Subjective Evidence of Gods

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. 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.

Sure.But is "what makes us feel special" a reliable indicator of reality?If not - How can it qualify as a form of evidence?

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. 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.

You could ask the advocates of such evidence in this thread I guess.

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?

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.

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.

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.

When you look at the world and conclude things like: 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.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. 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.

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? 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. 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

quote:

---

Altruism, compassion, empathy, love, conscience, the sense of justice -- all of these things, the things that hold society together, the things that allow our species to think so highly of itself, can now confidently be said to have a firm genetic basis. That's the good news. The bad news is that, although these things are in some ways blessings for humanity as a whole, they didn't evolve for the "good of the species" and aren't reliably employed to that end. Quite the contrary: it is now clearer than ever (and precisely why) the moral sentiments are used with brutal flexibility, switched on and off in keeping with self interest; and how naturally oblivious we often are to this switching. In the new view, human beings are a species splendid in their array of moral equipment, tragic in their propensity to misuse it, and pathetic in their constitutional ignorance of the misuse.

---

Proof has nothing to do with it. That a god cited as the cause of an observable phenomenon is more likely to be a product of human psychology rather than the actual godly cause of said phenomenon is not simply some subjective interpretation. It is the objectively evidenced conclusion based on a wealth of objective evidence supporting the fact that humans invent gods for exactly this sort of purpose. 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? Conclusion 1: 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.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....These two conclusions are not equally subjective are they? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Wouldn't a rainbow god theist say exactly the same thing about rainbows?Rainbow theist: "Saying that a rainbow is beautiful is not the same thing as saying grass is beautiful. A rainbow is beautiful because it is beautifully designed." But the question is - Why is it remotely likely to be true? 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.

In your heart you no doubt have complete faith that your god does exist. And I am not seeking to deter you from that wholly subjective belief.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.Even if the human in question is yourself and it conflicts with your faith based beliefs how can this not be the reasoned evidenced conclusion? Or is it a case of - This time, in the case of my god I know that it will be different.? 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? 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. 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. That human morality seems so special is a rather human view. If the world were still full of dinosaurs or a post human Earth filled with cockroaches where would this moral axis be then? It seems to be more a property of the human mind or a result of our interaction with the social reality of being human rather than something which objectively exists as part of the universe independently to us.Would there still be a moral axis if there were no humans to be moral?

The problem with subjective evidence is that ultimately it is nothing more than another name for circular reasoning. You have to assume the conclusion before the so-called evidence supports that conclusion. 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. So whom decides what is perplexing at any given time?This is just the generic form of I cannot believe that there is not a conscious intelligent being at work here therefore this is evidence of god's existence". Which is just the same flawed I cannot believe that there is not a conscious intelligent being at work here therefore this is evidence of god's existence" incredulity applied to DNA specifically Which is just I cannot believe that there is not a conscious intelligent being at work here therefore this is evidence of god's existence" as applied to existence itself.Making the god or phenomenon being cited more generic or vague does nothing to rectify the flawed nature of this approach. Firstly neither of these conclusions has any direct bearing on the validity of subjective evidence. God could conceivably exist and the subjective evidence you are citing would still be utterly flawed.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? 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. 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? But isn't this just another circular assumption?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Subjective evidence as you have described it in this thread amounts to: I cannot believe that this phenomenon is not a the result of an intelligent being at work therefore this phenomenon is evidence of the actual existence of an intelligent being capable of causing this phenomenon"At root is there really any more to subjective evidence cited in favour of the existence of any god(s) than this? How many times in the past has this exact form of reasoning resulted in false conclusions about god(s)? How many times has it resulted in correct conclusions about god(s)? If the track record of a form of evidence is not what the validity of that evidence should be judged upon then what on Earth should we judge it's validity upon?And here you demonstrate the circularity of assuming the basis of your conclusion in exactly the way you deny doing.That humans have a psychological proclivity to invoke intelligent intent where it doesn't exist is deeply objectively evidenced. But to conclude that this is in itself evidence of intelligent intent is dependent on exactly the sort of circular argument that all subjective "evidence" boils down to. 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?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. 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.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. In the sense of outright falsification? No. But your conclusion does run absolutely counter to the objectively evidenced conclusion. As described above. If you define them suitably nor do pixies/goblins/fairies/unicorns/gods/the matrix/Last Thursdayism/Descarte's evil demon/thetans/djinns/genies/werewolves/ghosts/fire spirits/etc. etc. etc. etc. conflict with any objective evidence.The "You cannot disprove the existence of my god" argument is really one of the the weakest arguments of all.

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? 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. So it is merely a subjective opinion as to whether or not pixies etc. are real things or fictional entities invented by humans? There is no objective evidence that can sway us in one direction or the other with respect to unfalsifiable entities? Seriously? My son's take on the world tells us a lot about human nature in this respect. When the car needs gas it is hungry. When the car won't start it is because it isn't feeling well and needs to rest. Night occurs because the Sun gets tired and needs to go to sleep. When I recently sat on the TV remote and shot the volume through the roof he decided that the TV was angry and shouting because nobody was listening to it. Rain is caused by sad clouds crying. Wind is caused by the air wanting to get from one place to another. etc. etc. etc. He is perfectly capable of grasping the fact that some things just happen. But this explanation is way down the list and he intuitively imbues pretty much everything with human-like motives, desires, emotions and conscious intent. Indeed - But why would we trust this demonstrably misleading instinct to seek conscious intent where none exists?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.