Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Subjective Evidence of Gods
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 31 of 468 (624496)
07-18-2011 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Chuck77
07-18-2011 2:33 AM


Re: Subjective Evidence of Gods
quote:
If I believe all these gods exist then what am I doing living the way I am?
That's kinda the point. You believe your god exists, but not the others. Why? You don't have to believe in the worship system or that any other god is as powerful as yours, but why don't you believe that they exist? Those believers have the experiences to believe just as you do. How can you say that your god exists and their s doesn't?
quote:
It doesn't mean it's true just because there are books. ...
I think it makes more sense to argue from certain subjective evidence as opposed to all subjective evidence.
And yet you state that the Bible is true. Now you're implying that only your subjective evidence is valid or reasonable. How can we tell which subjective evidence is valid and which isn't?
quote:
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.
That's why I mentioned the healing issue. Even amongst believers there are those who pray for healing and don't receive it. If an answer to prayer is subjective evidence for God's existence for an individual, then unanswered prayers are subjective evidence against God's existence for an individual. Believers don't usually take unanswered prayers as evidence against their god's existence.
Let's look at the prayer evidence you presented in Message 3 concerning your shoulder. 3 John 1:2 isn't a prayer to God. The author is simply wishing his reader well. IOW, he's saying; "I hope this letter may find you well."
From a Biblical standpoint it isn't a prayer and does not profess to confer healing if used as such. From an objective plain reading, the letter has nothing to do with healing.
Another believer can speak the same words and receive no relief. So was your shoulder healed by your God, a different god, your own mind (meditation), or the warmth of your hand? Other than belief, can you tell which one it is? Have you tried praying to another god for healing?
Subjective evidence isn't really a viable choice to determine the existence of a being. Great for individual choices, but doesn't go much further than that.
Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Chuck77, posted 07-18-2011 2:33 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Chuck77, posted 07-20-2011 7:06 AM purpledawn has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 32 of 468 (624505)
07-18-2011 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by GDR
07-17-2011 10:08 PM


We can look at the same evidence and subjectively come to different conclusions which goes back to the question in the OP.
The point being that your observation ...
quote:
We exist as sentient beings in a world that appears to be made ready for us.
... stands as subjective evidence of some god(s) fails since the observation is fallacious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by GDR, posted 07-17-2011 10:08 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by GDR, posted 07-18-2011 11:24 AM AZPaul3 has replied

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


Message 33 of 468 (624506)
07-18-2011 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Panda
07-18-2011 5:50 AM


Panda writes:
And I'll avoid listing the sizeable number of mistakes that were made, if this world was made ready for us...
I think we are going off topic as this is supposed to be about subjective evidence. The subjective evidence is that we continue to survive, and even thrive, so in spite of the fact that you perceive what you consider mistakes, the positive obviously far outweigh the negatives.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Panda, posted 07-18-2011 5:50 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Panda, posted 07-18-2011 11:25 AM GDR has not replied

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


Message 34 of 468 (624507)
07-18-2011 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by AZPaul3
07-18-2011 10:37 AM


AZPaul3 writes:
... stands as subjective evidence of some god(s) fails since the observation is fallacious.
Not at all. I said that it "appears to be made ready for us" which is saying that the observation itself is subjective.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by AZPaul3, posted 07-18-2011 10:37 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by AZPaul3, posted 07-18-2011 11:33 AM GDR has not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 35 of 468 (624508)
07-18-2011 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by GDR
07-18-2011 11:09 AM


GDR writes:
The subjective evidence is that we continue to survive, and even thrive, so in spite of the fact that you perceive what you consider mistakes, the positive obviously far outweigh the negatives.
If your criteria for 'created ready for humans' is: "it hasn't completely wiped us out" then you have incredibly low expectations from a god.
Considering how many billions of humans have died from viral infections, bacterial infections, diseases, earthquakes, volcanoes, animal attacks, etc, etc, etc...
I see very little reason to think that this earth was created 'for' us.
People complain about the actions of religion and politics and racism - but the real killer is the world will live on.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by GDR, posted 07-18-2011 11:09 AM GDR has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 36 of 468 (624509)
07-18-2011 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by GDR
07-18-2011 11:24 AM


I said that it "appears to be made ready for us" which is saying that the observation itself is subjective.
I can accept that. Thanks for the clarification.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by GDR, posted 07-18-2011 11:24 AM GDR has not replied

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


Message 37 of 468 (624518)
07-18-2011 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Chuck77
07-18-2011 2:33 AM


Re: Subjective Evidence of Gods
Chuck writes:
When I mention the Bible as subjective evidence im using it as evidence to me.
That you find the bible personally convincing isn't evidence that God exists or anything else.
Subjective evidence is just a way of conflating deep personal belief with a form of evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Chuck77, posted 07-18-2011 2:33 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by GDR, posted 07-18-2011 3:08 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 38 of 468 (624537)
07-18-2011 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Straggler
07-18-2011 1:43 PM


Re: Subjective Evidence of Gods
Straggler writes:
Subjective evidence is just a way of conflating deep personal belief with a form of evidence.
The same can be said for any belief including atheism. However, I contend that it is possible for subjective evidence to be the basis of our deep personal beliefs.
None of us came into this world holding deep personal beliefs. It had to start somewhere. I want from agnosticism to theism based largely on the subjective belief that there is an underlying moral code that is basic to our existence after reading CS Lewis.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Straggler, posted 07-18-2011 1:43 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Theodoric, posted 07-18-2011 4:04 PM GDR has replied
 Message 41 by Straggler, posted 07-18-2011 5:16 PM GDR has replied
 Message 42 by purpledawn, posted 07-18-2011 5:57 PM GDR has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 39 of 468 (624553)
07-18-2011 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by GDR
07-18-2011 3:08 PM


C.S. Lewis
after reading CS Lewis.
I have never thought Lewis' arguments were particularly compelling. Actually they seem quite simplistic to me.
I am not sure I would go as far as this guy(looks like it is John Loftus).
C.S. Lewis was an idiot
But I think he makes some valid arguments against Lewis.
Here is a more scholarly refutation of Lewis and his arguments.
C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion
By John Beversluis
Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by GDR, posted 07-18-2011 3:08 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-18-2011 4:41 PM Theodoric has replied
 Message 44 by GDR, posted 07-18-2011 9:12 PM Theodoric has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 40 of 468 (624554)
07-18-2011 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Theodoric
07-18-2011 4:04 PM


Re: C.S. Lewis
after reading CS Lewis.
I have never thought Lewis' arguments were particularly compelling. Actually they seem quite simplistic to me.
I am not sure I would go as far as this guy(looks like it is John Loftus).
C.S. Lewis was an idiot
But I think he makes some valid arguments against Lewis.
Here is a more scholarly refutation of Lewis and his arguments.
C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion
By John Beversluis
quote:
This is rule 5 from the Forum Guidelines:
  1. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
Those links which I have followed did not support your point in any discernible way, so if you think they support your point of view then it is incumbent upon you to explain how. What kind of discussion would it be if everyone just posted links? It might look like this:
"This says your wrong: http://www.creationistsRus.com."
"But this says we're right: http://www.evolutionistsRus.com."
"But that ignores the points raised in this link: http://www.evolutionistsRdumb.com."
"That link is full of fallacies, described here: http://www.creationistsRfallacious.com"
So please, include the evidence supporting your position in your messages and construct your own arguments around that evidence, using links only as references.
From Message 689

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Theodoric, posted 07-18-2011 4:04 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Theodoric, posted 07-18-2011 8:46 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 41 of 468 (624561)
07-18-2011 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by GDR
07-18-2011 3:08 PM


Re: Subjective Evidence of Gods
Hey GDR
GDR writes:
The same can be said for any belief...
Some beliefs have a firmer evidential basis than others.
GDR writes:
... including atheism
Well I would argue not. As per Inductive Atheism
GDR writes:
However, I contend that it is possible for subjective evidence to be the basis of our deep personal beliefs.
It may well be the basis in the sense that it is the reason that a particular belief is held. But that is not the same a form of evidence is it?
GDR writes:
It had to start somewhere.
That good evidence leads to strong belief often leads to the mistaken conclusion that a strong belief must be based on valid evidence.
GDR writes:
I want from agnosticism to theism based largely on the subjective belief that there is an underlying moral code that is basic to our existence after reading CS Lewis.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by GDR, posted 07-18-2011 3:08 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by GDR, posted 07-18-2011 10:42 PM Straggler has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 42 of 468 (624568)
07-18-2011 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by GDR
07-18-2011 3:08 PM


Re: Subjective Evidence of Gods
quote:
The same can be said for any belief including atheism. However, I contend that it is possible for subjective evidence to be the basis of our deep personal beliefs.
That's pretty much the meaning of subjective.
Subjective
Based on (or related to) attitudes, beliefs, or opinions, instead of on verifiable evidence or phenomenon. Contrasts with objective.
How is a belief evidence of gods?
We all believe many different things as we go through our lives. We add them and drop them as our needs dictate.
We also learn in life that belief that something exists doesn't mean that it does.
If subjective evidence can be evidence for the existence of gods, it can also be evidence against the existence of gods.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by GDR, posted 07-18-2011 3:08 PM GDR has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 43 of 468 (624576)
07-18-2011 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by New Cat's Eye
07-18-2011 4:41 PM


Re: C.S. Lewis
I see Catholic Scientist wants to be the EVC policeman.
The post was an aside from the current topic. All I wanted to do was let GDR know that he should examine some criticisms of Lewis. He might want to know what others think of the arguments presented by Lewis. Since he repeatedly mentions his love for Lewis, I felt it was more than appropriate to point out that there are major flaws with the arguments that Lewis uses.
Those links which I have followed did not support your point in any discernible way, so if you think they support your point of view then it is incumbent upon you to explain how.
If you followed the links you would see that these people also thought that the arguments put forth by Lewis were not very good arguments.
If you want to discuss Lewis start a thread. I personally do not feel a need to pursue the subject more.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-18-2011 4:41 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 44 of 468 (624577)
07-18-2011 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Theodoric
07-18-2011 4:04 PM


Re: C.S. Lewis
Theodoric writes:
I have never thought Lewis' arguments were particularly compelling. Actually they seem quite simplistic to me.
I actually have never laid claim to being the brightest light in the chandelier, but I personally did find Lewis' argument compelling enough to at the very least be open minded about it. Actually the more I have read various religious, and non religious writers over the years, the more convinced I have become. Frankly, in my subjective view, nothing makes as much sense of my life and the world I live in as Christianity. (That of course raises the question of which Christianity I'm referring to, but that is another question.)
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. Frankly, as I believe in a God who created all life that is exactly what I would expect to see.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Theodoric, posted 07-18-2011 4:04 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-18-2011 9:33 PM GDR has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 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

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024