|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Subjective Evidence of Gods | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3486 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Except that you didn't use a prayer from the Bible in the healing issue I addressed in Message 31 and Message 82. The words you used didn't speak to your circumstances. They had nothing to do with healing. The words didn't address your circumstance anymore than reading from the newspaper. How is using words that have nothing to do with healing constitute evidence of gods. If you could muster the same amount of belief and read words from the newspaper, would the healing have also taken place? You don't know. You need to provide more reasoning for the connection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
Chuck77 writes: Huh? The results, that's what. I told YOU before that I was healed from using prayers from the bible. Using words from the Bible to speak to my circumstances. THEREFORE the bible is ...evidence. Subjective to you and valid proof to me.
Hi Chuck There 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.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hi GDR,
Interesting discussion you're having here. I don't want to get too involved, but I thought you should know that this;
GDR writes: It has only been in the last couple of centuries that anyone doubted the existence of god(s). is completely untrue. Take a look;
quote: quote: I could go on. Just take a look at the Wiki page on History of Atheism. You will see that doubting the existence of gods is as old as theism itself. Indeed, there are even a handful of cultures that express no theist tendencies at all. If you're interested, Jonathan Miller's Brief History of Disbelief is well worth watching and can be viewed here. Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Chuck writes: THEREFORE the bible is ...evidence. Subjective to you and valid proof to me. What's the problem? Then a Hindu who cites a similar experience has "proof" of the existence of their particular chosen god too. And so on and so forth. With all these personally "proven" but mutually exclusive gods knocking around it seems that this "proof" you talk of is essentially worthless as a form of actual evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
GDR writes: It has only been in the last couple of centuries that anyone doubted the existence of god(s).Granny Magda writes: That is completely untrue. Fair enough. Here is another quote from Cicero:
quote: 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? CheersEverybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Fair enough. Here is another quote from Cicero:... Maybe even he could be considered agnostic as opposed to atheistic. Perhaps. Or perhaps he was merely engaging in the kind of public professions of faith that he alluded to in the first quote.
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? Fine insofar as it goes. But; i) I expect that there would have been many unbelievers throughout history. It's just that their voices were not recorded, not least because in many historical societies, public statements of atheism could get you executed. ii) The historical ubiquity of religious belief only serves to back Straggler's argument that such beliefs stem from our own inbuilt tendencies toward superstition. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Granny Magda writes: i) I expect that there would have been many unbelievers throughout history. It's just that their voices were not recorded, not least because in many historical societies, public statements of atheism could get you executed. 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.
Granny Magda writes: ii) The historical ubiquity of religious belief only serves to back Straggler's argument that such beliefs stem from our own inbuilt tendencies toward superstition. 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.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
GDR writes: 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). Just to be clear - I have never claimed that the multitude of refuted gods is evidence that there are no gods per se. What I have said is that there is overwhelming positive evidence on which to conclude that the entire concept of god is a human construction derived from evidenced human psychological proclivities rather than anything to do with gods actually existing. This is subtly but importantly different.
GDR writes: 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. The deep proclivity for humans to invoke conscious/intelligent intent where none exists is highly objectively evidenced and certainly isn't restricted to god related matters. If this is god's method of revealing himself to us "he" isn't just moving in mysterious ways he is taking a bewilderingly scattergun approach to our enlightenment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
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. Agreed.
Well, superstition is rather pejorative term, Only to those who cling to superstitions without admitting that this is what they are doing.
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). I think it is. If we assume that no real gods exist, then we would expect to see that the various competing notions of gods would disagree and, where possible, be falsified. I do not claim that the falsification of various god concepts is absolute proof of the non-existence of any god. I don't claim that it is especially strong evidence. But it is evidence.
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. Well I think you're getting that backwards. One might as well claim that because human brains are extremely bad at accurately assessing probabilities (which is true), then probability-related mathematics is wrong. We know that human minds are over eager to assign agency to non-agents. We know that we have a natural tendency to assign agency and teleological explanations to completely natural events. We know, with certainty, that this leads us to make mistakes. To suggest that this represents some sort of system for sensing God is bizarre. If that were true, he seems to have designed it to misfire far more than it get things right, since if any single religion is correct, then the majority must have got things very wrong. I see it as being far more sensible to suppose that the belief in supernatural entities is an emergent property of various processes that occur in our brains and that those processes persist because they provided us with an evolutionary advantage. In this case the urge to understand that you describe is simply our urge to sense and understand our environment. An important part of that environment is the presence of active agents, whether they are friends trying to aid us or predators trying to eat us. That is why we have this urge, because understanding our environment presents us with an obvious advantage in trying to survive that environment. And when we have no understanding, we invent one, because that is more comforting than an admission of ignorance. It doesn't give any weight to supernatural beliefs at all, quite the opposite. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes: Just to be clear - I have never claimed that the multitude of refuted gods is evidence that there are no gods per se. 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?
Straggler writes: What I have said is that there is overwhelming positive evidence on which to conclude that the entire concept of god is a human construction derived from evidenced human psychological proclivities rather than anything to do with gods actually existing. 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.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Granny Magda writes: Only to those who cling to superstitions without admitting that this is what they are doing. OK, but then I'm sure that you'll agree that my superstition is actually correct. Then again - maybe not.
Granny Magda writes: I think it is. If we assume that no real gods exist, then we would expect to see that the various competing notions of gods would disagree and, where possible, be falsified. 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.
Granny Magda writes: I do not claim that the falsification of various god concepts is absolute proof of the non-existence of any god. I don't claim that it is especially strong evidence. But it is evidence. 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.
Granny Magda writes: I see it as being far more sensible to suppose that the belief in supernatural entities is an emergent property of various processes that occur in our brains and that those processes persist because they provided us with an evolutionary advantage. In this case the urge to understand that you describe is simply our urge to sense and understand our environment. An important part of that environment is the presence of active agents, whether they are friends trying to aid us or predators trying to eat us. That is why we have this urge, because understanding our environment presents us with an obvious advantage in trying to survive that environment. And when we have no understanding, we invent one, because that is more comforting than an admission of ignorance. It doesn't give any weight to supernatural beliefs at all, quite the opposite. 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.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
GDR writes: 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? I wouldn't agree that the two conclusions are equally subjective. But as with all evidence based conclusions, it is a question of relative likelihood rather than proof.
GDR writes: 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. Gods have certainly been invoked for that reason. And continue to be invoked for that reason. But that isn't the whole story. The question is why humans do this.
GDR writes: In other words there was a general consensus amongst all groups that there was an intelligence behind everything. Everything? I wouldn't go that far. But I accept the gist of what you are saying. So what is the cause of this "general consensus"? Is it: A) The actual existence of supernatural entities that go round causing aspects of natureB) Universal aspects of human psychology that will lead humans to conclude that aspects of nature demand intelligent intent where in fact there is none present. One of these explanations we have objective evidence for and one we don't. When comparing explanations with objective evidence to explanations with no objective evidence I would suggest that (rationally at least) there can only be one outcome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes: Everything? I wouldn't go that far. But I accept the gist of what you are saying. So what is the cause of this "general consensus"? Is it: A) The actual existence of supernatural entities that go round causing aspects of natureB) Universal aspects of human psychology that will lead humans to conclude that aspects of nature demand intelligent intent where in fact there is none present. One of these explanations we have objective evidence for and one we don't. When comparing explanations with objective evidence to explanations with no objective evidence I would suggest that (rationally at least) there can only be one outcome.
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.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
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. Well, perhaps. I can't help but think though, that if, as you suggest, we have some inbuilt sense that guides us towards these spiritual truths, then these falsified religions would be fewer in number. Also, it would seem reasonable to assume that more of them might provide accurate information, something that is actually very rare. In simple terms, I can't see how this could be anything other than (admittedly quite weak) evidence against gods. The more god concepts are shown to be false, the more reasonable it becomes to suspect that any remaining god concepts will be false, especially in light of the fact that no strong positive evidence exists for any of them.
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. That strikes me as being a description of how evidence works.
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. No argument from me!
The idea of invoking god(s) to help give meaning to life that extends beyond self interest, has produced a much more consistent entity. Now that is an interesting claim. Might be worth your starting a thread on that at some point. Certainly within a Christian framework, I find this hard to believe. The more beneficent god of the New Testament is pretty hard to square with the Old Testament's cosmic bully-boy. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Granny Magda writes: In simple terms, I can't see how this could be anything other than (admittedly quite weak) evidence against gods. The more god concepts are shown to be false, the more reasonable it becomes to suspect that any remaining god concepts will be false, especially in light of the fact that no strong positive evidence exists for any of them. 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.
Granny Magda writes: Certainly within a Christian framework, I find this hard to believe. The more beneficent god of the New Testament is pretty hard to square with the Old Testament's cosmic bully-boy. 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.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