus probably be collected: First of all, the Numbers of fixd Stars is on all hands acknowledgd to be next to infinite: Secondly, Every fixd Star, in the now-receivd Hypothesis, is a Sun or Sun-like Body, and in like manner incircled with a Chorus of Planets moving about it [...] Thirdly, each of these Planets is in all likelihood furnished with as great Variety of corporeal Creatures, animate and inanimate, as the earth is, and all as different in Nature as they are in Place from the Terrestrial, and from each other. (John Ray, The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of the Creation)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Mazzy, posted 07-21-2011 4:47 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5143
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 94 of 468 (625195)
07-21-2011 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Mazzy
07-21-2011 4:41 PM


Re: Subjective Evidence of Gods
Now that I have destroyed your credibility you may apologise to me for your ignorance.

You've destroyed my credibility by telling us that water with a little extra deuterium does "not display the same molecular structure" as water with a little less? (your message 77.) Oh heavenly days! With my credibility destroyed, how will I ever get some babies to eat at the next Atheist Chemist Evilutionist meeting!??

You have no idea what you are C&Ping about, Mazzy.


"The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken
This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Mazzy, posted 07-21-2011 4:41 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 95 of 468 (625221)
07-21-2011 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Mazzy
07-20-2011 4:45 PM


Prayer - Meditation
quote:
There is research to suggest there are benefits in relation to prayer as the links below speak to.
The studies you shared also showed that Buddhist meditation works just as well.

Buddhist don't worship a god.

Selflessness -- Core Of All Major World Religions -- Has Neuropsychological Connection
It is important to note that individuals experience their God or higher power in many different ways, but that all people from all religions and beliefs appear to experience these connections in a similar way.

How can prayer, answered or not, be subjective evidence of a god?

quote:
I believe there is much more than subjective evidence for a God.
A friendly reminder that this topic is about subjective evidence for gods only. It is not about objective evidence for gods.

Hopefully you and those who continue to respond to your objective arguments will remember that and get back on topic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Mazzy, posted 07-20-2011 4:45 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 238 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 96 of 468 (625258)
07-22-2011 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Mazzy
07-20-2011 4:45 PM


Heavy Water
Mazzy,

I am not sure what kind of background you have in chemistry, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you misspoke here:

These icey comets full of water do not display the same molecular structure of earths water.

As you can see the Molecular Structure of water, whether it is made of deuterium or not, is the same.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Mazzy, posted 07-20-2011 4:45 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 468 (625266)
07-22-2011 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Panda
07-21-2011 5:03 PM


Re: Subjective Evidence of Gods
Panda writes:

Also, do you know the odds of life existing on this planet...?

Pretty good, it seems. 100%, it appears.

Life could be on other planets. It would seem if we never find any it's possible "subjective" evidence for god(s) since we're the only ones, fo far.

What other explanation is there if we're the only life in the universe?

It can't be answered, but we can go with what we can observe, which is, so far it's only us. I say it's good "evidence" for the existance og god(s).

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Panda, posted 07-21-2011 5:03 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Panda, posted 07-22-2011 5:52 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Panda
Member (Idle past 176 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 98 of 468 (625300)
07-22-2011 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Chuck77
07-22-2011 1:10 AM


Re: Subjective Evidence of Gods
Chuck77 writes:

Pretty good, it seems. 100%, it appears.


I was waiting for Mazzy to say it was 0.00000000001%...

Chuck77 writes:

Life could be on other planets. It would seem if we never find any it's possible "subjective" evidence for god(s) since we're the only ones, fo far.


Correct, but I would want to do a little more searching than just 1 solar system.

Chuck77 writes:

It can't be answered, but we can go with what we can observe, which is, so far it's only us.


We can also observe that we have not looked at much of the universe.
But you are correct: it can't be answered (even though you then go on to try and answer it).

If your idea of good evidence is searching 0.0000000000000001% of the universe and then saying: "We are the only life, therefore we are special!", then I would accuse you of some kind of confirmation bias where you happily ignore the fact that we have barely even looked.
I would not want you investigating a murder...
"We don't think there has been a murder as we looked in our front garden and can't find a dead body. Case closed."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Chuck77, posted 07-22-2011 1:10 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 9963
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 99 of 468 (625344)
07-22-2011 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by GDR
07-20-2011 5:06 PM


Re: Subjective Evidence of Gods
GDR writes:

My only point is that the idea of relativity first occurred in Einstein's imagination which prompted him to prove the theory empirically/mathematically.

Firstly - Not really. What Einstein did to produce relativity was take to it's logical conclusion the common-sense-defying idea that the speed of light really is constant in the way that the mathematics of Maxwell's equations suggest it is.

Secondly - The idea that the evidence on which Einstein developed relativity is remotely comparable to subjective evidence of gods is just utterly misfounded.

GDR writes:

I continue to maintain that the idea that our existence is due to a pre-existent intelligence is more reasonable than any other proposal.

And all those humans who throughout the ages have invoked now dismissed supernatural causes to seemingly otherwise inexplicable phenomena before you felt the same.

Why do you think your reasoning or subjective evidence is any more reliable than theirs?

The genuinely reliable evidence here strongly favours the idea that your conclusions are similar in nature to theirs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by GDR, posted 07-20-2011 5:06 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by GDR, posted 07-22-2011 2:44 PM Straggler has responded

GDR
Member
Posts: 3753
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 100 of 468 (625351)
07-22-2011 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Straggler
07-22-2011 12:54 PM


Re: Subjective Evidence of Gods
Straggler writes:

Firstly - Not really. What Einstein did to produce relativity was take to it's logical conclusion the common-sense-defying idea that the speed of light really is constant in the way that the mathematics of Maxwell's equations suggest it is.

I would agree with that completely, (except I think you meant isn't and not is), but that sure sounds like he imagined it to me.

Straggler writes:

Secondly - The idea that the evidence on which Einstein developed relativity is remotely comparable to subjective evidence of gods is just utterly misfounded.

Absolutely. I don't think I implied that anywhere but if I did I didn't intend to.

Straggler writes:

And all those humans who throughout the ages have invoked now dismissed supernatural causes to seemingly otherwise inexplicable phenomena before you felt the same.

Why do you think your reasoning or subjective evidence is any more reliable than theirs?

The genuinely reliable evidence here strongly favours the idea that your conclusions are similar in nature to theirs.

I think that it is like science in the sense that our understanding of the subject evolves. Of course science evolves empirically whereas theology evolves, in my view, subjectively through inspiration, revelation and cultural understanding. Robert Wright points out in his book that our understanding or picture of god(s) has evolved although he would say that it is mostly if not all cultural.

I have no doubt about the fact that some things I believe are wrong. My views have continued to evolve over the years and presumably will continue to do so.

Essentially then, I think my views of a deity are more likely to be correct than those held centuries earlier as I have the acquired knowledge and wisdom of all the generations in between to build on.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Straggler, posted 07-22-2011 12:54 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Straggler, posted 07-22-2011 2:49 PM GDR has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 9963
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 101 of 468 (625352)
07-22-2011 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by GDR
07-22-2011 2:44 PM


Re: Subjective Evidence of Gods
GDR writes:

Essentially then, I think my views of a deity are more likely to be correct than those held centuries earlier as I have the acquired knowledge and wisdom of all the generations in between to build on.

But doesn't that built-on knowledge strongly suggest that invoking supernatural causes to observable phenomenon is a human trait that has absolutely nothing to do with the real cause of observable phenomenon?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by GDR, posted 07-22-2011 2:44 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by GDR, posted 07-22-2011 3:18 PM Straggler has responded

GDR
Member
Posts: 3753
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 102 of 468 (625357)
07-22-2011 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Straggler
07-22-2011 2:49 PM


Re: Subjective Evidence of Gods
Straggler writes:

But doesn't that built-on knowledge strongly suggest that invoking supernatural causes to observable phenomenon is a human trait that has absolutely nothing to do with the real cause of observable phenomenon?

No I don't actually. I agree that it does seem to be an integral part of human nature to seek the divine, however, in a sense I think that this could be construed as evidence that the divine does exist but obviously that evidence isn't strong.

I also think that as our knowledge of the divine has evolved we can see the direction it has taken. Initially the god(s) were seen primarily as allies in the very human search for power over other nations and the environment. Over time our understanding of god(s) has been that our god(s) desire that we should consider the needs of others, even if it is a detriment to our own self interest. Sure, our religions get twisted this way and that so that the message of unselfish love gets lost altogether. Remember however, the point I'm making is that our understanding is evolving, and I suggest will continue to evolve, so that in the future the concept that god(s) desires a world that is characterized by kindness, justice and humility will be more and more the norm precipitating a parallel change in human action and thought. IMHO we continue to evolve closer and closer to the heart and mind of God.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Straggler, posted 07-22-2011 2:49 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Straggler, posted 07-22-2011 11:59 PM GDR has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 9963
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 103 of 468 (625391)
07-22-2011 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by GDR
07-22-2011 3:18 PM


Track Record
GDR writes:

IMHO we continue to evolve closer and closer to the heart and mind of God.

This is not a million miles away from the sort of conclusion Robert Wright suggests as viable in The Evolution of God. So I get where you are coming from. But this approach does seem to have one fatal flaw. It seems that you have to first assume that God exists before the evidence fits the proposition.

GDR writes:

I agree that it does seem to be an integral part of human nature to seek the divine, however, in a sense I think that this could be construed as evidence that the divine does exist but obviously that evidence isn't strong.

I am sure you have heard of Harold Camping. He first claimed that biblical Armageddon would occur in September 1994. Needless to say he was wrong. He famously claimed that the same end of times would occur on the 21st of May this year. Again wrong. His latest claim is for October 21 later this year. I for one won't be saying my goodbyes or anticipating that much will happen.

Now this guy obviously has deep belief and a great deal of genuine conviction in the validity of his "evidence". But with this track record only a blithering imbecile or someone of unwavering faith in his predictions would take any conclusion made on the basis of this so called "evidence" remotely seriously.

Why is this relevant here? Because the mistake this guy is making in comparison to most modern theists is to take what he deems to be "evidence" and use it to make falsifiable claims rather than unfalsifiable ones.

But just because modern theists largely restrict themselves to making unfalsifiable claims on the basis of subjective evidence of gods doesn't mean there isn't a similar track record to consider. Every single testable claim humanity has ever made about gods on the basis of subjective evidence has been wrong. And we are talking about a lot of claims. All wrong.

With this track record doesn't it take faith to conclude that subjective evidence of gods has any validity at all?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by GDR, posted 07-22-2011 3:18 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by GDR, posted 07-23-2011 2:55 AM Straggler has responded

GDR
Member
Posts: 3753
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 104 of 468 (625421)
07-23-2011 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Straggler
07-22-2011 11:59 PM


Re: Track Record
Straggler writes:

This is not a million miles away from the sort of conclusion Robert Wright suggests as viable in The Evolution of God. So I get where you are coming from. But this approach does seem to have one fatal flaw. It seems that you have to first assume that God exists before the evidence fits the proposition.

That is why I started the statement with "IMHO". I agree it is my subjective opinion. However if we come to the conclusion that our views of a non-existent god(s) are evolving then that assumes that god(s) doesn't exist before the evidence fits the proposition. Either assumption is subjective and non-verifiable.

Straggler writes:

But just because modern theists largely restrict themselves to making unfalsifiable claims on the basis of subjective evidence of gods doesn't mean there isn't a similar track record to consider. Every single testable claim humanity has ever made about gods on the basis of subjective evidence has been wrong. And we are talking about a lot of claims. All wrong.

With this track record doesn't it take faith to conclude that subjective evidence of gods has any validity at all?

First off I think that the odds are that many testable claims have worked out. I would assume this was true whether god(s) existed or not. Actually I don't see that being of any importance, and don't forget we are only going as far as theism or even deism in this thread.

And yes, I agree that is does take faith to conclude that the subjective evidence for god(s) has validity. I would add though, that IMHO it takes a lot more faith to consider the world we live in and subjectively believe that there is no intelligent prime mover.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Straggler, posted 07-22-2011 11:59 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Straggler, posted 07-23-2011 4:21 AM GDR has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 9963
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 105 of 468 (625428)
07-23-2011 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by GDR
07-23-2011 2:55 AM


Re: Track Record
GDR on an evolving God writes:

I agree it is my subjective opinion.

But only in the context of religion and god could it be advocated that the persistent failure of humanity to be right about something is indicative that we are on the path to truth about that something.

GDR writes:

However if we come to the conclusion that our views of a non-existent god(s) are evolving then that assumes that god(s) doesn't exist before the evidence fits the proposition.

But I haven't just assumed that gods don't exist in a way that is equivalent to the way that your position just assumes that they do.

The conclusion that humans can and do invent gods is highly objectively evidenced. That humans are prone to believing in the existence of these invented entities is also highly objectively evidenced. There is also objective evidence pertaining to the psychological reasons humans exhibit this behaviour. So the conclusion that gods are imagined rather than real is not just a subjective assumption at all.

GDR writes:

Either assumption is subjective...

That humans will invent, and believe in the existence of gods, for reasons that have nothing to do with the actuality of gods existing is not a subjective conclusion.

GDR writes:

...and non-verifiable.

No one can prove or disprove the existence of God but that doesn't mean all conclusions about God are based on equally subjective evidence. I think this a commonly held theistic misapprehension.

GDR writes:

First off I think that the odds are that many testable claims have worked out.

Do you have any examples of the sort of evidence used to conclude that God exists leading to demonstrably reliable conclusions?

GDR writes:

I would add though, that IMHO it takes a lot more faith to consider the world we live in and subjectively believe that there is no intelligent prime mover.

No doubt pretty much every human throughout history who has ever ascribed conscious godly intent as the cause of a baffling natural phenomenon thought much the same way you do.

And in every case tested to date they were wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by GDR, posted 07-23-2011 2:55 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by GDR, posted 07-23-2011 5:21 PM Straggler has responded

Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
32NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014