Evidence for God

Hi again Bluejay. This is a little too simple I think.100 people view Saving Private Ryan and recount 100 different effects the film had on their feelings: the horror of war, the tears shed on account of the bravery of men, the joy of experiencing the novel camera work, etcvs.100 people saw how to make a sticky bombApples vs Pears?Night..Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Hi, Iano. No, I don't think so.I think the fact that you think so is really evidence for my side of the debate.Feelings are not capable of producing across-the-board consensus in the same manner that the sensory perceptions are. Even if we are in "The Matrix," the difference between the conformity of feelings versus the conformity of sensory perceptions across individuals is still evident. If this is just an "internal universe," all the different sensory perceptions and feelings come ultimately from you, anyway, and so the best conclusion is still that sensory perceptions are more consistent than emotions. The only alternative is still that somebody on the "outside" is trying to trick you (or, in the case of your "internal universe," that you are unknowingly trying to trick yourself).It is therefore most reasonable to conclude that sensory perceptions are more closely tied to reality (of any sort) than are feelings. And, that's why physical evidence should be the only type of evidence considered.Edited by Bluejay, : Typo

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

I only read the first dozen posts before deciding to answer this. Someone said that typically it's simply what religion you are raised with that determines this. True enough, but there are a lot of exceptions to this. Millions of exceptions, in fact.I based my choice of Jesus Christ, made at age 21, on numerous pieces of evidence. I was moved by the fact that few prisoners of war lost their faith in God in prison. I took into account that the apostles were somehow so convinced of the divinity of a man they basically lived with that they gave their lives for that belief. I was impacted by the description of crucifixion in Psalm 22, hundreds of years before crucifixion, and how similar it was to a description I heard a priest repeat of Nazi tests on how people die on a cross. Finally, I had a very strange spiritual experience involving voices and shadows when a church I visited was praying.When I finally decided, in response to all these things, to acknowledge that Jesus was really the Son of God and change my life, the experience that followed was incredible. I promised myself that day, 26 years ago now, that I would always remember it as a miracle.To save time, I will simply say that the last 26 years have given me no reason to doubt that faith. Answers to prayer, transformations God has worked in people, and numerous "words in due time," where God provided guidance through some situation, have all left me convinced that my belief is accurate.

Belief based on emotion instead of information is not philosophically sound. That said, it's your life and you can believe how you like, but with the caviat that anyone can criticize it for being baseless. Don't flatter yourself by saying that you have rigourously tested your convictions.

You sure about that? Because a great many people who do believe in god(s) also value both scientific research and logic.I expect that some Bayesian calculations would show that of all the people who value both scientific research and logic, believers outnumber atheists.

True enough. However, it's the emotion on the unbelief side of the equation often astounds me, including yours. Science is so good at being emotionless, yet on the subject of evidence that did not come from a lab, the extreme statements made by skeptics astound me. Thank God they don't run the justice system, or no criminal at all would ever go to jail. It's one thing to question evidence that didn't come from a clinical study, it's quite another to write it off as nothing.By the way, there's very little mention of anything that qualifies as "emotion" in my previous post.

quote:

---

By the way, there's very little mention of anything that qualifies as "emotion" in my previous post.

---

Quite the contrary, this entire passage is pure emotional reactions:

quote:

---

I was moved by the fact that few prisoners of war lost their faith in God in prison. I took into account that the apostles were somehow so convinced of the divinity of a man they basically lived with that they gave their lives for that belief. I was impacted by the description of crucifixion in Psalm 22, hundreds of years before crucifixion, and how similar it was to a description I heard a priest repeat of Nazi tests on how people die on a cross. Finally, I had a very strange spiritual experience involving voices and shadows when a church I visited was praying.

---

These are your own words, that you were "moved", "impacted" and had "very strange spiritual experiance"s. This is not how objective information is gained.You shouldn't be astounded by rational skepticism: it is an infinitely more practical philosophy than being deluded by emotions.

I'm not astounded by skepticism. I've been astounded by the emotion in it. What it looks like to me is that this is exactly the issue, but it is avoided by what pretends to be rational skepticism. I have no problem with skepticism. I have rarely encountered it, however. Instead, I have encountered dogmatic assertions about things that are not possible.For example, almost anything is a more practical philosophy--though not necessarily infinitely more so--than being deluded by emotions. However, the existence of emotion doesn't equate with delusion. It only means you must be careful for it. There has been a lot of emotion, and a lot of "gut feelings" involved in major discoveries, even the "infinitely practical" ones. Emotion exists even where there's right thinking.The fact is, the faith I live is practical, and there's plenty of evidence for it. Some of that evidence is weak and inconclusive. Some of it causes real pause for thought. The fact is, though, that it works, it works well, and in comparing the results of "rational skepticism" with the faith I live...well, what I find is that there's not very many rational skeptics to compare with.Finally, your extreme statement that "this entire passage is pure emotional reactions" I don't believe to be true, and it represents exactly the problem. While claiming rational skepticism, you simply paint with a broad brush, make a sweeping generalization, and address nothing.The first time I really had to look at evolution I was moved, stunned, and had an extremely intense--and quite normal, considering my situation--emotional reaction to a description of how the eye could evolve from a simple light-sensing cell. Since I had an emotional reaction, and since there were no clinical studies conducted, should I ignore that fact that nature provides an amazing (emotion again) series of steps from light cells to a fully-functioning eye or say it's not evidence of evolution?

Your Topic says evidence for a god, but you write in parentheses that you are not seeking proof that a god exists. If you intend to ask what the difference between Judaism and Islam is, I will say that they are debating about what the same G-d actually said. According to Judaism, the holy prophet of the Islam faith was nothing more than a faker, or false prophet. The Torah clearly warns about false prophets appearing in the future, and explains exactly how one can know if the prophet is true or false. According to Judaism the myriad of religions that are based on Judaism were all started with false prophets. Judaism is the first organized monotheistic religion, and it was not started with a prophet but with a national revelation of over 600,000 grown men who all survived the event. According to Judaism G-d promised never to forsake the Jewish people forever. Any other religion must therefore believe that G-d has broken a promise. This is my knowledge of the subject, and I hope it answers your question.

as you say "according to Judaism" but what if the Judaism prophets were false prophets?

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

What I wrote was not said by a prophet, but it was written in the Torah. The Torah was given to the Jews not through a prophet, but through G-d Himself. That is correct, the Jewish claim is that 600,000 grown men heard G-d speak at the same time. They all saw Moses go up the mountain as well. They subsequently all agreed to accept a strict code of laws written in the actual Torah. The Jewish religion is the only religion to make the claim of national revelation with all the members of the revelation remaining alive. Unlike the Christian Bible, there is still only one version of the Torah written in the original language. Let me repeat, Judaism was "NOT" started with one prophet, but with 600,000 adult men hearing G-d's words (This number does not include any women or children under 20, that were also present, and heard G-d speak as well). It says in the Torah (the original five books)in clear black ink that the Jewish nation will never be abandon forever. And after all the years of persecution, the Jewish nation still exists. Edited by Open MInd, : No reason given.Edited by Open MInd, : No reason given.

I suggest you open your fridge because i just did that and it was full of poor unfortunate animals(cut to pieces). We have to kill and torture to survive as do most in the animal world. Have you seen the cow that's just given birth to a calf only to realise that its calf is being taken away forever? Often times the mother cow would escape and run around for 5-10 kilometres looking for her calf.
Have you seen the face of mothers losing their childeren? How about malnutrition kids dying of hunger in Chad in terrible pains? Or the sorrow of their mothers unable to do anything? Or the people dying from cancer in its latest phase when they lose their hair and die a horribly painful death?
You claim your god created this world so you have to know from someone that's not prejudiced that your god is a sadistic, merciless, omni-cruel and omni-retarded psychopath that likes to play with living creatures' suffering. I'd rather worship Osama Bin Laden, a rapist ot a serial killer than the one who created so much suffering and injustice in this world.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Cool it, man.I was only questioning your numbers. Can you back up your statement that most people who value scientific research and logic don't believe in gods?

"NATURE" MAGAZINE SURVEY -- LESS AND LESS BELIEF
The follow-up study reported in "Nature" reveals that the rate of belief is lower than eight decades ago. The latest survey involved 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences; half replied. When queried about belief in "personal god," only 7% responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism."What kind of scientist could believe in something that's not backed up by ANY evidence? Science is about knowledge so what knowledge can a scientist possess about the existence of god/s/?What's really disturbing is that for a few millenia there was no question about how life came about. The answer was pretty clear and nobody questioned its authencity. It's funny that they "knew" that god did it and took everything for granted what the church fed them. It's disgusting. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Your original statement, however, was not about scientists. It was about "most people".I hope you don't think that only scientists respect scientific investigation and logic.As for scientists having difficulty believing in something that is not backed up by any evidence, I guess that's an occupational hazard.