Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Subjective Evidence of Gods
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 3 of 468 (624291)
07-17-2011 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Chuck77
07-17-2011 2:23 AM


The Bible. It's the "truth" to me but subjective to you. It's the truth to me because i've experienced the fruit of believing it and acting on what it says.
The trouble is that other people have had similar experiences. For example:
I discovered more and more people, who for no apparent reason, loved me. I rejoiced, for I remembered reading that if Allah loves you, He causes others to love you. I am not worthy of all the love. That means it must be another gift from Allah. Allah is the Greatest! [...] There is no way to fully explain how my life changed. Alhamdulillah! I am so very glad that I am a Muslim. Islam is my life. Islam is the beat of my heart. Islam is the blood that courses through my veins. Islam is my strength. Islam is my life so wonderful and beautiful. Without Islam, I am nothing and should Allah ever turn His magnificent face from me I could not survive.
She has also "experienced the fruit of believing it and acting on what it says". It's just that her "it" is a different "it" from your "it". Now this sort of experience can't be taken as real evidence, because if it could then it would be necessary to believe in two mutually exclusive religions.
That's the difference. The Bible gives instructions and outcomes.
Like the Koran.
You seem like a nice chap, and perhaps Christianity has made you a better and happier person (or maybe you'd have been that way anyway). But this is no evidence of its truth, because another religion or philosophy might have had the same effect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Chuck77, posted 07-17-2011 2:23 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Chuck77, posted 07-17-2011 5:47 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 9 of 468 (624339)
07-17-2011 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Chuck77
07-17-2011 5:47 AM


Well, I disagree. The koran doesn't acknowledge Jesus for who He really is, and doesn't have him being crucified either. It's more of a "not so nice rule" book IMO than the Bible.
Yes, but like the Bible it "gives instructions and outcomes". I didn't say that they were exactly the same, otherwise they'd both be the Bible.
So sure, there are differences. You say that the difference is that the Koran "doesn't acknowledge Jesus for who He really is"; a Muslim would say that the difference is that the Bible encourages the ultimate blasphemy known as shirk. Tomayto, tomahto.
Well, Jesus is what seperates this whole divide. Jesus is evidence of God. Everyone wants evidence, empirical evidence - Jesus is that. He walked around this earth 2000 years ago and did everything (and more) the Bible said he did.
But then you've strayed from the topic. If you have empirical evidence, that wouldn't be subjective, would it? The question in this thread is whether subjective feelings would constitute evidence; if you had objective proof of the historicity of the Gospels, this would not fall under that heading.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Chuck77, posted 07-17-2011 5:47 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 16 of 468 (624429)
07-17-2011 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by GDR
07-17-2011 6:41 PM


We exist as sentient beings in a world that appears to be made ready for us.
Made ready in what way? The lighting is intermittent, the heating likewise, often with lethal effect, the water mostly undrinkable, the sewage system non-existent, and the whole place is crawling with vermin. This is why we've had to make the whole place over in order for it to be habitable and tolerable.
Really, if you checked into a hotel room with half these defects and the manager assured you that he had made it ready for you, would you not suppose that he had done so under the impression that you had slept with his wife and run over his dog?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by GDR, posted 07-17-2011 6:41 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by GDR, posted 07-17-2011 10:22 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 45 of 468 (624581)
07-18-2011 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by GDR
07-18-2011 9:12 PM


Re: C.S. Lewis
As far as the link CS Lewis is an idiot you included I suggest the title says it all. Not something you’d take that seriously. He makes the argument that there is no fundamental truth about morality as animals are capable of altruism.
Neither of you seem to have noticed that that was written by a crazed Christian fundamentalist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by GDR, posted 07-18-2011 9:12 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Theodoric, posted 07-18-2011 10:26 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 48 by GDR, posted 07-18-2011 10:47 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 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

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 63 of 468 (624788)
07-20-2011 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by PaulK
07-20-2011 1:38 AM


Re: The Ultimate Question
I have proposed a topic on the ultimate question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by PaulK, posted 07-20-2011 1:38 AM PaulK has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


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 fix’d Stars is on all hands acknowledg’d to be next to infinite: Secondly, Every fix’d Star, in the now-receiv’d 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 replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 269 of 468 (630717)
08-27-2011 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by Straggler
08-27-2011 3:07 AM


Are soup manifestaions a reliable method determining what does and does not exist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Straggler, posted 08-27-2011 3:07 AM Straggler has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 302 of 468 (631028)
08-30-2011 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by Just being real
08-30-2011 12:18 AM


Let's look at this comment first. You said, "different Christian religions," as if to imply irreconcilable differences. Is that what you meant to imply? That would be like trying to say don't buy your gas at Quik Trip because there are so many Quik Trips, who's got the "real gas?" The fact of the matter is that they are all selling the same quality of gas. There are only minor differences in the style and layout of the different stores which doesn't effect the main and plain thing. Likewise if they are really "Christian" (meaning followers of Christ) then they all have the same thing. The differences are all minor things that don't effect the main and plain thing.
Yeah ... in retrospect, the differences are so minor they were hardly worth burning one another alive over.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Just being real, posted 08-30-2011 12:18 AM Just being real has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 310 of 468 (631042)
08-30-2011 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 307 by Just being real
08-30-2011 2:34 AM


Re: GREATEST SCIENTIFIC PROOF?
So this means we need to know a clear scientific way in which we can detect intelligence. Something that works in all situations no matter what. Well how about we take a look at what scientists already use as their "intelligence detector."
For example, scientists have already looked at the DNA "code" in all living creatures and concluded that it was produced by an unintelligent process. This means that if you are going to take "what scientists already use" as your "clear scientific way in which we can detect intelligence", you must conclude that it was not in fact produced by intelligence.
If you want to conclude the opposite, you must in fact do the opposite of what scientists have already done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Just being real, posted 08-30-2011 2:34 AM Just being real has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by GDR, posted 08-30-2011 10:49 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 321 of 468 (631094)
08-30-2011 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by Just being real
08-30-2011 6:36 AM


1. Does it contradict itself? An all knowing God would never contradict what He has already said.
2. Does it conflict with known proven science? An all knowing God would know how He "created" His creations.
3. Does it conflict with known history? An infinite God would have been here when it all happened so there would not be so called historical stories that conflict with known history.
4. Does it prophecy or predict events that never happen? An all knowing divine God would know the future and therefore never get a prediction wrong.
Good tests. So much for the book of Genesis, then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Just being real, posted 08-30-2011 6:36 AM Just being real has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 326 of 468 (631115)
08-30-2011 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 322 by GDR
08-30-2011 10:49 AM


Re: GREATEST SCIENTIFIC PROOF?
This just isn't correct. Scientists have looked at the DNA code and found natural processes at work, which tells us nothing about whether or not it was intelligently produced or not. It is like gravity or intelligence - they exist but is it a result of an intelligent or non-intelligent first cause.
But if we're talking about the first cause, then you might as well chide Jbr for his unwarranted assumption that dolphin speech is the product of intelligence. Sure, dolphins are intelligent, but dolphins are not the first cause of the fact that dolphins talk.
Again, you should have pulled him up for suggesting that SETI would detect intelligence. Sure, it could detect intelligent aliens, but not an intelligent first cause.
However, the criterion that he suggested and that I adopted was the practice of scientists, who do not investigate the first causes of dolphins or DNA or Little Green Men.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by GDR, posted 08-30-2011 10:49 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by GDR, posted 08-30-2011 4:52 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 328 of 468 (631119)
08-30-2011 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by Just being real
08-30-2011 2:34 AM


Re: GREATEST SCIENTIFIC PROOF?
So this means we need to know a clear scientific way in which we can detect intelligence. Something that works in all situations no matter what. [...] Or in the field of archaeology, the scientist looks for specific recognizable patterns or function to tell if an object is natural or man made. [...] They all use specificity as the indicating factor. Specificity can be defined simply as: A distinguishing quality or attribute explicitly set forth; as Intended for, applying to, or acting on a particular thing: Something particularly fitted to a use or purpose.
If detecting "if an object is natural or man-made" is the same as detecting intelligence and "specificity", then you implicitly concede that natural objects are not the product of intelligence and do not possess this "specificity" of which you speak. Which is not, I believe, what you intend to do.
According to creationist dogma, an archeologist who puts a clay pot and a knapped flint in the "man-made" pile and a tree-root and the skull of a goat in the "natural" pile cannot really be discriminating between the two classes on the criterion of whether they have an intelligent origin, but must be using some other criterion altogether.
Actually, much the same could be said of pretty much any other example you might chose to give. For example, the SETI guys are trying to distinguish signals made by radio transmitters (the product of intelligence) from natural radio signals made by stars, which according to Genesis are also the direct product of intelligence. Indeed, of supreme intelligence, so from the point of view of a fiat creationist what the SETI people are actually looking for are signs of (relative) stupidity --- they are winnowing out the grain in search of the chaff.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Just being real, posted 08-30-2011 2:34 AM Just being real has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 334 of 468 (631144)
08-30-2011 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 332 by GDR
08-30-2011 4:52 PM


Re: GREATEST SCIENTIFIC PROOF?
I agree with all that but it still leaves your statement as being incorrect.
No, it would have been incorrect if we were discussing the First Cause. Or the best way to make mango chutney, or the historical origins of the offside rule in association football, or the career prospects for a one-legged tapdancer. But we were not discussing any of those things, and I was right.
Scientists do in fact ascribe the DNA of living things to an unintelligent cause, and the communication of dolphins to an intelligent cause (i.e. dolphins) and in doing so they are not even contemplating the question of whether or not they have an intelligent First Cause, which is a different question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by GDR, posted 08-30-2011 4:52 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by GDR, posted 08-30-2011 8:03 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 370 of 468 (631231)
08-31-2011 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 369 by Just being real
08-31-2011 2:43 AM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
The Bible does NOT mean the earth sits upon pillars literally.
Yeah, only an idiot would take the Bible literally when it contradicts established scientific facts.
Now, about that book of Genesis ... ? But I notice you've been working on that, too. Apparently days aren't literally days, heaven can have at least three different meanings which you get to pick from at your own convenience ... but you're going to stick by the global flood? Why? --- it's complete bollocks.
In fact it says otherwise.
No. It says stuff like this ...
"When the earth and all its people quake, it is I who hold its pillars firm." --- Psalm 75
"For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s and he had set the world upon them." --- I Samuel 2:8
... but it never says the pillars are a metaphor.
You could probably make Alice in Wonderland contain no errors if you just took enough of it non-literally. You could certainly do so for the Koran, so your criticisms of that work fall rather flat. Sauce for the goose and all that.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Just being real, posted 08-31-2011 2:43 AM Just being real has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by IamJoseph, posted 08-31-2011 4:00 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024