Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Subjective Evidence of Gods
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 106 of 468 (625522)
07-23-2011 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Straggler
07-23-2011 4:21 AM


Track Record Isn't the Point
Straggler writes:
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.
This thread is simply about subjective evidence as it applies to the existence or non-existence of god(s).. The jury is still out on who was right and who was wrong. There are intelligent people on both sides of the argument. It is not about the specifics of god(s).
Straggler writes:
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.
In a way it isn't that people invent god(s). The problem is that people ascribe attributes to god(s) to suit their own purposes. Also, I have no problem with the idea that people turn to god(s) for physiological reasons but that tells us nothing about whether he/she/it/they exist or not. Sure people ascribe false attributes that they imagine to god(s). That says absolutely nothing about the subjective view about the actual existence of god(s).
Straggler writes:
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.
Absolutely except that I don't think it is a commonly held view.
Straggler writes:
Do you have any examples of the sort of evidence used to conclude that God exists leading to demonstrably reliable conclusions?
You've changed the subject. You were talking about predictions about things like the end of the world by individuals. In answer to your question.....no..... nor should I expect that there would be. But again, do you have any examples of the sort of evidence used to conclude that God doesn't exist leading to demonstrably reliable conclusions?
Straggler writes:
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.
Not at all. Lets' take evolution. Darwin asked the question of how species adapted and came up with the theory of evolution. As a result we now know how species adapt and how new species came to be. It tells us nothing about why evolution as a process existed in the first place. This can be said for all natural phenomenons. Was it accomplished by a prime mover or not? We all have our subjective opinions.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Straggler, posted 07-23-2011 4:21 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Straggler, posted 07-24-2011 3:15 PM GDR has replied

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


Message 107 of 468 (625619)
07-24-2011 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by GDR
07-23-2011 5:21 PM


Re: Track Record Isn't the Point
GDR writes:
Track Record Isn't the Point
This thread is about the validity (or otherwise) of a particular form of evidence. If the track record of a particular form of evidence isn't the basis upon which it's validity must be judged I am absolutely baffled as to what is?
GDR writes:
But again, do you have any examples of the sort of evidence used to conclude that God doesn't exist leading to demonstrably reliable conclusions?
That gods are more likely to be invented by humans rather than actually exist is based on:
1) Objective empirical evidence pertaining to the ability and proclivity of humans to invent non-existant gods for various psychological reasons.
2) The simple (and well founded) principle that evidenced conclusions are more likely to be correct than baseless or poorly evidenced conclusions.
GDR writes:
Was it accomplished by a prime mover or not?
No matter how profound you make it sound - Why would any given natural phenomena be best explained by the supernatural given the woeful track record of ALL such previous conclusions and the evidenced fact that humans are prone to erroneously deeply believing in such false conclusions?
GDR writes:
Lets' take evolution. Darwin asked the question of how species adapted and came up with the theory of evolution. As a result we now know how species adapt and how new species came to be. It tells us nothing about why evolution as a process existed in the first place.
Genes that propogate do propogate and genes that don't propagate don't propagate. A particular gene propagates better because it allows it's owner to better survive and reproduce. Ultimately there is nothing more to this than just maths.
GDR writes:
We all have our subjective opinions.
Sure. But I contest the notion that concluding naturalistic answers over supernaturalistic ones is based on the same evidence defying opinions that theistic/deistic conclusions necessarily depend upon.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by GDR, posted 07-23-2011 5:21 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by GDR, posted 07-24-2011 3:34 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 109 by GDR, posted 07-24-2011 3:44 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 108 of 468 (625620)
07-24-2011 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Straggler
07-24-2011 3:15 PM


Re: Track Record Isn't the Point
Straggler writes:
This thread is about the validity (or otherwise) of a particular form of evidence. If the track record of a particular form of evidence isn't the basis upon which it's validity must be judged I am absolutely baffled as to what is?
I'll try again. I'm obviously not explaining myself well. I don't see this as being about God in the image of Christ, God of the Torah, God of the Qu'ran, Roman gods, Greek gods, militaristic gods, peaceful gods or any specific vision of god(s).
This is from your OP.
Straggler writes:
I would like to ask the following:
1) What subjective evidence in favour of the existence of gods is there? Can someone provide some actual examples of this form of evidence?
2) Is subjective evidence limited to entities that can be empirically detected or not?
3) On what basis (aside from belief) is the cause of these subjective experiences attributed to supernatural entities rather than to fluctuations in the matrix, undetectable telepathic aliens manipulating our minds or any other conceivable cause of such things?
4) Is belief itself a form of evidence on which we can justify belief?
I see the questions to be about subjective evidence for a god(s) regardless of any particular names, qualities or attributes we might assign to them/him/her/it.
So we you say that we have often been wrong about god(s) I'd say that I agree but that has nothing to say about whether one or more actually exist or not. Using a term like prime mover was just an attempt to try and help make that point.
Do I understand the questions in your OP as you intended?

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Straggler, posted 07-24-2011 3:15 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Straggler, posted 07-24-2011 4:15 PM GDR has replied

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


Message 109 of 468 (625621)
07-24-2011 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Straggler
07-24-2011 3:15 PM


Re: Track Record Isn't the Point
Straggler writes:
Genes that propogate do propogate and genes that don't propagate don't propagate. A particular gene propagates better because it allows it's owner to better survive and reproduce. Ultimately there is nothing more to this than just maths.
But you are just describing how beautifully the system works. It just has to occur to you that something that works so well has at least the appearance of being designed. Frankly to think that something as beautiful as that can have come about from a non-intelligent source stretches belief further than I can go.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Straggler, posted 07-24-2011 3:15 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Straggler, posted 07-24-2011 3:56 PM GDR has replied
 Message 111 by Panda, posted 07-24-2011 4:00 PM GDR has not replied

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


Message 110 of 468 (625622)
07-24-2011 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by GDR
07-24-2011 3:44 PM


Re: Track Record Isn't the Point
GDR writes:
It just has to occur to you that something that works so well has at least the appearance of being designed.
But the appearance of design is absolutely known as a fact to be fundamentally misleading. Every proponent of every supernatural answer to everything from the regularity of planetary motions to the existence of the eye has made this same mistake regarding the appearance of design in nature.
GDR writes:
Frankly to think that something as beautiful as that can have come about from a non-intelligent source stretches belief further than I can go.
Do you find it beautiful because you have evolved in such a way as to find it awe inspiring? Or because there really is a supernatural cause of all this that is genuinely mystical and wonderful in the way that you evdently believe to be the case?
There is only one genuinely evidenced answer to that question........
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by GDR, posted 07-24-2011 3:44 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by GDR, posted 07-24-2011 4:22 PM Straggler has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 111 of 468 (625624)
07-24-2011 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by GDR
07-24-2011 3:44 PM


Re: Track Record Isn't the Point
GDR writes:
But you are just describing how beautifully the system works. It just has to occur to you that something that works so well has at least the appearance of being designed.
Looking 'like' something does not actually make it something.
I had a friend that looked exactly like Avril Lavigne - but she wasn't her.
GDR writes:
Frankly to think that something as beautiful as that can have come about from a non-intelligent source stretches belief further than I can go.
Argument from incredulity
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by GDR, posted 07-24-2011 3:44 PM GDR has not replied

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


Message 112 of 468 (625625)
07-24-2011 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by GDR
07-24-2011 3:34 PM


Re: Track Record Isn't the Point
GDR writes:
I see the questions to be about subjective evidence for a god(s) regardless of any particular names, qualities or attributes we might assign to them/him/her/it.
So we you say that we have often been wrong about god(s) I'd say that I agree but that has nothing to say about whether one or more actually exist or not.
But it does. It says we humans are deeply inclined to inventing false concepts of a godly nature to explain and account for things we think are otherwise inexplicable or unable to be accounted for. There is masses of objective empirical evidence supporting this conclusion.
GDR writes:
Using a term like prime mover was just an attempt to try and help make that point.
Do I understand the questions in your OP as you intended?
You do. But where you and I differ is that you see the persistent failure of humanity to be right about specific gods as indicative of us being on a path to eventual truth about an assumed to exist higher being - Whilst I see it as indicative of a deep proclivity to just be wrong about the existence of gods.
My position takes the evidence at face value whilst yours necessarily assumes that there is a valid concept of god that we are slowly evolving towards.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by GDR, posted 07-24-2011 3:34 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by GDR, posted 07-24-2011 8:23 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 113 of 468 (625626)
07-24-2011 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Straggler
07-24-2011 3:56 PM


Re: Track Record Isn't the Point
Straggler writes:
But the appearance of design is absolutely known as a fact to be fundamentally misleading. Every proponent of every supernatural answer to everything from the regularity of planetary motions to the existence of the eye has made this same mistake regarding the appearance of design in nature.
I'm not suggesting that god(s) hold the planets in place. I know - gravity does. I think that it is John Lennox who I got this analogy from. (I wouldn't want to take all the credit. ) We can take a cake and break it all down to find all of the ingredients, maybe even the length of time it took to bake etc but that isn't going to tell us why or by whom the cake was baked in the first place.
The point is once again that science tells us how something works, it can even sometimes tell us how it came to be but it does not tell us anything about why it came to be or who/what might have caused it to be.
Straggler writes:
Do you find it beautiful because you have evolved in such a way as to find it awe inspiring? Or because there really is a supernatural cause of all this that is genuinely mystical and wonderful in the way that you evdently believe to be the case?
There is only one genuinely evidenced answer to that question........
Yes, I find the evolutionary system inspiring designed or not. As a theist I am in awe of the intelligence which spawned it. There is no objective evidence to conclude whether such an intelligence exists opr not. There is only subjective evidence which is..... subjective.
AbE gotta run. Get back to you later to explain your various errors
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Straggler, posted 07-24-2011 3:56 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Straggler, posted 07-24-2011 5:06 PM GDR has replied

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


Message 114 of 468 (625629)
07-24-2011 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by GDR
07-24-2011 4:22 PM


Re: Track Record Isn't the Point
GDR writes:
The point is....
The point is that humans are deeply inclined to falsely invoking supernatural answers to seemingly baffling questions.
To overcome the deeply objectively evidenced conclusion that this is exactly what is occurring here is a task I don't envy you.
GDR writes:
The point is once again that science tells us how something works, it can even sometimes tell us how it came to be but it does not tell us anything about why it came to be or who/what might have caused it to be.
You obviously think this is a key point.
But if we have a highly evidenced naturalistic answer for why something is as it is (human altruism, human invention of and belief in gods, morality or whatever else) why would we ever invoke a supernatural answer?
And if you are going to just keep asking "why" to the point of 'Why is there something rather than nothing" - then as I have said previously - Any "something" (including something supernatural) must inevitably be asking that same question with as little possibility of answering it as any other something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by GDR, posted 07-24-2011 4:22 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Huntard, posted 07-24-2011 5:14 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 123 by GDR, posted 07-24-2011 8:31 PM Straggler has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 115 of 468 (625630)
07-24-2011 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Straggler
07-24-2011 5:06 PM


Re: Track Record Isn't the Point
Straggler writes:
But if we have a highly evidenced naturalistic answer for why something is as it is (human altruism, human invention of and belief in gods, morality or whatever else) why would we ever invoke a supernatural answer?
Because that makes us feel that much more special? I mean, a being that could literally create whatever it wants, chose to create us as the pinnacle of its creation. That's pretty special, innit?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Straggler, posted 07-24-2011 5:06 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Straggler, posted 07-24-2011 5:16 PM Huntard has replied

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


Message 116 of 468 (625631)
07-24-2011 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Huntard
07-24-2011 5:14 PM


Re: Track Record Isn't the Point
Sure.
But is "what makes us feel special" a reliable indicator of reality?
If not - How can it qualify as a form of evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Huntard, posted 07-24-2011 5:14 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Huntard, posted 07-24-2011 5:25 PM Straggler has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 117 of 468 (625633)
07-24-2011 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Straggler
07-24-2011 5:16 PM


Re: Track Record Isn't the Point
Straggler writes:
Sure.
But is "what makes us feel special" a reliable indicator of reality?
Nope.
If not - How can it qualify as a form of evidence?
Well, as subjective evidence it might. I'm not entirely sure what "subjective evidence" even is though. Evidence that means one thing to someone and another to someone else?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Straggler, posted 07-24-2011 5:16 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Straggler, posted 07-24-2011 5:31 PM Huntard has replied

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


Message 118 of 468 (625634)
07-24-2011 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Huntard
07-24-2011 5:25 PM


Re: Track Record Isn't the Point
Huntard writes:
Evidence that means one thing to someone and another to someone else?
If by "evidence" you simply mean a reason for belief then I guess so.
But on that basis a liking for the colour pink is a reason to believe in the actual existence of an Immaterial Pink Unicorn.
Huntard writes:
I'm not entirely sure what "subjective evidence" even is though.
It seems to be reasons for belief as long as those reasosns don't extend to what advocates of such evidence don't actually believe in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Huntard, posted 07-24-2011 5:25 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Huntard, posted 07-24-2011 5:37 PM Straggler has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 119 of 468 (625637)
07-24-2011 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Straggler
07-24-2011 5:31 PM


Re: Track Record Isn't the Point
Straggler writes:
If by "evidence" you simply mean a reason for belief then I guess so.
But on that basis a liking for the colour pink is a reason to believe in the actual existence of an Immaterial Pink Unicorn.
If that's what we're going with then sure, I guess that could be the case.
It seems to be reasons for belief as long as those reasosns don't extend to what advocates of such evidence don't actually believe in.
Right.... So really, anything goes then? Well, that's kinda pointless. Is there a definition to be found anywhere, or could the supporters of this "subjective evidence" provide one, preferably with some examples?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Straggler, posted 07-24-2011 5:31 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Straggler, posted 07-24-2011 5:40 PM Huntard has not replied

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


Message 120 of 468 (625638)
07-24-2011 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Huntard
07-24-2011 5:37 PM


Re: Track Record Isn't the Point
H writes:
Is there a definition to be found anywhere, or could the supporters of this "subjective evidence" provide one, preferably with some examples?
You could ask the advocates of such evidence in this thread I guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Huntard, posted 07-24-2011 5:37 PM Huntard 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