Subjective Evidence of Gods

Yes, but mind you the subject that we are discussing is not the same as objectively saying that 2+2=4. 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. Absolutely, but subjectively I don't see that as evidence against the idea that god(s) exist. 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. 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. 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. 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.

I think that you are making a basic mistake. The Bible is a narrative of the story of God working through His people with all of the highs and lows of their existence. We are to worship God not the Bible. The Bible itself says that Jesus is the word. If you believe in a god that can justify genocide, or a god who wants you to have your difficult son stoned to death then you believe in a different god than I do. I didn't say that you weren't healed by God. I just said that objectively none of us can know, but I can say that I am glad you were healed and we can thank God for that. Yes, but, (there is always a but ), in the discussion we came to the conclusion that there is no such thing as subjective evidence. There are objective facts from which we draw subjective conclusions.

Fair enough. I don't know why I stuck the words "as such" at the end of that statement. Let us say that the majority of the world's religions, (I'm not claiming to be an expert on the world's religions by the way ) are drawing closer together on a message of love and peace. I know that it doesn't always look that way, as there will always be minorities in various religions that will find ways to justify war and violence, which again has to do with the human inclination to seek power whether it be as an individual or even as a nation. Absolutely not.

All true, but there is no objective evidence that god(s) don't exist, or at least what objective evidence there is can be subjectively viewed favouring either conclusion. I genuinely believe that the belief that this world is intelligently designed, (not to be confused with the ID political movement), is far more reasonable than your conclusion, but I know you see it exactly the opposite. Sure, but so what? Sure I see the difference but I would say that it is only evidence of some god(s) being products of the human mind.

We know that humans through the years have come up with false god(s). I just don't accept that as evidence that there is no god(s). As Wright says in his book our understanding of God, real or imagined, has evolved over the centuries. It would make sense that for a variety of reasons there would be numerous false gods. And as I've said before, that the fact that we do seem to have a built in tendency to search for and try to understand gods is suggestive that the real thing does exist.I'm sorry to keep repeating myself but you keep making the same point. I know you see this as being a strong argument but I just don't accept that it is. No. All the evidence points towards most god(s) as products of human invention. See my first paragraph. Sure. Same for the FSM but so what? Last Thursdayism is about trying to refute scientific evidence. What we are talking about doesn't do that at all. We exist, we are conscious, we are sentient, we have a moral code etc. There is an explanation for that. You believe in a strictly naturalistic explanation and I believe that it is all the result of a pre-existing intelligence. You can compare my belief in God to belief in a IPU or a FSM, but do you really think subjectively that they are comparable. As I've said before there are some ultra bright people who agree with me and as far as I know there are no adherents of the IPU or the FSM. There is no objective evidence. There are objective facts on which we draw subjective conclusions. You seem to believe that because there have been many false concepts of god over the centuries, that this is an indication that there is no god(s), known or unknown.I just don't see that as reasonable.

(1)The objective fact is that there have been a number of people over the years that have invented god(s) to serve their own interests.This in no way precludes the existence of real god(s). Just because I walk around claiming to be Prince Charles is no reason for us to believe that Prince Charles doesn’t actually exist.(2)The objective fact is, (and I am just going to take your word on this as I'm out of my depth to question it), that there are psychological factors that cause us to invent non-existent god(s).Once again, just because we abuse our intelligence for our own ends tells us nothing about whether or not our intelligence comes from intelligent or non-intelligent origins. I hesitate to answer this as it has nothing to do with how I came to my Theistic conclusion, and I think that at best all I can say is that it could be construed as subjectively suggestive.(1)The objective fact is that there have been a number of people over the years that have invented god(s) to serve their own interests.If I were to invent a God that dictates that everyone should give 25% of their income to me, I have to be dealing with a group of people that believe that god(s) exist. That sense that there is more to our existence than what we perceive has been, as near as we can tell, part of our understanding of who we are as far back as we can go.Therefore humans being what they are, in that they want to have the answers and that they crave power are going to create god(s) in their own image to serve their own ends. Also as I said earlier to be able to counterfeit something the real thing has to exist.(2)The objective fact is that there are psychological factors that cause us to invent non-existent god(s).We then have to ask the question - why is that a part of our nature. In some sense that is the same question of why are we interested in finding out about the universe. It comes I suppose from our innate curiosity. I think that it suggests that we are designed to seek out knowledge whether it be in the theological field or the scientific field. This suggests a creative intelligence that is responsible for the psychology involved.Again though, I only see this as suggestive, and hardly a place on which to hang one's theistic hat. For that matter I obviously don't think it is a good argument to hang one's atheistic hat either. (again )Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Hi ChuckJust for the record I didn't rate your post, and thanks for the reply. I agree with the first part but as far as the authorship is concerned I'm wondering where Paul, for example, fits into the picture. Can you know objectively that you wouldn't have been healed if you hadn't prayed. Once again, I'm not claiming that you are wrong about the healing, I'm just saying that no matter how sure you are, you have come to a subjective conclusion. Would you mind heading up that project. If you read through this thread you will see what I mean. Essentially there are only objective facts and from those facts we can draw subjective conclusions. As I said before, the fact that the Bible exists is an objective fact but what we make of the Bible is a subjective conclusion.If you still think that there is such a thing as subjective evidence can you give me an example? No.Edited by GDR, : for some reason I put frowns instead of smiles

That is circular reasoning. You say humans perceive intelligent agency when there is none. You start by assuming there is none.If I use circular reasoning starting with the premise that an intelligent agency exists I could say this: the objective scientific facts tell us that humans will perceive false attributes for the actual intelligent agency in situations to suit their own purposes. Once again to go back to my sprinkler system analogy. Through research an alien finds out why and how the sprinkler system goes off and on when he discovers the timer and then assumes he has discovered the basic first cause for the system. Yes, evolutionary processes have been a large part of what make us what we are, but my subjective belief is that the evolutionary process works as designed by a pre-existent intelligence. You are of the belief, (I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong ) that the evolutionary process came about naturally from a fortunate coming together of atoms that just fortunately happened to exist.You are confusing the mechanism for creation with the cause. Of course it's subjective. You are claiming that the fact that people invent false god(s) as evidence that there is no god(s). Objectively that tells us absolutely nothing. Subjectively you can quite rightly suggest that it is an indication that god(s) doesn't exist but I can also subjectively say that the invention of false god(s) suggests that the real thing exists to be counterfeited.It is a also strictly a subjective conclusion as to which of the two conclusions is most strongly indicated by the objective facts. Whichever case you pick as being the stronger is going to be based on circular reasoning again.Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

I as a Theist contend that in the final analysis everything is the result of a pre-existing intelligence. To answer your question fully I need to know more precisely what you mean by a "non-god-related area". Can you give me an example we can work with. Yes. Once again you are mixing up mechanism for the source of the mechanism. In order to discuss this you need to give me an example to work with. What is relevant is the source of human psychology. Human psychology is the timer running the sprinkler system. Yes. you are talking about the subjective conclusion that you have come to as a result of the evidence referred to in A). It is the same circular reasoning. We are only talking about atheism vs theism or deism. Neither position assumes anything about god(s). Either position is equally circular.Also I don’t see where there is any evolutionary advantage for the false positives you are inferring. I do see personal advantage in creating false images of god(s) to suit one's own purposes. For myself I don't see where I'm benefitting from my theistic beliefs. In fact my specific brand of theism is rather expensive both in terms of time and money. I'm just looking for truth like most of us are. I agree, but I'm not sure whose position you are referring to. In order to advance the discussion though, I need specific examples rather than just terms like non-god-related area.CheersPS: Glad things have settled down in that wonderful city of yours.

I agree with all of that but that in way includes or excludes the existence of an actual agent. Your statement is agnostic on the subject.I'll pick one example out of the several you listed. Sure the see the northern lights, (man are they beautiful from the air over the Canadian Arctic), and start looking for explanation of how they came to be there. Here is the explanation from wiki. An aurora (plural: auroras or aurorae) is a natural light display in the sky particularly in the high latitude (Arctic and Antarctic) regions, caused by the collision of energetic charged particles with atoms in the high altitude atmosphere (thermosphere). The charged particles originate in the magnetosphere and solar wind and are directed by the Earth's magnetic field into the atmosphere.Once again though that is the mechanism of how they exist. It doesn't however explain the existence of the mechanism. Again, we have discovered the timer but have no explanation of how the timer came into existence. I think that He reveals himself to us through the moral code that we seem to understand instinctively. (As a Christian I believe he speaks to us through the Bible and specifically through Jesus.) I think that we can learn about him through human wisdom in the fields of philosophy and science. I suggest that we learn about God every time we hold our loved ones in our arms.

Yes I think the fact that we have instilled in us a curiosity and a desire to provide answers to difficult questions has served us well. Probably as often as not it has led to the wrong conclusions however, I think it is this desire for answers that has led to the great discoveries in medicine and science. I also think that over time it is leading us closer to theological truth as well. My opinion is that it would be by a natural mechanism as designed by God. We have all come to our subjective conclusions. Frankly IMHO my answer is the most reasonable and so I expect others would agree with me. But we all feel that way - don't we? Our perceived world is made up of matter, but there are things such as ideas that don't fall into that category. You can view activity in the brain but you can view that activity all day long and still have no clue as to the idea that caused the activity. You can't measure an idea and you can't weigh an idea. It is something that is non-material and yet it exists. What you are suggesting requires something that is non-material to be generated from a simply material cause. Once again, I don't think it unreasonable to look for non-material causes for non-material psychological proclivity in humans. I think that when we stab friends in the back, that because of our conscience, we often do learn something about God. I see God as pulling us toward that which is good but our nature seems so often to pull us in a different direction. It is that struggle between selfish love and unselfish love.A couple of other thoughts.As we exist now I think we have to be able to know sorrow to be able to know joy, and we have to know evil if we are going to able to choose goodness.Also, (going off topic here ), as a Christian I don't believe that the life that we know now is the end of the story. I'll look forward to going over all of this with you in the next life and I'll have an answer for why we have screwworms then.

I'd say that is between God and Straggler. It's isn't my call to make. Ultimately everyone chooses between selfish love and unselfish love whether they be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, agnostic or atheist. I'd suggest that an atheist who sends anonymously $100 to the third world is much closer to the heart of God than the Christian who sends the $100 with the idea that it has put God on His side. That is not to minimize the many wonderful things that Christians have done with the right motive. It isn't about legalistic tithing; it is about giving from the heart out of love.Frankly I’m not going to worry about who winds up where. The next life will look after itself, and whatever happens happens. Right now, I just struggle day by day at being the man that Christ wants me to be in this life, and unfortunately, more often than not found wanting.AbE: I just thought I'd add this. My God is a good God and a just God. In the end, not that I have much a choice , I have faith that true justice will be served. Edited by GDR, : added thought

Hi RAZD
Thanks for the reply however, sad as it makes me I have to disagree with this. What you are describing isn't analogous at all. Bush making the decision to go into Iraq had a huge downside potential which I suggest we haven't seen the end of yet. Yes, people's religious views have often been used as a justification for all sorts of heinous acts, however, I suggest that if they didn't use religion they would have found some other excuse.We all form a world view. I base mine on the teachings of Jesus as I understand them. Others, presumably including yourself, base their world view on something else.It appears fairly obvious that we will never have empirical evidence for the existence or non-existence of a creator, so it isn't a matter of waiting for better evidence to come along. We just form our subjective conclusions based on what we do know and experience. In one sense saying that we can't definitely know so I'm not going to come to a conclusion is something of a cop out.I know this sounds strange to most people here but I have very little doubt that most of what I believe is correct. (Of course the problem is I don't know which parts I'm wrong about. ) It took me a number of years to come to my conclusions so I just don't see it as a rush to judgement. There you go Straggler. What he said.You have no idea of how badly I wish I had thought of that. Brilliant. From the little I know of Relativity and QM it seems like everything that we perceive is an illusion, but it is the only reality that we can presently experience.

I thought RAZD made a good point and you responded as follows. You had made this statement earlier.

quote:

---

It seems that we both agree that humans have a deep psychological proclivity to invoke agency and intent in all manner of circumstance and situations. Yes? The question is "Why". Where I cite the evolutionary selection advantage of false positives with regard to detecting agency and intent you instead contend that this objectively evidenced human proclivity is intentionally instilled in us by some over-arching intelligent agent (i.e. a god of some description). Is that right?

---

I agreed with that statement. However, you then based on that statement claim that your subjective opinion on the existence or non-existence of god(s) is better evidenced that my subjective opinion.You are inferring that because this proclivity of ours has produced many false images of god(s) that the evidence suggests that images are much more likely to be incorrect. I think that what RAZD is saying is not that it makes either of our conclusions more likely, but that it can’t be used to support either one.I would add to that, that you can’t disprove the easter bunny in this way either. I contend it just isn’t relevant. We have to draw our conclusions based on something else.I can’t see where believing in the easter bunny is a reasonable belief, but I wouldn’t come to that conclusion based on the idea that humans have a deep psychological proclivity to invoke agency and intent in all manner of circumstance and situations. I just don’t think that statement has anything to say about the existence of the easter bunny. Reason just tells me that I should reject the idea.However I made this statement a few posts ago.

quote:

---

Our perceived world is made up of matter, but there are things such as ideas that don't fall into that category. You can view activity in the brain but you can view that activity all day long and still have no clue as to the idea that caused the activity. You can't measure an idea and you can't weigh an idea. It is something that is non-material and yet it exists. What you are suggesting requires something that is non-material to be generated from a simply material cause. Once again, I don't think it unreasonable to look for non-material causes for non-material psychological proclivity in humans.

---

I don’t think that is an unreasonable statement. I’m not expecting you to agree with my conclusion, but it is reasonable, which in my view takes it out of the category of the easter bunny. I’m not claiming this as proof, I’m just trying to make the point that both of our conclusions are reasonable. No problem there. I don’t make that claim and I don’t think many others do either. I agree that your statement regarding human proclivity is objectively true. I just disagree that it has anything to tell us when it comes to our subjective conclusions about the existence or non-existence of god(s). I'm not claiming that there isn't. I am saying though that it isn't unreasonable in instances like this to come to widely different subjective conclusions based on the same objective evidence.

Not at all. I'm just saying that just because we can't test for it doesn't say it doesn't exist.