Subjective Evidence of Gods

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?

Well I did say that it was a misguided attempt to retain credibility.

Sure, but all you are describing is how things happened which we can find objective evidence for. What you describe looks to me subjectively like something that was extremely well thought out ahead of time. I agree that subjectively you can also make the case that we are the beneficiaries of very fortuitous non-intelligent natural forces. We can look at the same evidence and subjectively come to different conclusions which goes back to the question in the OP.Edited by GDR, : messed up the quote

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Just the same the vast majority of us aren't wanting to check out either. Have you got a better room on offer? At any rate, the Christian answer is that it isn't finished yet.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Ya, but we struggle on. Nobody said it was going to be easy.

If you wish to pursue that line of reasoning it would be appropriate to provide some kind of evidence for this critter that caused things to be "well thought out."And see below: Not all interpretations are of equal value. When you have a lot of evidence supporting one interpretation and minimal-to-no evidence supporting the other, it is incorrect to place them on equal footing. This is where "teach the controversy" (an attempt by creationists to gain some traction after ID was shot down) failed. The "controversy" was generated by creationists, not by scientists, and as such had no standing within science. But they knew that, they just wanted their creationism taught, and that was the next trick they tried.So no, not all interpretations are of equal value. Some are more supported by empirical evidence than others. And some are supported only by subjective evidence (i.e., wishful thinking).But then if you had empirical evidence you wouldn't have to grasp at the straws of subjective evidence, would you?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

When you are coming to conclusions based on subjective views, it is again a subjective view as to whether these views are on an equal footing or not. I'm certainly not trying to give traction to the creationist (at least as it is understood around here), position. In my view allowing one's reading of the Bible to influence their views on science is a gross misunderstanding of how we are to understand the Bible. What empirical evidence do you have for a non-intelligent first cause, or more simply why is there something instead of nothing?Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

I have none, but that doesn't just leave the door open for any subjective ideas that happen to float by. You know how much LDS was going around in Berkeley in the old days. ;-)Scientists who have some knowledge of the subject have some decent working ideas, and that is surely better than subjective evidence any day.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Don't know 'bout no LDS but at Iowa we had a lot of acid flowin around.Oops, off topic.

Thank heavens I was a child of the late fifities and early sixties and didn't have to deal with that. I could get in enough trouble drivin' out on the prairies with a couple a guys and a case of beer. What would be the most obvious one of those decent working ideas?

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

I can relate to that! (But with mountains, as we didn't have prairies.) You will have to check with the cosmology folks for the details, I'm just a simple archaeologist.But be assured, they will not be relying on woo and shamanistic ideas for their inspiration. They'll be coming up with the best ideas that can explain the observations. Those ideas may be right, or they may eventually be shown to be wrong, but those folks won't be relying on superstition and other nonsense in their research.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

As you don't have any objective thoughts on these "decent working ideas", I assume that you subjectively believe that these ideas exist.In the end, even if scientists could come up with some combination of materials that could cause life it still won't answer the question of why that combination occured in the first place.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

My bad. When I mention the Bible as subjective evidence im using it as evidence to me. The koran is subjective evidence of course. Im not trying to make a case for all gods tho. Subjective evidence can be sorted out just like ideas about Abiogenesis. Lots of ideas are thrown around but they're not trying to make cases for the origin of life in a parallel universe even tho one might exist. They're trying to further our knowledge of this universe and then mabye apply it to another, later on.They're more familiar with the one we live in. So you can't blame me for presenting my subjective evidence. It's all I have and doesn't mean it's wrong if I fail to present every case for every religion ever known to mankind. Yeah, no kidding. Im not saying they don't have any subjective evidence am I? Like I said all religions have subjective evidence. Do I need to believe all of it to argue my point? If I believe all these gods exist then what am I doing living the way I am?I don't believe in relativism so im focusing on subjective evidence for God which can be applied to all gods if you wish. Im sure there is 9000 books on UFO's. It doesn't mean it's true just because there are books. Some subjective evidence is better than others. The Bible says you go to Heaven or Hell. Other religions say certain animals are their relatives reicarnate so don't kill them. I think it makes more sense to argue from certain subjective evidence as opposed to all subjective evidence.Im not sure Straggler is offended if I fail to mention every single book written on religions and focus on just a few as subjective evidence. If they believe the subjective evidence im telling them certainly it can work for them just like it did for me if they do what the book says? If God is real why wouldn't it? If he's not then it's a crap shoot. Of course, but we're talking about subjective evidence of god(s) not feelings. Inpsiration can come from reading a readers digest it doesn't mean it is subjective evidence of gods just because you're inspired. Yeah, but it's not subjective anymore to that individual after it is verified as truth to that person. So now, you have two? three? verified truths from subjective evidence and I think it's reasonalbe to test those against eashother to find the real truth or it's all realative and why believe any of it? I know it's not about the Bible being true, im just presenting it as "subjective" evidence.I accept all religions books as subjective evidence. I feel it all points to one absolute truth. I.E. other religions borrowing from the Bible etc. To me all these religions makes a case for a God but doesn't all lead to the same one.I believe in truth, dawn, and don't take offense if I feel people should atleast know why I believe what I do and where I get my evidence from and why. I glady listen to other peoples beliefs and don't blast them with mine. If they believe something different fine, but i'll present my belief also and if it goes further maybe we'll end up having a nice conversation on why we believe what we do based on our "subjective" evidence. Well, like you said, it's not all about my God. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Sweet! I'd love to hear his story! No, it doesn't at all. We all have different experiences. I love to hear other peoples encounters with God.Are you talking about which god actually?I assume you're saying what makes my experience any better or more truthful than His? I can't judge that or wouldn't. I can only say what has worked for me and why I think it is the truth and if He were interested in knowing what my truth was i'd share it with him and hope he would share his with me, then, talk about it and why we think it's truth.It doesn't have to be a fight, it can be fun and knowledgeable and we could both learn from eachother and take it from there.

Then you undermine your own argument.The world does not appear to be ready for us.
Instead, we have had to hammer it into a suitable shape.And considering how many years the world did not even have human life - it would appear that we are barely an 'afterthought' in the history of this planet - and barely a 'blip' in the history of the universe.
Comparing:
15,000,000,000 years since the universe 'began'.
4,500,000,000 years since the Earth was formed.
2,500,000,000 years since life appeared on Earth.
200,000 years since modern man started populating the Earth. And I'll avoid listing the sizeable number of mistakes that were made, if this world was made ready for us...Edited by Panda, : tyopsEdited by Panda, : No reason given.