Subjective Evidence of Gods

The objectively evidenced facts are simple:Humans can and do invent gods that don't exist.There is no objective evidence that any gods do actually exist. There is nothing subjective about the conclusion that humans can and do invent non-existant gods is there? Whilst the notion that gods do actually exist is entirely subjective is it not? I haven't claimed that anything is evidence "against" the existence of gods as such. I have claimed that it is evidence in favour of gods being products of the human mind. Can you see the difference?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

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.

On one hand we have the objectively evidenced fact that humans can and do invent non-existent gods. On the other hand we have evidentially baseless proposition that god(s) actually exist.On one hand we have the objectively evidenced facts regarding human psychology and the environment in which this evolved. Facts which explain the human proclivity to invent non-existent gods (the human tendency to find patterns and meaning in random events, hyper active agency detection, the selection advantage of false positives over false negatives etc.) On the other hand we have evidentially baseless proposition that god(s) actually exist.On the simple and essentially inarguable basis that objectively evidenced conclusions and explanations are more likely to be correct than unevidenced claims we have the conclusion that gods are more likely to be human constructions than real entities. On the other hand we have the (still) evidentially baseless claim that god(s) actually exist. You keep saying this. But this just isn't so. ALL of the evidence available points towards gods as products of human invention. Can you describe step by step as I have above how you use the same objective evidence to come to your subjective conclusion that god(s) exist? I predict that you won't be able to without first assuming that god(s) do exist. There is no objective evidence that Last Thursdayism didn't occur. But it would be ridiculous to say that evolutionary theory and Last Thursdayism are both equally subjective explanations for the origin of species wouldn't it?There is no objective evidence that the infamous Immaterial Pink Unicorn doesn't exist. But it would be ridiculous to say that the IPU is just as likely to exist as be a product of the human mind wouldn't it?If the best that can be said for the existence of god(s) is that there is no evidence against their existence then god(s) are in the same category as all those other baselessly conceived unfalsifiable entities and propositions. Philosophical possibilities which are far more likely to be human inventions than real entities. The objective evidence tells us that it is far more likely that any given evidentially baseless god concept is a product of the human psychological proclivity to invent such things. So which concept of god are you suggesting that this doesn't apply to?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

An aside, please?Maybe this has been discussed and I missed it, but isn't the lady in question, the IPU, isn't she the Invisible Pink Unicorn not the Immaterial Pink Unicorn?As in Our Lady of Pinkness from Wiki?And if this is supposed to be the same Femme de la Rose then she is not "infamous" at all but quite a warm, gentle and instructive soul once you come to her on your knees in adulation.

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.

Far from it. It's no mistake. I could care less about the actually Bible itself. Throw it, burry it, step on it, whatever, it has no power on it's own. It's the words inside of it once we get them into our minds, hearts and believe them, then see it masnifest in our lives. I don't worship the Bible, I worship the author, who ultimitly is God. None of us can know? US? So, when your mom used to come into your room at night when you were a little tyke you objectively knew it was her, or no?We CAN know it objectively, but to relay that to someone else is difficult if they are not willing to accept God even exists. Whaaaaaaaat? You did!?!? Elementary, my dear Watson!!Holy Crap! So, subjective evidence doesn't exist anymore. How are we to alert the rest of the civilized world? Don't you mean there are subjective facts from which we draw objectice conclusions?

quote:

---

Far from it. It's no mistake. I could care less about the actually Bible itself. Throw it, burry it, step on it, whatever, it has no power on it's own. It's the words inside of it once we get them into our minds, hearts and believe them, then see it masnifest in our lives. I don't worship the Bible, I worship the author, who ultimitly is God.

---

... and believe them. As you keep showing, it is the belief that is the power, not the object of belief, which I believe is GDR's point concerning subjective conclusions.As I showed in the parable in Message 191, subjective conclusions aren't always right.That's what you need to explain concerning your subjective conclusions. What makes your subjective conclusions right versus anyone elses subjective conclusion?

This seems to be the key point of contention. So let's focus on that.Can you show me where my own reasoning above departs from the objective evidence and becomes a subjective conclusion?Can you describe step by step as I have above how you use the same objective facts regarding humans inventing gods to come to your subjective conclusion that god(s) actually exist? Can you do this without assuming the premise that some form of god(s) exist? IF we assume that a real, more generic and more sophisticated god exists THEN it would make sense that for a variety of reasons there would be numerous false godsGDR surely you can see that this only "makes sense" IF you start from the premise that there is a real god? Assuming that god(s) exist in order to conclude that god(s) exist is circular reasoning. Can you really not see this?I'll answer the rest of your post separately. The above, I think, is the key difference between us and where your assertion that both positions are equally subjective breaks down.

This completely misses the fact that the objective evidence tells us that FALSE POSITIVES give a selection advantage. Not some inbuilt urge to seek the true divine. But instead a proclivity to draw FALSE POSITIVES with regard to detecting intelligent intent. You keep raising this false dichotomy as if we just choose one or the other and then seek evidence to support our baseless belief. But it doesn't have to be like that. There are evidenced explanations and there are unevidenced explanations. And then there are questions to which we don't yet have answers. They are evidentially comparable though. That is the point. No no no no. Again - The abundance of false gods combined with the known psychological reasons that humans are prone to creating these FALSE POSITIVES leads to the conclusion that god concepts are more likely to be human constructions than real entities. Are you aware of the role of inductive reasoning in science? Like all evidence based conclusions it is inductive and tentative but I don't see on what basis you can call it unreasonable?

(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

You keep saying that the same objective facts equally support both our conclusions.But the objective scientific facts tell us that humans will perceive intelligent agency in situations where there is none because of the evolutionary selection advantage associated with perceiving false positives.How on Earth can the evidenced fact that humans will invoke intelligent intent when it isn’t there possibly support the conclusion that it is there?This doesn’t make sense A preference for false positives is present for the same reasons that a preference for attractive mates, high calorie foods and adrenaline inducing pursuits is present. Evolutionary selection/survival advantage. But I haven't said that the evidence precludes the existence of gods. I have simply said that that objectively evidenced conclusions and explanations are more likely to be correct than unevidenced claims and that human invention is more objectively evidenced than the evidentially baseless claim that gods actually exist.There really is nothing subjective about it. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You have been led astray from the true path of the pink one.