|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Subjective Evidence of Gods | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Humtard in Message 119 writes:
Is there a definition to be found anywhere, or could the supporters of this "subjective evidence" provide one, preferably with some examples?
Well, supporters of subjective evidence, anything to enlighten me by?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes: 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. I have no problem the idea that humans have come up with counterfeit ideas of God but a counterfeit usually indicates that there is something to be counterfeited. Frankly, I don't think that this particular argument gives us any evidence of whether or not god(s) exist but if it does I believe this line of discussion falls on the side of being in favour of the idea of god(s).
Straggler writes: 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.
Mankind can twist and distort anything. Once again I don't see this particular argument as having any validity. I am completely prepared to accept the idea that some of the things I believe about God are wrong. My own views have evolved but so what? Again, that has no bearing on the question of whether or not god(s) exist. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes: 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.
The fact that people have invoked various ideas of god(s) which can't all be right is an objective fact. What that objective means to the discussion of whether or not god(s) exist requires a subjective conclusion. As I said, I'm inclined not to see it as evidence at all, but if it is I see it favouring the subjective belief that god(s) exist.
Straggler writes: 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. I provided a possible answer to that question on the other thread but as I said on that post it is only wild speculation. In the end we only know one way of experiencing change, (time), we don't know what other way might be possible. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Huntard writes: Well, supporters of subjective evidence, anything to enlighten me by? We all come to our own conclusions about the existence or non-existence of god(s) and we all come to those conclusions based on subjective evidence. You can take as subjective evidence the fact that we exist, that we are conscious, that we recognize some human behaviours as bad or good, that we can love, hate, forgive or not forgive have mercy or be cruel etc. It is I agree possible to subjectively reject all of that and come to the conclusion that the material world as we perceive it is all there is. I have just come to a different conclusion. Hope this answers your question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
This thread came from the Great Debate between Straggler and Chuck77.
Chuck77's subjective evidence and examples were given in that thread. No need for him to type it again. Subjective Evidence of Gods (Straggler & Chuck77 Only)(Straggler & Chuck77 Only)[/color] AdminPD Please do not respond to this message.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
GDR writes: Frankly, I don't think that this particular argument gives us any evidence of whether or not god(s) exist but if it does I believe this line of discussion falls on the side of being in favour of the idea of god(s). How on Earth can the persistently woeful record of humanity to erroneously invoke god(s) to explain things which seem to be inexplicable possibly support the conclusion that god(s) are likely to be the best explanation for those things which are currently considered to be inexplicable? This makes no sense at all.
GDR writes: What that objective means to the discussion of whether or not god(s) exist requires a subjective conclusion. There is nothing subjective about the evidence and there is nothing subjective about the pattern displayed by the evidence. Wherever we have yet another awe struck human invoking yet another god to explain yet another seemingly inexplicable the evidenced conclusion is very clear.
GDR writes: Straggler writes: 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. I provided a possible answer to that question on the other thread but as I said on that post it is only wild speculation. I'll have a look in that thread. But if the speculation amounts to invoking god(s) as an answer to a question that baffles humans doesn't this - again - meet exactly the same pattern? At what point do we stop and think that maybe invoking god(s) as an explanation to things we don't understand just isn't a particularly successful approach?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
I don't think it does particularly. My only point again was that if there are counterfeit god(s) being invoked then there is usually something that is being counterfeited.
Straggler writes: There is nothing subjective about the evidence and there is nothing subjective about the pattern displayed by the evidence. Wherever we have yet another awe struck human invoking yet another god to explain yet another seemingly inexplicable the evidenced conclusion is very clear.
I made it trickier for you by leaving out a word. What I meant to write was: What that objectiveevidence means to the discussion of whether or not god(s) exist requires a subjective conclusion.
Straggler writes: At what point do we stop and think that maybe invoking god(s) as an explanation to things we don't understand just isn't a particularly successful approach? From a scientific POV it doesn't mean much now but early on, (so I have read), the early scientists were theistic and as a result anticipated that there would be order in the universe. From a philosophical POV it means quite a bit. If it is true then we can look there for purpose and meaning. If there is no god(s) then we have to look for meaning and purpose elsewhere. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Einstein famously defined insanity in the following way:
Einstein writes: Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. On this basis humanity, with it's subjective expectation that god will provide the correct answer this time despite all previous past failures, is insane. I think at the very least humanity displays signs of addiction. As a species we are a metaphorical god junky.
GDR writes: What that objective evidence means to the discussion of whether or not god(s) exist requires a subjective conclusion. This thread is about the validity (or otherwise) of the subjective evidence cited to justify god(s) as a conclusion or explanation. Why are any of the things you are advocating god as the subjectively evidenced explanation for (morality, altruism, existence, etc. etc.) any more likely to actually be caused by god(s) than any of those things humanity has previoulsy and erroneously taken this exact same approach to? Why is your advocacy of subjective evidence of gods different to ALL prior cases?
GDR writes: If there is no god(s) then we have to look for meaning and purpose elsewhere. Rather than continually looking external to ourselves for such purpose why not seek it internally?
GDR writes: My only point again was that if there are counterfeit god(s) being invoked then there is usually something that is being counterfeited. But they are only "counterfeit" gods rather than entities inspired by man's demonstrable psychological proclivity to assign conscious intent to mindless processes if you first assume that there is a real god to counterfeit. Again - The justification for the conclusion is based on assuming the conclusion. This is circular. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes: On this basis humanity, with it's subjective expectation that god will provide the correct answer this time despite all previous past failures, is insane. I think at the very least humanity displays signs of addiction. I think I'm in agreement with you. It would depend on the question you want answered I suppose.
Straggler writes: Why are any of the things you are advocating god as the subjectively evidenced explanation for (morality, altruism, existence, etc. etc.) any more likely to actually be caused by god(s) than any of those things humanity has previoulsy and erroneously taken this exact same approach to? Because they are in a completely different category than things like an eclipse or a thunder storm.
Straggler writes: Rather than continually looking external to ourselves for such purpose why not seek it internally? Whether we look internally or externally is going to be based on what it is we first believed. Mind you, if God does exist then even when you are looking internally you might just be looking at what has already been placed on your heart/mind previously. Again, it's all subjective.
Straggler writes: But they are only "counterfeit" gods rather than entities inspired by man's demonstrable psychological proclivity to assign conscious intent to mindless processes if you first assume that there is a real god to counterfeit. Again - The justification for the conclusion is based on assuming the conclusion. This is circular. Fair enough but, there is always a but, it is also true that man's demonstrable psychological proclivity to assign conscious intent to mindless processes if you first assume that there is no real god to counterfeit. Either conclusion is circular. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4045 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
Because they are in a completely different category than things like an eclipse or a thunder storm. Why? Nothing else seems to be in this strange reference class that's somehow immune to methods of investigation that have worked for literally every other discovery ever made. Why do gods get to be in their very own special "category" that gets a total exception to all the rules of logic, reason, and evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
This thread is about the validity (or otherwise) of a particular form of evidence. As I see it our conversation in this thread basically boils down to this:
How is the subjective evidence that gives you reason to believe that a god is responsible for various phenomena different from the subjective evidence that has led countless other humans to erroneously invoke countless other gods to explain countless other phenomena? What makes your subjectively evidenced invocation of god as an explanation any more likely to be correct than theirs was?
GDR writes: Because they are in a completely different category than things like an eclipse or a thunder storm. At the time all those things were considered as wondrous, mysterious and inexplicable as you seem to find things like human altruism. So in what sense is the subjective evidence they were depending upon to create their gods any different in nature to the subjective evidence you are advocating as valid here? The gods are different but the form of evidence is the same isn't it?
GDR writes: Straggler writes: But they are only "counterfeit" gods rather than entities inspired by man's demonstrable psychological proclivity to assign conscious intent to mindless processes if you first assume that there is a real god to counterfeit. Again - The justification for the conclusion is based on assuming the conclusion. This is circular. Fair enough but, there is always a but, it is also true that man's demonstrable psychological proclivity to assign conscious intent to mindless processes if you first assume that there is no real god to counterfeit. You don't need to assume that god does not exist to come to the evidenced conclusion that a god cited by a human to explain a perplexing phenomenon is in all likelihood a result of the known proclivity of humans to invent false gods to explain phenomena that they find perplexing.
GDR writes: Either conclusion is circular. Can you explain where the circularity lies in the above conclusion. I can't see it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes: At the time all those things were considered as wondrous, mysterious and inexplicable as you seem to find things like human altruism. So in what sense is the subjective evidence they were depending upon to create their gods any different in nature to the subjective evidence you are advocating as valid here? The gods are different but the form of evidence is the same isn't it?
I'm out of time so I'll just deal with this one question as it is the same question Rahvin asked. An alien might come across one of our cars. He figures out how it starts and runs. He learns all about how it works. None of that tells him about who or what created it, whether it just happened by atoms just naturally coming together or what its purpose is. You have to look elsewhere for those questions. The answers to those questions on that basis require a subjective conclusion, and we seem to be created in a way that the answers are ambiguous and we won't all come to the same conclusions. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes: How is the subjective evidence that gives you reason to believe that a god is responsible for various phenomena different from the subjective evidence that has led countless other humans to erroneously invoke countless other gods to explain countless other phenomena? What makes your subjectively evidenced invocation of god as an explanation any more likely to be correct than theirs was?
IMHO the majority of counterfeit god(s) virtually always have something to do with personal gain. (It is just about always power or some form of it.) Again IMHO that if god(s) exist that makes no sense. It seems to me that a modicum of human wisdom would understand that god(s) would be able to take care of that his/her/its their own, if that was actually the point. I think that human wisdom would suggest that if there is a creative god(s) that that entity would care equally for all of creation. In my view, Christianity fills the bill. (I agree that some people's interpretation of Christianity doesn't.) I don't want to take this off topic, but as the question was asked, I also find the historical record concerning Jesus and the resurrection compelling, as well as the fact that his message of love, justice and forgiveness rings true for me. Again though, that is not the point of this thread.
Straggler writes: Can you explain where the circularity lies in the above conclusion. I can't see it. You wrote earlier:
quote: My only point is that if you come at it from the other way you start off with the position that there is no real god to counterfeit. Both arguments are circular, thus requiring a subjective conclusion about which view is correct. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
GDR writes:
Well it certainly is an answer, but you're basically saying that it can be whatever you want it to be. An amazing moment in your life, the kitten that's so cute, the colour red, that you think is so beautiful. Everything and anything can be "subjective evidence" it seems. Meaning that it is absolutely useless to determine truth, meaning that it's not really evidence at all. It just makes you feel good, like I thought would be the real reason.
We all come to our own conclusions about the existence or non-existence of god(s) and we all come to those conclusions based on subjective evidence. You can take as subjective evidence the fact that we exist, that we are conscious, that we recognize some human behaviours as bad or good, that we can love, hate, forgive or not forgive have mercy or be cruel etc. It is I agree possible to subjectively reject all of that and come to the conclusion that the material world as we perceive it is all there is. I have just come to a different conclusion. Hope this answers your question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: What makes your subjectively evidenced invocation of god as an explanation any more likely to be correct than theirs was? GDR writes: IMHO the majority of counterfeit god(s) virtually always have something to do with personal gain. But my god is different!! Isn't this the claim of every believer of every god? Practically all of the gods of antiquity were invoked to explain a particular phenomenon which the humans of the time couldn't comprehend without invoking conscious intelligent intent as the cause. Is this not exactly what you are doing with regard to things like human altruism?
Straggler writes: But they are only "counterfeit" gods rather than entities inspired by man's demonstrable psychological proclivity to assign conscious intent to mindless processes if you first assume that there is a real god to counterfeit. Again - The justification for the conclusion is based on assuming the conclusion. This is circular. GDR writes: My only point is that if you come at it from the other way you start off with the position that there is no real god to counterfeit. I understand that you think this but - seriously - it isn't true. I am no more explicitly denying god as the cause for anything than I am explicitly denying undetectable magic moonbeams, fluctuations in the matrix or any other unfalsifiable but unevidenced alternative. It is not a case of either assuming that gods do exist and then circularly concluding the god inclusive conclusion OR assuming that god does not exist and then circularly drawing the opposite conclusion. It is possible to make no assumption and simply follow the evidence. You have created a false dichotomy.
GDR writes: Both arguments are circular, thus requiring a subjective conclusion about which view is correct. You don't need to assume that god does not exist to come to the evidenced conclusion that a god cited by a human to explain a perplexing phenomenon is in all likelihood a result of the known proclivity of humans to invent false gods to explain phenomena that they find perplexing. This isn't circular or subjective. It is a conclusion borne directly from objective positive evidence. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024