Subjective Evidence of Gods

Humtard in Message 119 writes:
Well, supporters of subjective evidence, anything to enlighten me by?

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). 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.

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. 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.

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.

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]AdminPDPlease do not respond to this message.

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. 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'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?

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. 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. 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.

Einstein famously defined insanity in the following way: 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. 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? Rather than continually looking external to ourselves for such purpose why not seek it internally? 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.

I think I'm in agreement with you. It would depend on the question you want answered I suppose. Because they are in a completely different category than things like an eclipse or a thunder storm. 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. 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.

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?

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? 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? 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. Can you explain where the circularity lies in the above conclusion. I can't see 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.

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. You wrote earlier:

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

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? 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. 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.