Subjective Evidence of Gods

"Psychological reasons" is too vague a term. Can you be more specific?

My answer would be no I don't agree. It has only been in the last couple of centuries that anyone doubted the existence of god(s). According to what I read virtually everyone just assumed the existence of god(s) so they didn't even think about the question.Early history seemed largely about finding a god that you could get on your side in battle.Frankly I don't think most people approach it from a logical point of view as you are suggesting. It was to a degree the route I took but I don't think that is normal. (Even at that you and I look at that differently in terms of how and why.) I also think for many it is experiential but that is impossible to assess objectively. I also believe that many believe as it makes them part of something, or a sense of belonging. Some I believe are looking for purpose.In the end I don't have a real answer because I can't be in other people's heads, but I think that it would be a small minority that believe in order explain something that they can't.Somehow, whether god(s) exist or not we seemed to be hard wired to look beyond ourselves.Do you agree with my earlier statement from post 151?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.

I think maybe you missed my point. In working this around that what we are really discussing is what seems to me as the fact that there is only objective evidence, and in that really what we have been calling subjective evidence is an oxymoron. I contend that we come to subjective conclusions about objective realities.Take the Bible then. We know objectively that The Bible exists. We then subjectively consider the Bible to come to a conclusion about what we believe to be the truth of what it says. An atheist would probably even believe some parts of it. Look at the differences between Christians on this forum as to how it should be understood. I don't think I have the influence to demote anything. I think that I just clarified the definitions.

Good job with the links. I agree that in a one sense that is correct, but I also think that in a larger sense what they were looking for was not an explanation for the phenomenon but the ability to have the power to be able to have influence over their environment. However, I don't think that really makes any difference to our discussion. I frankly disagree with your premise as I don't see the question of whether god(s) exist at all is analogous to the idea of a specific god of the ancients existing. Remember, we aren't talking about the Christian God, but whether there is any theistic or even deistic god(s) at all. In this discussion even a creative intelligence, who on a lark created all we perceive and then headed off to greener pastures would fill the bill. Sure I believe more than that, but that isn't the point of the discussion.However to be specific, in an off topic sort of way, you have made this point before, and I think that I answered it by pointing out that our understanding of God has evolved and there is virtually no one left that believes in the gods that you cited. It is my subjective contention that divine truth is becoming more and more focused on human imagination so that we continue to grow in our knowledge of Him. Great. That clarification should be helpful. Of course not. In your case, just ask me and I'll let you know. (Of course to do that you have to subjectively come to the conclusion that I'm always right.)It is done through reason. We look at what we know objectively and come to our subjective conclusions. That is why highly intelligent people in all fields of human endeavour, including science, come to different conclusions about what to make of things that we objectively agree on.You ask how do we know which conclusion is most likely to be correct. In some cases we just can't objectively know. It is my considered opinion that this world is almost obviously the result of a pre-existing intelligence, and yet you who are objectively aware of essentially the same things that I am see it differently. C'est la vie.

I have really enjoyed the exchange Straggler. I too hope I haven't been annoying. Agreed I saw this a little differently as I was thinking of Wright's book, (The Evolution of God), when I wrote that. Of course his view is that our understanding of the nature of God has evolved whether or not He actually exists. With that in mind I was suggesting that if He exists then it is likely that we are closer to understanding His nature now than we were in the past. If He doesn't exist then it is just a matter that we have evolved socially.As a Christian, I'm not suggesting He has evolved, but that our understanding of Him as evolved as we continue to learn more about Him and His creation.I don't actually think we particularly disagree on that but I just wanted to clarify.Thanks again

Hi ChuckThere is objective evidence that The Bible exists. On that, everyone on the forum will agree. However, we then come to a subjective conclusion of how to understand and/or use it.I'm sure you would agree that your healing was from God and not the Bible itself, and so you can't objectively know whether God healed you because you used a specific prayer or whether you could have just prayed using your own words and still be healed. For that matter, you don't know whether you would have been healed if you hadn't prayed at all.I'm not arguing with your conclusion, I'm just saying that the only objective evidence, (which in the end is the only type of evidence that exists), is the fact that the Bible exists, that you prayed a prayer from the Bible and that you were healed. This then leads to the subjective conclusion that you came to.Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Fair enough. Here is another quote from Cicero:

quote:

---

"God's law is 'right reason.' When perfectly understood it is called 'wisdom.' When applied by government in regulating human relations it is called 'justice."

---

Maybe even he could be considered agnostic as opposed to atheistic.However, I agree that what you say is correct, but I think that the point I made still stands as almost everyone believed in god(s) in some way or another up to a couple of centuries ago.
How's that? Cheers

My subjective view ( ), is that the disbelief came about as a rejection of the god(s) on offer in their cultures as opposed to an actual belief in an unknown god(s). Historically I suggest it would be difficult to come to any firm conclusion and either of our views would likely come from our respective biases. Well, superstition is rather pejorative term, however, my position all along has been that just because people in their search for an understanding that extends beyond themselves have gotten it wrong more often than not, is not evidence that there is no god(s). Actually, (although as I said I don't see this as a strong argument), it seems to me that the fact that part of our nature is that we search for this understanding, whether it be via theology or science, is an indication that there is something beyond our physical existence that we can, to one degree or another, comprehend.

But I think that you're saying that the objective fact that there are a multitude of refuted gods can help lead to a subjective conclusion, with you and I coming to very different subjective conclusions. Would you agree with that? The thing is that I think that you are implying that the entire concept of god(s) has been invoked to explain what appears to be the unexplainable. I see it as being subtly different. I contend that the ancients very nearly would all agree that there was some supernatural power behind the unexplainable events such the motion of the sun, eclipses etc. What they really were interested in was furthering their power base, and in order to do that they would come up with god(s) and ways to control them that would be to their advantage.In other words there was a general consensus amongst all groups that there was an intelligence behind everything. Individuals and societies would then invent specific god(s). As a Theist then, I would suggest that they actually had it right as far as there being something beyond themselves, but then as individual groups they went off the rails by trying to turn this understanding to their personal advantage by inventing specific god(s).I know that is kinda repetitious but I’m hoping to make my point clear.

OK, but then I'm sure that you'll agree that my superstition is actually correct. Then again - maybe not. If we assume that real god(s) exist, then we would expect to see that the various competing notions of gods would disagree and, where possible, be falsified. I think Straggler would agree that it isn't evidence. The objective fact is that there has been a "falsification of various god concepts". We then use that objective fact to aid us in coming to a subjective conclusion. Our subjective conclusions differ. I think that is a perfectly reasonable conclusion and Straggler an equally reasonable fellow would no doubt agree with you. However, I don't concede that the invention of gods has always been about explaining the unexplainable. I contend that it has been more about the human lust for power and self interest.The idea of invoking god(s) to help give meaning to life that extends beyond self interest, has produced a much more consistent entity.Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

There is no objective evidence for either of your two possible conclusions.First off you have stated that, "Universal aspects of human psychology that will lead humans to conclude that aspects of nature demand intelligent intent". That is an observation that is likely true generally but it can't be stated as fact. I have no doubt that it is likely just as universal that people come to belief in god(s) for a variety of reasons and then turn to aspects of nature to justify their previous conclusions.However, for sake of the discussion let's take that same statement as quoted in the last paragraph as fact. You then tack on to that statement the following: "where in fact there is none present". The only other choice is that supernatural entities actually exist.How about this posssibility:
Universal aspects of human psychology that will lead humans to conclude that aspects of nature demand intelligent intent causing people to attribute false attributes to the actual god(s) of the universe.You use your claim that human psychology leads us to come to conclusion about god as objective evidence for their non-existence. It tells us something about human psychology but it tells us nothing about the reason that human psychology exists at all.You keep coming to the conclusion that because science, including psychology, has explained how things function that they are gradually chipping away at the unexplainable which you claim refutes the argument for god(s). It doesn't at all. Read again what Wright says about Paley from the bottom of page 400 to page 404 in "The Evolution of God".Lets' look at it another way. I have a sprinkler system in the yard hooked up to a timer. It runs all on its own. Someone with primitive intelligence comes and examines the system and looks at the heads, the connection to the water and notices that the water only goes on and off at certain times of the week. He concludes that there must be a god controlling that system. This works for a while and in a few generations some bright light finds the timer, has a basic understanding of electricity and then says: "see it is the timer that is behind all of this. There is no reason to invoke any creator god".People have looked at the complexity of living bodies and claimed that they required a creator god. (The sprinkler system) Science has come along and discovered evolution, (the timer) and has said: ‘see there is no reason to invoke a creator god’.This same analogy can be used in regards to any phenomenon that you might like to name. There is no objective evidence for the discussion for or against god(s). We all just look at the sprinkler system, (our universe) including the timer, (scientific discoveries of our natural existence), and draw our own conclusion about whether or not it came into existence on its own or whether there was a pre-existing intelligence that caused it to be.

I would only add to that, the fact that the world's major religions have a great deal in common. All the Abrahamic religions see Jesus as at least a prophet, Buddhism shares His message of love and peace etc. In other words we would appear to be gradually narrowing in on a consistent idea of God. I always find it interesting that atheists, (I don't know whether you are one or not), will denigrate Biblical literalists for insisting that the Bible is to be read as if it is literally dictated by God. However, when they want to discredit Christianity they read the Bible literally themselves.If the Bible is read as a narrative we can then understand the Bible in the manner that I contend that we should. The OT is a narrative that tells the story of the early Jews. It tells of the revelation of the 10 commandments, of the call to love our neighbour etc. It also tells of their story where they tried to turn Yahweh into a God that suited their purposes at the time, which they did more often than not. Jesus came to fulfill, or complete, the Hebrew Scriptures so we should read the OT through the lens of the NT. As I have said several times, out understanding of God is evolving and so the story of Jesus brought about a large increase of knowledge over a short time period, which makes it the equivalent of the Cambrian period in our physical evolution. Again though, to get us back on topic, we have to look at the hard evidence of what is written in the Bible and subjectively come to our own conclusion about what is written.

Hi TheoI'm fully aware that Buddhism does not worship a god(s) as such. All I wrote was that Buddhism is a religion that promotes love and peace, which is something it has in common with the teaching of Jesus.

I don't disagree with your objective facts, I just disagree that they lead to the subjective conclusion that you come to. Yes we are people that fantasize, have vivid imaginations and are generally speaking optimistic. Yes, people have often invoked made up god(s) that we would all agree do not exist. I honestly can't see that as leading to the conclusion that there is no intelligent first cause. You keep going back to that. The fact that a "highly evidenced naturalistic explanation for a given phenomenom" exists tells us nothing about why the "highly evidenced naturalistic explanation for a given phenomenom" exists. To go back to my previous analogy, the given phenomenom is the sprinkler system and the naturalistic explanation is the timer. I admit that we don't yet know how the universe came to be and that we should investigate this question by applying the most objective methods available to us. As I’ve said numerous times, in my view science is a natural theology. Sure, but that cuts both ways. Interesting yes but I'd like to make 2 points about it.1/ It is classical circular reasoning. They start out by invoking the spirits of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. It is an atheist talking to a room of committed atheists. They are out looking for evidence to support their beliefs. It is no different than Biblical literalists hunting for geographical data to support the idea of a worldwide flood.2/ They are trying to prove that there is an aspect of the brain that causes us to invoke god(s) for whatever reason you like. It goes back to the sprinkler system. The fact that we have a tendency to invoke god is like the sprinkler system including the water source heads etc. If they can find the brain process that causes us to invoke god(s) they'll make the claim that they have done away with any idea of god(s) when all they've done is find the timer for the sprinkler system.Once again, I don't see this as strong evidence but it seems to me that if we were created by an intelligent creator, that presumably would have an ongoing interest in how things work out, we would have an aspect of us that would give us the curiosity and the imagination to try and understand the whys, hows and meanings of our existence.

Yes Christianity has split into a thousand splinter groups. (Paul would roll over in his grave ) Still, they have the common thread of the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob along with the other two Abrahanic faiths. IMHO in future centuries these various faiths will come closer together. Here's a surprise for you. I don't agree. In my view God primarily influences the world through the human mind and imagination. God is in the relief efforts in the third world, in the soup kitchens, in the imaginations of scientists that make the world a more hospitable place through their efforts and so on. I also assume that he might be involved more directly but not in any instance that I can conclusively come to any conclusion on.AbE - When I made that last statement I meant any instance in which I was personally involved. I do believe in the so-called miracles of Jesus and most specifically in His resurrection. Just wanted to clarify. My view is that God inspired people to record their stories in their own words. Sure that means that what they wrote was both individually and culturally conditioned, but that still the revelations that came from God are still there. By the time of the NT God's message of the love of neighbour etc has become much more central to the message. So yes, I believe that there is a truth between the two options you gave.I've posted this on other threads but I'll repost it here. I think that we are on topic because we are talking about subjective conclusions that we draw about god(s).CS Lewis writes:

quote:

---

My present view--which is tentative and liable to any amount of correction--would be that just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God's becoming incarnate as Man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth in general is not merely misunderstood history ... nor diabolical illusion ... nor priestly lying ... but, at its best, a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other people, had mythology: but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology--the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truth, the first step in that process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical. Whether we can say with certainty where, in this process of crystallization, any particular Old Testament story falls, is another matter. I take it that the memoirs of David's court come at one end of the scale and are scarcely less historical than St. Mark or Acts; and that the Book of Jonah is at the opposite end.

---

I guess another way to put it, from my theistic POV, is that over the years we have continued to grow in our knowledge of God just as our scientific knowledge continues to grow. The God of the NT can be found in the OT as well. Jesus quote about loving your neighbour came from the OT. I agree that there are some terrible things attributed to God in the OT, but if the OT is read through the lens of the NT it isn't too difficult to discern what really would come from God and what wouldn't.CheersEdited by GDR, : clarification