Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Subjective Evidence of Gods
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 181 of 468 (628304)
08-08-2011 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by GDR
08-08-2011 3:36 PM


Re: History of Disbelief
Maybe you should learn more about Buddhism.
quote:
The refutation of the notion of a supreme God or a prime mover is seen as a key distinction between Buddhism and other religions. In Buddhism the sole aim of spiritual practice is the complete alleviation of stress in samsara,called nirvana. The Buddha explicitly rejects a creator, denies endorsing any views on creation and states that questions on the origin of the world are worthless. Some theists beginning Buddhist meditation believe that the notion of divinity is not incompatible with Buddhism, but belief in a Supreme God is eminently considered to pose a hindrance to the attainment of nirvana, the highest goal of Buddhist practice.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by GDR, posted 08-08-2011 3:36 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by GDR, posted 08-08-2011 9:03 PM Theodoric has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 182 of 468 (628305)
08-08-2011 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by GDR
08-08-2011 11:10 AM


Highly Evidenced Naturalistic Explanation Vs Unevidenced Supernatural Claim
GDR writes:
There is no objective evidence for either of your two possible conclusions.
But there is!!! The evidence in question pertains to general aspects of human psychology that are essentially inarguable regardless of their relevance to the question under discussion here. We know for a fact that humans are prone to invoking conscious intent where none exists. We know that humans will find meaning and patterns where in fact there is just randomness and/or mindless physical processes at work. We know humans have a proclivity to embellish, imagine, and speculate. The extreme human tendency for wishful thinking and other such cognitive biases when faced with insufficient evidence or evidece which we don't like. Etc. etc. etc. There is a great deal of objective evidence relevant to the question of why humans believe the things that they do. This idea that there is an absence of evidence is just false.
GDR writes:
You use your claim that human psychology leads us to come to conclusion about god as objective evidence for their non-existence.
Not exactly. In a nutshell - I am arguing that a highly evidenced naturalistic explanation for a given phenomenon is far more likely to be correct than an unevidenced supernatural explanation for that same phenomenon.
GDR writes:
This same analogy can be used in regards to any phenomenon that you might like to name.
In this case the phenomenon in question is human belief in god(s). What is the cause of this? On one hand we have an evidenced naturalistic explanation and on the other we have a baseless supernatural alternative. Which is more likely to be correct?
GDR writes:
Read again what Wright says about Paley from the bottom of page 400 to page 404 in "The Evolution of God".
That nature exhibits the appearance of design nobody is disputing. But given that we know for a fact that mindless physical processes can and do lead to this appearance of design on what basis do we ever rationally invoke an unevidenced supernatural designer to explain such things? And why does the scale of the "design" (whether we are talking about an eye or an entire planetary ecosystem) matter?
GDR writes:
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.
Or we could simply admit that we don't yet know how the universe came to be and investigate this question by applying the most objective methods available to us. Namely the scientific methods that have been developed precisely because of the need to counter our natural proclivities to jump to biased subjective conclusions.
GDR writes:
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.
Firstly - It's "possible" in the same sense that Last Thursdayism is "possible". It is a baseless and unfalsifiable claim and I see no more reason for it to be true than any other equally baseless or unfalsifiable claim.
Secondly - The obvious problem with this is that it requires circular reasoning. One must first assume that god(s) exist in order for the evidence to be indicative of the existence of god(s).
GDR writes:
It tells us something about human psychology but it tells us nothing about the reason that human psychology exists at all.
Yes it does. The evolutionary reasons humans have these sorts of proclivities are borne from the same sort of instinct that inspire us to desire cheesecake rather than lettuce. You might find this video of a rather informal lecture on this interesting:
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by GDR, posted 08-08-2011 11:10 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by GDR, posted 08-08-2011 9:44 PM Straggler has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 183 of 468 (628306)
08-08-2011 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by GDR
08-08-2011 3:36 PM


Re: History of Disbelief
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.
No, I would completely dispute that. The history of religion is one of reinvention and repeated schism. Christianity in particular has split into a thousand splinter groups. If religions were gradually converging upon a truth, we would expect them to merge. They don't. They split.
Further, the areas where religions tend to agree are very closely associated with the types of psychological failings that Straggler has been pointing to; over-active agency detection, preference for teleological explanations, etc.
The only sense that I can see in which diverse religions are converging is where "God-of-the-Gaps" theists are gradually being forced to retreat into ever smaller and less relevant territory. They are all gradually being pushed back into the position of an absentee deist god, since science has stripped them of any of their deities' former responsibilities.
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.
The OT God is a bit of a rotter, whether the books are read literally or not and the NT is not much of an improvement.
I do sympathise with what you're saying, but if we treat the Bible as being the work of men, I do not see why it should be considered special any more. One might as well seek meaning in Winnie the Pooh (have you read The Tao of Pooh? It's very good). Moderate Christians seem to me to be stuck between a divine Bible (which is absurd) or a human one (which is irrelevant).
As I have said several times, out understanding of God is evolving
I just don't buy that. It is quite clear that the "God" characters described in the OT and NT have very different natures. They have different values and personalities. It is clear that it's not humanity's understanding of God that is evolving, but God who is evolving to keep up with the human moral Zeitgeist.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by GDR, posted 08-08-2011 3:36 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by GDR, posted 08-08-2011 10:24 PM Granny Magda has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 184 of 468 (628326)
08-08-2011 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Theodoric
08-08-2011 5:14 PM


Re: History of Disbelief
Theodoric writes:
Maybe you should learn more about Buddhism.
Hi Theo
I'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.
GDR writes:
Buddhism shares His message of love and peace etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Theodoric, posted 08-08-2011 5:14 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Theodoric, posted 08-09-2011 9:27 AM GDR has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 185 of 468 (628327)
08-08-2011 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Straggler
08-08-2011 5:19 PM


Re: Highly Evidenced Naturalistic Explanation Vs Unevidenced Supernatural Claim
Straggler writes:
But there is!!! The evidence in question pertains to general aspects of human psychology that are essentially inarguable regardless of their relevance to the question under discussion here. We know for a fact that humans are prone to invoking conscious intent where none exists. We know that humans will find meaning and patterns where in fact there is just randomness and/or mindless physical processes at work. We know humans have a proclivity to embellish, imagine, and speculate. The extreme human tendency for wishful thinking and other such cognitive biases when faced with insufficient evidence or evidece which we don't like. Etc. etc. etc. There is a great deal of objective evidence relevant to the question of why humans believe the things that they do. This idea that there is an absence of evidence is just false.
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.
Straggler writes:
Not exactly. In a nutshell - I am arguing that a highly evidenced naturalistic explanation for a given phenomenon is far more likely to be correct than an unevidenced supernatural explanation for that same phenomenon.
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.
Straggler writes:
Or we could simply admit that we don't yet know how the universe came to be and investigate this question by applying the most objective methods available to us. Namely the scientific methods that have been developed precisely because of the need to counter our natural proclivities to jump to biased subjective conclusions.
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.
Straggler writes:
Firstly - It's "possible" in the same sense that Last Thursdayism is "possible". It is a baseless and unfalsifiable claim and I see no more reason for it to be true than any other equally baseless or unfalsifiable claim.
Secondly - The obvious problem with this is that it requires circular reasoning. One must first assume that god(s) exist in order for the evidence to be indicative of the existence of god(s).
Sure, but that cuts both ways.
Straggler writes:
Yes it does. The evolutionary reasons humans have these sorts of proclivities are borne from the same sort of instinct that inspire us to desire cheesecake rather than lettuce. You might find this video of a rather informal lecture on this interesting:
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.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2011 5:19 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Straggler, posted 08-09-2011 4:48 AM GDR has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 186 of 468 (628335)
08-08-2011 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Granny Magda
08-08-2011 5:20 PM


Re: History of Disbelief
Granny Magda writes:
No, I would completely dispute that. The history of religion is one of reinvention and repeated schism. Christianity in particular has split into a thousand splinter groups. If religions were gradually converging upon a truth, we would expect them to merge. They don't. They split.
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.
Granny Magda writes:
The only sense that I can see in which diverse religions are converging is where "God-of-the-Gaps" theists are gradually being forced to retreat into ever smaller and less relevant territory. They are all gradually being pushed back into the position of an absentee deist god, since science has stripped them of any of their deities' former responsibilities.
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.
Granny Magda writes:
I do sympathise with what you're saying, but if we treat the Bible as being the work of men, I do not see why it should be considered special any more. One might as well seek meaning in Winnie the Pooh (have you read The Tao of Pooh? It's very good). Moderate Christians seem to me to be stuck between a divine Bible (which is absurd) or a human one (which is irrelevant).
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.
Granny Magda writes:
I just don't buy that. It is quite clear that the "God" characters described in the OT and NT have very different natures. They have different values and personalities. It is clear that it's not humanity's understanding of God that is evolving, but God who is evolving to keep up with the human moral Zeitgeist.
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.
Cheers
Edited by GDR, : clarification

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Granny Magda, posted 08-08-2011 5:20 PM Granny Magda has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 187 of 468 (628357)
08-09-2011 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by GDR
08-08-2011 9:44 PM


Re: Highly Evidenced Naturalistic Explanation Vs Unevidenced Supernatural Claim
Do you agree that objectively evidenced conclusions and explanations are more likely to be correct than unevidenced claims?
Is there any objective evidence in favour of the notion that god(s) exist?
Is there any objective evidence in support of the conclusion that humans can and do invent non-existant god(s) for evolved psychological reasons?
GDR writes:
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.
Do you also agree that the question of why humans believe in gods should be investigated by applying the most objective methods available?
GDR writes:
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.
Baselessly invoking god(s) as explanations tells us nothing about why god(s) exist. So at what point do we accept the evidence available without recourse to invoking subjectively desireable but unevidenced cause upon cause upon cause? I say we stop at the point we find ourselves invoking anything for which there is no evidence. What do you say?
GDR writes:
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.
I would suggest that it is different in two key ways:
1) Unlike biblical literalists the objective evidence being cited does actually exist and does actually support the conclusion being made.
2) I would suggest that most atheists who conclude that gods are most likely human inventions have come to their conclusion as a result of objective evidence and would change their position if objective evidence of god(s) existence were to come to light.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by GDR, posted 08-08-2011 9:44 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by GDR, posted 08-09-2011 11:22 AM Straggler has replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 188 of 468 (628365)
08-09-2011 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by purpledawn
08-07-2011 8:13 AM


Re: Subjective evidence to you
purpledawn writes:
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.
So what? Every prayer doesn't need to come directly quoted word for word from the Bible. It's a book of truth, principles, lessons, analogies, alegories, literalism etc.
Just because you don't agree it's subjective evidence for God, doesn't make it not subjective evidence for God.
I've already proved that at the very least, the Bible is subjective evidence.
How is it not?
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by purpledawn, posted 08-07-2011 8:13 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by purpledawn, posted 08-09-2011 7:04 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 189 of 468 (628366)
08-09-2011 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by GDR
08-07-2011 10:59 AM


Re: Subjective evidence to you
GDR writes:
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.
We do? I have, im not sure other people here have yet to recognize it as subjective evidence.
I'm sure you would agree that your healing was from God and not the Bible itself,
The Bible is the living word of God. It has power, and is proven to be a valid historical document. It is the mind of God on paper. The Bible is God speaking to us.\[/qs\]
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.
And I guess the light buld would have never been invented if thomas edison never existed...
I does not matter about the woulda, coulda, didnt's. I WAS HEALED, case closed. It works. When you plant a apple tree a peanut tree isn't going to come up. Similarily, When you trust the Bible you can KNOW it was God who healed you.
Other times I wasn't, which I explained in a previous message about God knowing what's best for us.
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.
I thought we were talking about subjective evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by GDR, posted 08-07-2011 10:59 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by GDR, posted 08-09-2011 11:37 AM Chuck77 has replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 190 of 468 (628367)
08-09-2011 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Straggler
08-07-2011 12:06 PM


Re: Subjective evidence to you
Straggler writes:
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.
Not at all. We can compare them and seek out the truth. All of it's subjective but only one truth. All roads don't lead to God, only one, but it's good enough evidence for this thread isn't it?
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Straggler, posted 08-07-2011 12:06 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Straggler, posted 08-09-2011 9:03 AM Chuck77 has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 191 of 468 (628371)
08-09-2011 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Chuck77
08-09-2011 5:36 AM


Re: Subjective evidence to you
quote:
So what? Every prayer doesn't need to come directly quoted word for word from the Bible. It's a book of truth, principles, lessons, analogies, alegories, literalism etc.
I agree, except for the literalism. Literalism isn't contained in the Bible. Literalism is a method of interpretation or translation. Many books contain truths, principles, lessons, analogies, and alegories, etc; even the newspaper.
You haven't made a reasonable argument to explain how reading any line from the Bible had any part in the healing.
Remember what subjective means: Characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind.
All you've shown is that your belief probably played a part in the healing. As I said, if you could have the same strength of belief and read a few seemingly pertinent lines from the newspaper, the same healing may have happened. You don't know.
quote:
Just because you don't agree it's subjective evidence for God, doesn't make it not subjective evidence for God.
Actually it does. Remember, subjective evidence is personal. What I consider to be subjective evidence is going to be different than yours. Your job in the debate is to give reasoned argumentation why I should accept your subjective evidence for your god.
quote:
I've already proved that at the very least, the Bible is subjective evidence.
You can't really prove subjective, you can only try to convince and you haven't done much to convince. You've claimed, but not much reasoned argumentation.
At most you've shown your mind played a role in relieving your shoulder pain. Message 3
Chuck77 writes:
I once prayed that my shoulder pain would be taken away. I prayed this prayer as I layed my right hand on my left shoulder:
"I wish above all things that you may prosper and be in health, even as your soul prospers." 3 John 1:2 KLV.
That's God speaking to me/us thru His word. Immediatly after I prayed it I was healed. No more pain.
Obviously the words were irrelevant.
From a Christian standpoint, the Bible is no more subjective evidence for the Christian God, than Science Fiction novels are subjective evidence of intelligent life on other planets and yes there are people who believe there is some truth in Science Fiction.
Survey shows many people believe science fiction is real
Fictional writings can contain truths, just like the Bible. Parables are fiction. This parable is a very good example of how belief or bias can obscure reality. IOW, we see what we want to see.
The Axe
A man who lost his axe suspected his neighbour's son of stealing it. To him, as he observed the boy, the way the lad walked, the expression on his face, the manner of his speech - in fact everything about his appearance and behaviour betrayed that he had stolen the axe.
Not long afterwards the man found his axe while digging in his cellar. When he saw his neighbour's son again, nothing about the boy's behaviour nor appearance seemed to suggest that he had stolen the axe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Chuck77, posted 08-09-2011 5:36 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 192 of 468 (628383)
08-09-2011 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Chuck77
08-09-2011 5:52 AM


Re: Subjective evidence to you
Chuck writes:
THEREFORE the bible is ...evidence. Subjective to you and valid proof to me. What's the problem?
Straggler writes:
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.
Chuck writes:
Not at all. We can compare them and seek out the truth.
How are you going to compare two contradictory conclusions of the same religious experience and find out which one is true?
Chuck writes:
All roads don't lead to God, only one, but it's good enough evidence for this thread isn't it?
But what is your experience evidence of?
You say it is evidence of biblical truth. A scientologist would say it is evidence of dianetics. A Hindu might say it is evidence of the true god that underlies your belief in the false Christian god. Etc. etc.
How do you intend to work out who is right and who is wrong here?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Chuck77, posted 08-09-2011 5:52 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 193 of 468 (628387)
08-09-2011 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by GDR
08-08-2011 9:03 PM


Re: History of Disbelief
I'm fully aware that Buddhism does not worship a god(s) as such.
Wrong!
Did you read the wiki article at all? Here are a couple very relevant sentences.
quote:
The Buddha explicitly rejects a creator, denies endorsing any views on creation and states that questions on the origin of the world are worthless. Some theists beginning Buddhist meditation believe that the notion of divinity is not incompatible with Buddhism, but belief in a Supreme God is eminently considered to pose a hindrance to the attainment of nirvana, the highest goal of Buddhist practice.
How can you then say?
I'm fully aware that Buddhism does not worship a god(s) as such.
Emphasis added
That is a completely false statement and highly insulting to Buddhism. You seem to have some perverse need to express Buddhism through your Christian view of what a religion should be. As far as Buddhism is, that is completely wrong.
This whole reply is disingenuous at best. You even quote mine yourself. Lets look at the full sentence.
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.
You are using the beliefs of Buddhist as your "evidence" for a supposed coming together of ideas about a god. If Buddhist don't believe in a god, how do you get by in using them as evidence for the existence of god?
I have a message of peace and love also. Do you truly believe that only believers in your god or any other god are the only people that believe in peace and love?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by GDR, posted 08-08-2011 9:03 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by purpledawn, posted 08-09-2011 11:02 AM Theodoric has not replied
 Message 198 by GDR, posted 08-09-2011 11:48 AM Theodoric has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 194 of 468 (628407)
08-09-2011 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Theodoric
08-09-2011 9:27 AM


Love and Peace - Subjective
quote:
If Buddhist don't believe in a god, how do you get by in using them as evidence for the existence of god?
Good grief! Talk about a mountain out of a mole hill.
We're looking at subjective evidence of gods, not defense of religions. If one believes that love and peace could only come from gods, then the presence of people practicing these ideas would lead one to assume the presence of a god whether those preaching, teaching, or practicing love and peace believe in a god or not.
quote:
I have a message of peace and love also. Do you truly believe that only believers in your god or any other god are the only people that believe in peace and love?
As jar likes to say: "If God exists, She exists regardless of the belief or non-belief of man."
Please keep to the topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Theodoric, posted 08-09-2011 9:27 AM Theodoric has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 195 of 468 (628409)
08-09-2011 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Straggler
08-09-2011 4:48 AM


Re: Highly Evidenced Naturalistic Explanation Vs Unevidenced Supernatural Claim
Straggler writes:
Do you agree that objectively evidenced conclusions and explanations are more likely to be correct than unevidenced claims?
Yes, but mind you the subject that we are discussing is not the same as objectively saying that 2+2=4.
Straggler writes:
Is there any objective evidence in favour of the notion that god(s) exist?
Objectively we have emotions, reason etc. Objectively we exist as does the universe. I subjectively view that as objective evidence for god(s). Again, Holy books objectively exists, and objectively a high proportion of the world believe in god(s), but again what we believe, we believe subjectively.
Straggler writes:
Is there any objective evidence in support of the conclusion that humans can and do invent non-existant god(s) for evolved psychological reasons?
Absolutely, but subjectively I don't see that as evidence against the idea that god(s) exist.
Straggler writes:
Do you also agree that the question of why humans believe in gods should be investigated by applying the most objective methods available?
Certainly but again if we find some spot in the brain I would subjectively conclude that there is a purpose for it being there which would indicate intention for its existence.
Straggler writes:
Baselessly invoking god(s) as explanations tells us nothing about why god(s) exist. So at what point do we accept the evidence available without recourse to invoking subjectively desireable but unevidenced cause upon cause upon cause? I say we stop at the point we find ourselves invoking anything for which there is no evidence. What do you say?
This is the standard argument that we have already talked about. We have minds that are limited to one understanding of time. If something always existed then there is no need to invoke an entity that pre-exists God.
Straggler writes:
1) Unlike biblical literalists the objective evidence being cited does actually exist and does actually support the conclusion being made.
But that is wrong. The conclusion came before the evidence that they are seeking. Again, even if they identify a component in the brain that causes us to seek god(s) one can just as easily subjectively conclude, (as I would), that it is evidence that there is a god(s). I just don't agree that the objective evidence does support the conclusion being made. Again it is like mistaking the timer connected to the sprinkler system for the guy who I hired to install it.
Straggler writes:
2) I would suggest that most atheists who conclude that gods are most likely human inventions have come to their conclusion as a result of objective evidence and would change their position if objective evidence of god(s) existence were to come to light.
I'm sure you believe that but I believe you're wrong. I think that atheists come to their conclusions in the same way that everyone else does. We are all impacted by our family, our culture, our friends, life experiences etc.
Actually, in one sense there is no objective evidence for or against the question about the existence of god(s). (I know that contradicts what I said earlier in this post. ) We have objective facts. We then take these objective facts on board and come to subjective conclusions.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Straggler, posted 08-09-2011 4:48 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Straggler, posted 08-09-2011 11:30 AM GDR has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024