|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Subjective Evidence of Gods | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes: 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. Yes, but at the same time the idea was to get these gods on your side so that you would be more powerful.
Straggler writes: Is this not exactly what you are doing with regard to things like human altruism? I see your point but an eclipse is material - an idea isn't. What is the naturalistic reason for you or me being concerned enough about someone in Africa, who we'll never meet and who is using up the finite resources of this planet, that we should sacrifice time and money to help this person out. It doesn't make sense to me from an evolutionary POV.
Straggler writes: 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. But the evidence can only lead to a subjective conclusion. I suppose the only certain conclusion that we can come to is the agnostic conclusion. However many of us become convinced enough to say that although we can't prove our position of theism or atheism we believe it anyway, based on our analysis of the subjective evidence.
Straggler writes: It is a conclusion borne directly from objective positive evidence. Sure the evidence is objective, but so is the fact that a living cell is extremely complex and how to come into existence somehow. We then take this objective knowledge and come to subjective conclusions. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes: You are invoking the exact same form of "evidence" that resulted in every single now falsified god. "That must be the work of an intelligent being. I cannot see how it can be otherwise." is at root the thinking behind every false godly conclusion. Saying that evolution is beautiful is not the same thing as saying a rainbow is beautiful. Evolution is beautiful because it is beautifully designed.
Straggler writes: There is absolutely no reason aside from faith to consider your subjectively evidenced invocation of god as an explanation to be any more likely to be correct than theirs was. I'm not saying that faith doesn't play a role but it doesn't mean that it isn't true. For that matter, let's face it. There are highly intelligent, well informed, highly educated people that hold theistic beliefs. Their beliefs must be based on at least some of the subjective evidence that you dismiss.
Straggler writes: But if one of these aliens looks objectively at things like functionality and ergonomics it will come to vastly superior conclusions about the origins of the car than a similar alien which simply invokes magic moonbeams creating cars ex nihilo because his species is psychologically predisposed to invoking undetectable and unfalsifiable causes to perplexing phenomena. Well a metaphor only takes you so far and there is no point arguing over a hastily thought up metaphor. The point is this. Let's say some scientist some day is able to, (as I suggested earlier) able to create life in a Petri dish. (Frankly I'm not optimistic that will happen but I'm willing to concede it's possible.) People might then conclude that is how it is done. It is still however an open question of whether or not it took a pre-existing intelligence to create the first life form out of likely pre-existing material, just as our theoretical future scientist does. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Rahvin writes: It's a very well documented fact that human minds, including yours and mine and that of every man and woman who has ever existed, tend towards certain biases. These include confirmation bias, where we will tend to notice evidence that supports our preferred hypothesis and disregard or not even try to find evidence that supports alternatives. There are many, many others, but confirmation bias is perhaps the worst in its pervasiveness and effect on our daily lives and heartfelt beliefs, things that we completely take for granted. I agree
Rahvin writes: This is the primary subjective component in answering the question of whether or not god(s) exist, not the evidence itself. In order to have a bias you had to have come to a conclusion in the first place. I do know that my beliefs have changed considerably since I first became theistic. They continue to change. This forum has been a valuable tool in helping me come to the conclusions that have. I presumably am just like you in that I'm looking for the truth in the best way I know how. In the end though, because of the conclusion I have come to I do have a theistic bias. We are all biased towards the view we currently hold. That isn't really evidence one way or the other.
Rahvin writes: This does seem to support the hypothesis that god(s) may exist. Unfortunately, it also supports the hypothesis that people just like to believe in god(s) to "explain" mysterious phenomenon. So we are back to our subjective conclusions. By the way, I agree with your statements on prayer and dreams. I don't see either being useful as evidence. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes: So the god you are invoking to explain the phenomena you can't comprehend as being without conscious intelligent intent really is different to all those other gods invoked for the very same reason. Surely you can see the weakness of this argument? Surprise surprise but I disagree. Both of us are fans of Robert Wright. He calls himself and writes as a materialist and as an agnostic. He writes in the introduction to The Evolution of God the following.
quote: To be fair he does go on to say that after this streamlining the kind of god that remains plausible is not the kind of god that MOST, (my emphasis), religious believers have in mind. If he is correct and I think that both of us agree that he is, then it is quite reasonable for me to believe that my understanding of God is more likely to be accurate than that of the ancients. If we assume for a second that God does exist then I am at the pinnacle of the evolution of what Wright talks about. I have centuries of human experience, wisdom, inspiration and even revelation to build on.
Straggler writes: The gods of modern sophisticated theists such as yourself are doubtless less petty, less self serving, less simplistic and (above all) devised to be less falsifiable than the gods of antiquity. But whilst the gods may evolve the subjective form of evidence is the same. I cannot believe that there is not a conscious intelligent being at work here. And we know as a deeply evidenced fact that this form of "evidence" is actually flawed human psychology at work rather than anything that genuinely qualifies as evidence at all. If it is so deeply evidenced why are there so many highly intelligent people disbelieve your so-called deeply evidenced fact?
Straggler writes: This is an incredibly selective view of reality combined with an incredibly subjective statement of personal incredulity. It is true that humans are capable of great empathy to strangers. But it is also true that humans are capable of horrific acts of selfish neglect and even cruelty towards people right in front of them. The psychology of us and them and the factors that decide when these things are applied is a complex area. But we are all capable of both behaviours. Robert Wright has much to say about this sort of thing: From "The Moral Animal" by Robert Wright Good quote from Wright and I agree with all of it. It is true that we are capable of both kindness and cruelty in all of their various guises. But the point is though that you as an atheist, ( I believe that is how you would refer to yourself), and me as a theist both know that kindness is preferable to cruelty. Why is it that we know that? As far as self preservation is concerned, genocide is often a preferable solution to mercy and yet we both would agree that mercy is the better route to take. There appears to be something at work here that is other than simple physical evolution.
Straggler writes: Why (beyond the inherent uncertainty in any evidence based conclusion) should we adopt an agnostic position if the balance of objective evidence is so incredibly weighted towards one conclusion rather than another? We just fundamentally disagree on your premise.
GDR writes: For that matter, let's face it. There are highly intelligent, well informed, highly educated people that hold theistic beliefs. Their beliefs must be based on at least some of the subjective evidence that you dismiss.Straggler writes: Doubtless this is the case. In fact I consider you to be just such a person. So you are living proof of your own claim. But how valid is this subjective "evidence"? - That is the question here. Ultimately I cannot believe that there is not a conscious intelligent being at work here is a demonstrably flawed approach. We know as a deeply evidenced fact that this form of subjective "evidence" is actually flawed human psychology at work rather than anything that genuinely qualifies as evidence at all.
Well I was referring to people like Francis Collins, Alister McGrath, CS Lewis etc who all left atheism for Christianity as adults. As far as I'm concerned I have no doubt that I am less educated, less intelligent and less informed than you are. The only advantage I have is that I've been around longer which may even be a disadvantage. (But thanks anyway. ) One doesn't start with the idea that they have difficulty believing they cannot believe that there is a conscious intelligent being at work here. That is the conclusion of subjectively reviewing the evidence. Look at Antony Flew’s rejection of atheism for deism.He said: quote: Followed by:
quote: Here is another quote from The Evolution of God by Robert Wright. (Afterword Pg 447)
quote: Wright talks about a moral axis of the universe. I think that it is completely reasonable to come to the conclusion that we are not so special that we on our own can come to an understanding of a moral axis of the universe; and even to, if just sometimes, live it out in our lives to our own detriment, and to instinctively know somehow that that was the better path. Edited by GDR, : No reason given.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes: But in your head you must surely recognise that yet another human invoking yet another god to explain yet another phenomenon on the basis of I cannot believe that there is not a conscious intelligent being at work here is desperately unlikely to be correct. That this is a symptom of well known and well explained aspects of human psychology rather than indicative of a truth about the existence of a supernatural being. But as Wright says our understanding of god(s), real or imagined has evolved. Today there is no religion invoking god(s) to explain any particular phenomenon. The theistic religion invoke a God that in one way or another has brought us into existence and continues to be involved to one degree or another. Wright points out the degree of commonality between Christianity, Judaism and Islam. (We should all be focusing on what we have in common.) Essentially all of the Abrahamic religions came from the same root- Abraham's God. Virtually nobody worships a sun god or the like anymore. In a sense all major theistic religions, (I'd have to go and read again about Hinduism), worship the same God but have different narratives.
Straggler writes: But if we assume anything about the existence of god to come to our conclusions about the existence of god then our thinking is inevitably circular. If we treat the question of whether or not god exists as no more relevant to the validity of subjective evidence than whether or not the matrix exists then the conclusion here is clear. Conclusion 1: A god cited by a human to explain a perplexing phenomenon is in all likelihood a result of the known psychological proclivity of humans to invent false gods to explain phenomena that they find perplexing. Conclusion 2: A god cited by a human to explain a perplexing phenomenon really does exist and really is the cause of said phenomena. This time will be different. This god is not like all the others.... One of these conclusions is deeply objectively evidenced. One of them is not. Surely this much is indisputable?
First off, although I do believe in the God of the Christian faith, this thread again is only about subjective evidence for any god(s) and so we aren't talking about a "perplexing phenomena". We are talking about all "perplexing phenomena". Conclusion 1: There is a creative intelligence that is responsible for the design of living cell, regardless of how it was formed, that is responsible for the evolution of single living cells into life as we know it today, that is responsible for the fact that sentient beings evolved, that is responsible for the fact that there appears to be a universal moral code that beings can follow or reject, that is responsible for the fact that as sentient beings we have a wide range of emotional states etc. Conclusion 2: All of the above, including intelligence itself came into existence from completely non-intelligent sources. From polls I have seen the vast majority of people accept conclusion 1, which doesn't mean that they, or I, am right in that conclusion. However, I can't see that it is an unreasonable conclusion to come to.
Straggler writes: Because faith trumps reason and they had faith that their god was different to all the others.........? I would be interested in their answer to the question above too. But you're wrong. If you are talking about which particular faith one is an adherent of then, then yes, I agree. We however are looking at subjective evidence for the idea of any one of the faiths being valid. I explained above that objectively it can't be proven but it is reasonable to believe that our existence had an intelligent cause.
Straggler writes: At the age of 81 Flew announced his conversion to a form of desim and at the age 84 he wrote "There is a God" with co-author Varghese. The mental state of this octogenerian and just how much of the book he was even able to write himself is controversial to say the least. It is possible that the evidence he had been examining all his life suddenly made it clear that god does exist. But having seen the mental decline of my own grandparents in their 80s I suspect this had more to do with his conversion than a sudden insight that had evaded him all his previous life. I've also seen people in their nineties very much on top of their game mentally. I've seen an interview of Flew and he spoke clearly and articulately.
Antony Flew His primary reason is through the discovery of DNA and all that has been learned from that. Francis Collins, the man who headed up the program that mapped out the entire human genome, calls DNA "the Language of God".
Straggler writes: Would there still be a moral axis if there were no humans to be moral? I'd say yes. First off, it appears that the more highly formed members of the animal kingdom have a less highly formed moral code. If though we assume that only humans can be moral, my answer would still be yes. It would just be that there would be no humans around to respond to it.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes: The concept of god has certainly evolved. But the demonstrably flawed I cannot believe that there is not a conscious intelligent being at work here therefore this is evidence of god's existence" basis for belief remains the same. It is the argument from incredulity combined with circular reasoning. First off. That isn't circular reasoning. Circular reasoning would be "there is a god(s) therefore I believe that there is a conscious intelligence at work here". The idea that, (to use one example) a living cell appears to be intelligently designed so it is reasonably to believe that a god(s) exist is direct reasoning. Also to say that because I see no empirical evidence of god(s) so I can't believe that there god(s) exist is also an argument from incredulity.
Straggler writes: Secondly you are completely ignoring the objective evidence regarding mankind's psychological propensity to be utterly convinced of intelligent intent regardless of whether there is any or not. Things like overactive agency detection. We cannot just ignore objective evidence because it conflicts with our subjective conclusions can we?
If there is a theistic god(s) I would expect that we would have a psychological propensity to seek intelligent intent. I believe our friend Wright would agree with that. I'm sure Wright would say that if god(s) exist and are understanding of him/her/it/them is evolving then it would be expected that we would have as part of our nature a tendency to learn and understand him/her/it/them. (There has to be a shorter politically correct way of talking about a non specific god(s). ) I see no objective evidence that conflicts with my subjective conclusion.
Straggler writes: Practically all great thinkers complete their great works before the age of 30. I have never heard of any who left it until they were in their 80s to have their best ideas. That's true in the scientific field. Not true in theology. That's why John Polkinghorne, (brilliant guy who was over here giving a series of lectures at the university locally that I was able to attend a couple of years ago), left his studies in particle physics in his 40's and moved to studying theology.
Straggler writes: There are far far far more lowly organisms than ones capable of morality. Do parasitic organisms follow the moral axis? Isn't suffering as innate in nature as morality? No question. It does seem to me though, that the more highly formed animals who presumably have no thought of god(s)seem often to exhibit some form of a moral code, which might indicate that it exists externally, but I agree that is a very weak argument.
Straggler writes: But isn't this just another circular assumption? In this case it is, however you asked the question. Actually, rather than an assumption I'd call it speculation. CheersEverybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
GDR writes: First off. That isn't circular reasoning. Circular reasoning would be "there is a god(s) therefore I believe that there is a conscious intelligence at work here". GDR writes: If there is a theistic god(s) I would expect that we would have a psychological propensity to seek intelligent intent. You quote these two disconnected statements of mine and then say this:
Straggler writes: And here you demonstrate the circularity of assuming the basis of your conclusion in exactly the way you deny doing. If you notice in the 2nd statement I was not coming to any conclusion about whether or not god(s) exist. The statement starts out with IF THERE IS A THEISTIC GOD(S).....
Straggler writes: Firstly - Is that true for all cases? I see no empirical evidence for the existence of pixies/goblins/fairies/unicorns/gods/the matrix/Last Thursdayism/Descarte's evil demon/thetans/djinns/genies/werewolves/ghosts/fire spirits/etc. etc. etc. etc. therefore I don't believe in the existence of these things. Is this an argument from incredulity in every case? Or just some? We can come to subjective conclusions in all cases. I subjectively reject pixies and subjectively accept that we exist as a result of a pre-existing intelligence. So what?
Straggler writes:
Secondly (and much more importantly) - That is not my argument anyway. My argument is that there is overwhelming objective evidence in favour of the conclusion that humans will invoke intelligent intent whether it exists or not. Again, so what? That tells us nothing about whether god(s) exist or not. All it tells us is that there seems to be a part of our nature to look for something beyond ourselves.
Straggler writes: Whether there is a god responsible for any aspect of nature or not humanity has demonstrated it's absolute and utter inability to do anything other than be wrong about such conclusions. You don't know that. It is just your subjective opinion.
Straggler writes: To conclude that your own invocation of a godly explanation is more likely to be true rather than be yet another case of humanity exhibiting it's deeply evidenced proclivity to falsely invoke such beings for human psychological reasons is simply a denial of evidence. You're repeating what we went over before. We agree with Wright that our understanding of God is evolving whether or not He actually exists. If, and I repeat, IF He does exist then I should be closer to the truth than those in the past. Also, as I have said before I have no doubt that some things I believe are wrong, and based on my past I also believe that I will change my mind about some things in the future.
Straggler writes: The "You cannot disprove the existence of my god" argument is really one of the the weakest arguments of all. But I'm not using that as an argument for god(s). I only point that out to show that it is only subjective evidence that we are both using to come to our conclusions, even when it is subjectively evaluating objective evidence.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes: Without engaging in circular reasoning — Can you explain how psychological factors (e.g. overactive agency detection) which lead to false conclusions about god(s) are indicative of the actual existence of god(s) rather than a reason to consider it likely that god(s) are a human psychological construction? As I said, this isn't a major factor in my theistic beliefs. Let's look at it the other way around. If, and again if, I was an atheist I would expect that by this point in human development the majority of humans through reasoning and experience would have come to the conclusion that god(s) don't exist. It is not circular reasoning to presuppose an outcome to see if the evidence fits. It is only circular reasoning when one has already reached a final conclusion and then goes back and makes the evidence fit the conclusion. For example, if I had decided that Genesis is to be read in such a way that the world was formed 6000 years ago and then go back and make science fit that outcome it would be circular. However, if I pre-suppose a 6000 year old earth and look at the scientific evidence, I'd find that the scientific evidence clearly shows that what I had pre-supposed is wrong and it is the presupposition that has to be adjusted.
GDR writes: All it tells us is that there seems to be a part of our nature to look for something beyond ourselves.Straggler writes: Indeed - But why would we trust this demonstrably misleading instinct to seek conscious intent where none exists? But it has not been demonstrably proven as I have already said. It has been shown that many of the attributes of god(s) have been shown to be wrong if for no other reason that there are numerous contradictions, but it has not been demonstrably shown that our instinct to seek god(s) is wrong.
Straggler writes: Again - The question posed in this thread is not whether god(s) exist. The question in this thread is whether or not subjective evidence is a valid form of evidence. If you are unable to separate the two I would suggest it is because you are unable to make a case for the validity of subjective evidence for god(s) that doesn't first involve assuming that god(s) exist. Because that which you are calling "evidence" is really just circular thinking based on assuming the conclusion you want to reach. I don't see that as valid. In one sense everything we believe is subjective. Even take politics. People look at political figures and their parties and come to different conclusions based on the same information. Even in science which is empirically based you have scientists disagreeing on a wide variety of issues subjectively. Let's look at the Bible. (The same goes for any holy text.) The Bible objectively exists but we subjectively decide what to make of it. What we are discussing is this. I look at the world and our existence which includes life itself, reason, wisdom, emotion etc and know objectively that all of that exists. With that in mind I subjectively conclude that there is much more likely to be a pre-existent intelligence than not, although I can't be sure or prove that I am correct in the same way that I know things objectively.
So...... where I wind up with all of that, is the conclusion that there is no such thing as subjective evidence. There are only subjective thoughts or ideas. Edited by GDR, : No reason given.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
