|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Subjective Evidence of Gods | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4218 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
You didn't answer the question.
The factory owner is the factory owner says nothing. Give me a name. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
Straggler writes: So this thing you call "god" you think exists in the same sort of abstract Platonic sense that a perfect circle or the number pi can be said to objectively exist? No, my point is that we seem to agree in some sense that it is quite possible that there is something that exists that is other than that which is part of our material world.
Straggler writes: In a Platonic sense - Yes. And be clear here that non-zero sum morality is a result of the maths rather than something in and of itself. In this little conjecture of ours morality is essentially just an inevitable by-product of maths. Nothing more. Fair enough, but it still denotes a pre-existent truth from a human perspective.
Straggler writes: What intelligence? If my conjecture is correct then intelligence itself would be a result of the blind mindless logic from which all else follows. If your conjecture is correct then you can call it mindless logic, but logic itself denotes intelligence. How would this logic or intelligence exist without some form of sentience that would be able to retain that logic, whether it was we know as mind or not?
Straggler writes: What intelligence? All we started with was blind mindless logic. You have added intelligence, creativity and a sense of morality. In effect you have anthropomorphicised the idea in a way that is utterly typical of humans displaying the psychological proclivity to invoke false positive agency at every opportunity in exactly the way we have been discussing. Not really. I'm not trying to claim any absolutes. I'm just trying to build a reasonable subjective case for a creative intelligence. It is just that if there is logic or intelligence that exists apart from our material existence it seems to me that quite possibly that intelligence very well might have something to do with us being here. With circular reasoning based on that assumption I tried to make a case for it.
Straggler writes: Your inability to consider any question without inserting a human-like intelligent agent into it is kinda proving my psychological point isn't it? But isn't that what you would expect? We are discussing "Subjective Evidence, (we should probably think Conclusions rather than evidence based on previous discussion), of Gods". You are supporting your position which is essentially that everything including intelligence has come from non-intelligent source and I'm supporting my belief that my intelligent conclusion has come from a pre-existing intelligent source. (My particular bias might be showing in that last statement. ) I'm not intending a human like intelligence necessarily, I'm just speaking of an intelligence in whatever form it might exist. Mind you, other than dog, human intelligence is all I know so maybe we should go with that.
Straggler writes: What you have done here is what you have done throughout this thread. What you have done is show that if you assume that your notion of god exists then you can explain everything in that paradigm and create a huge wheel of circular reasoning. But in a discussion like this that is inevitable. We both do it. The only direct evidence we have, such as the Bible, science, philosophy all require subjective conclusions as to how to they should be interpreted to come to a conclusion about the existence or non-existence of god(s).
Straggler writes: If you assume god exists as part of the premise then you will inevitably conclude that god exists. And - before you say it - No I haven't assumed that god doesn't exist. I have assumed nothing but some form of Platonic mathematical abstract existence that can meaningfully be called "objective". From this you can conceivably derive non-zero sum morality. But some supreme, creative intelligence with a sense of morality of it's own is entirely your own addition. You say that you haven't assumed that god doesn’t exist. I don't buy that. You have only assumed that some form of "objectivity" exists external to our material world. You then assume that "objectivity" is mindless, or to put it another way godless. I'm just contending that it isn't illogical to consider that just possibly that objectivity" is part of a creative intelligence. Once again, we are both employing circular logic but there isn't really another avenue to go down in this discussion.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
GDR writes: You say that you haven't assumed that god doesn’t exist. I don't buy that. You have only assumed that some form of "objectivity" exists external to our material world. You then assume that "objectivity" is mindless, or to put it another way godless. I'm just contending that it isn't illogical to consider that just possibly that objectivity" is part of a creative intelligence. Once again, we are both employing circular logic but there isn't really another avenue to go down in this discussion. Refusing to assume that something is present is not the same as actively assuming that it isn't present. I no more assume an absence of God than I assume an absence of James Bond, Mickey mouse or squirrels. I only "assumed" that mathematics is objective. Nothing more. Look - I saw you get pounced upon for suggesting that some form of morality can be considered objective and independent of the human mind in some sense and it seemed only fair to try and point out why your idea isn't as crazy as some might think it is. Many do say that mathematics is true in some objective Platonic sense. Things like Pythagoras theorem are the same for all. It isn't an opinion. It is as true for me as it is you and as true for the ancient Greeks as it is true for the alien mathematician in a far off galaxy. It is arguably objectively true. So if maths is objectively true and morality can be derived from some sort of mathematics of game theory involving non-zero sum reciprocal altruism (effectively a mathematical basis for why it is self advantageaous to co-operate with, rather than shit, on others) then arguably it can be said that this form of moral reasoning is objectively true in the same sort of Platonic sense that pythagoras theorem is true. Possibly. Maybe. But to re-interpret Platonic mathematical existence to some unfounded ethereal form of existence and start introducing creative, intelligent agents with a sense of right and wrong based on love and compassion rather than mathematical self interest is completely unfounded. To do this is simply a demonstration of the sort of flawed human psychological proclivities to anthropomorphicise everything in exactly the way we have been discusiing here and elsewhere. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Straggles tries again, still fails to understand.
Your position is all over the place. His understanding is faulty, or his ability to actually read my posts has some defect in it.
One minute you are confidently telling people that the Earth is billions of years old ... I've already answered this in Message 265 -- the fact that Straggles doesn't comprehend the difference between what I have consistently claimed and his misrepresentation of it is not my problem. I note in passing that many people have had this problem with Straggles in the past.
... and the next you are demanding complete agnosticism to anything that remains untested (e.g. Last Thursdayism). Which is also another mis-characterization, and is more of Straggles fantasies about my position (some of which, like this, are rather humorous, if they weren't so pervasively wrong and repeated ad nauseum.
Without substantiating empirical objective evidence positions 3, 4 and 5 are valid, while 1, 2, 6 (as Straggles claimed last time he listed) and 7 are invalid. I do not see a category for "complete agnosticism" there. I do see agnosticism mixed with opinion pro or con, that there is a spectrum of agnostic positions, and note that without substantiating empirical objective evidence, all you have is opinion. Opinion is something that Straggles has lots of. The problem is that he confuses his opinions with conclusions based on facts or objective evidence.
question | is there sufficient valid information available to decide | | yes no | | decide based is a on empirical decision valid evidence necessary? (A) / \ yes no ... but ... / | | decide why make a based on decide decision inadequate at this anyway evidence time? based on =guess =wait =opinion (B) (C) (D) If you don't know, then the honest thing is to say that you don't know. If you have an opinion about it, you can make a decision based on your opinion (which is based on your worldview (which is based on your lifetime experiences, education and beliefs)) and so it is necessarily an opinion rather than a logical conclusion. Anyone claiming a 6 position (like Straggles) without substantiating objective empirical evidence is basing their claim on opinion and deluding themselves that it is a rational logical position. The usual claim is that it is "more probable" ... without having a basis for making the assessment of relative probabilities, and usually end up claiming that it is more plausible when confronted with their inability to present evidence to substantiate their position. http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Pseudoskepticism
quote: Isn't that a familiar theme that runs through Straggles arguments?
Why not clear this up once and for all by answering the following two questions honestly and explicitly: 1) Is the Earth billions of years old or only a few days old?2) Is your answer to the above a mere opinion or an evidenced fact? See previous answer on Message 265. Failure (or refusal) to comprehend the answers provided is not my problem.
(e.g. Last Thursdayism). Amusingly, science makes one assumption as the basis for testing concepts against objective empirical evidence -- that the objective empirical evidence represents reality. ie -- science (ALL science) assumes that "Last Thursdayism" is false.
Message 94: If the thing in question is empirically detectable then there is no reason in principle why it's presence cannot be tested for is there? If a thing is detectable, it may not be empirically detectable, and there are reasons that they could not be tested. One of them would be the appearance of inconsistent results. Curiously, one of the predictions I have previously made\noted about supernatural beings etc, is that the results of encounters\experiences could well appear to be inconsistent due to a large variety of possibilities and the problems of (human) comprehending what is happening.
Message 94: If the thing is question is not empirically detectable then any conception of it must be derived from the internal workings of the human mind. How could it possibly be otherwise? Here we have another false dichotomy by Straggles, who seems to dearly love living in a black and white world. The simple answer is that there are many possible sources that (as yet) are not "empirically detectable." One is the well known and documented religious experience. If you met a supernatural being, would that not de facto be classed as a religious experience? Are there documents of religious experiences where people claim to have met supernatural beings? Can you detect when religious experiences occur (ie changes in brain activity)? Can you empirically test religious experiences to see if they actually are experiences of supernatural beings etc? Can religious experiences be broadly or narrowly classed as consistent?
Message 94: RAZD writes: Do you have a means to test for the presence of supernatural essences? If they are empirically detectable - Yes. Otherwise - No. In other words, you can have detectable phenomena that cannot be empirically tested, so we are in the "otherwise" category, and Straggles admits he does not have a test to determine whether supernatural effects are involved. To come back to the topic at hand, this would count as subjective evidence either for god/s or evidence that does not rule out the possibility of god/s existing at this time. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes: To do this is simply a demonstration of the sort of flawed human psychological proclivities to anthropomorphicise everything in exactly the way we have been discusiing here and elsewhere. That's fine, but if there is truth that exists, regardless of whether or not this universe exists, then I still maintain that truth, be it Platonic, mathematical or moral requires some form of intelligence. Do you suggest that truth or knowledge of any kind can exist in a mental vacuum? Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3965 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
1) What subjective evidence in favour of the existence of gods is there? Can someone provide some actual examples of this form of evidence? Hello every one. I hope you have all been doing well. Straggler you didn't post any of Chuck 77's comments so I am assuming you are talking about something like eyewitness testimony here. If so and so says they saw a space ship land in their back yard that's pretty subjective I think. However we can't discount subjective evidence simply because it is subjective. This kind of evidence is used all the time in our legal system. The more extraordinary the testimony is then I would say the more extraordinary the corroborating evidence needs to be. How many other people saw the space ship? How well did all the witnesses hold up under strong interrogation? Did all there testimonies basically agree without seeming too much like collusion? What mental state are the witnesses in? These questions all play a very important part in analyzing subjective evidence. Take for example the story of the resurrection of Jesus. The first question of how many claimed to see it? Over 500 people claimed they saw Jesus alive again for a period of 40 days after the crucifixion. And not just outsiders, but his closest followers- which would make an imposter hypothesis not plausible. The next question, how well did they hold up to strong interrogation? They were exposed to the most extreme form of interrogation possible, and they and their families were threatened to be tortured to death if they didn't recant their claims. They chose death. Since its unlikely you would ever find that many people willing to die for what they knew to be false (martyrs make terrible liars) this would seem to eliminate the possibility of collusion. Finally, since the possibility that maybe 500 people all had a mental hallucination simultaneously, is a bigger miracle than the actual resurrection, It's not likely they were all mental. The only conclusion based on the "subjective evidence" is that the event occurred.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
The first question of how many claimed to see it? Over 500 people claimed they saw Jesus alive again for a period of 40 days after the crucifixion.
Names of these witnesses please. At least can you provide the original source that lists the 500.
They were exposed to the most extreme form of interrogation possible, and they and their families were threatened to be tortured to death if they didn't recant their claims.
Please show your source for this claim. Oh is your source for all of this your bible? Seems a little lacking in sourcing.
They chose death. Since its unlikely you would ever find that many people willing to die for what they knew to be false (martyrs make terrible liars) this would seem to eliminate the possibility of collusion.
Even if what you claim happened, who has said that they knew it was false. Just because a group of people believe something does not make it true. Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Just being real writes: How many other people saw the space ship? How well did all the witnesses hold up under strong interrogation? Did all there testimonies basically agree without seeming too much like collusion? What mental state are the witnesses in? These questions all play a very important part in analyzing subjective evidence. Take for example the story of the resurrection of Jesus... ... The only conclusion based on the "subjective evidence" is that the event occurred. You are correct. And, if this accurately described reality, then your conclusion would be correct. However, your analogy does not accurately describe the situation we're investigating. You seem to have forgotten all the different religions. Even all the different Christian religions. We don't have a bunch of folks who see the same spaceship.We have many folk who claim to see 1 kind of spaceship, and another many folk who claim to see a different spaceship, and another crew who say it wasn't a spaceship at all, but a time machine... for over 100,000 different "things." Plus, we have many folk who claim that no space-ship (or anything else) was ever present in the first place. Taking actual reality into account while looking at the Jesus story:-we have lots of witnesses that say Thor actually exists -we have lots of witnesses that say Allah exists, not Jesus -we have lots of witnesses that say Jesus does not exist, and never did ...and taking reality into account, we see that the only conclusion based on the "subjective evidence" is that we're right back where we began... with no evidence for anything happening at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
However, your analogy does not accurately describe the situation we're investigating. You seem to have forgotten all the different religions. Even all the different Christian religions. We don't have a bunch of folks who see the same spaceship.We have many folk who claim to see 1 kind of spaceship, and another many folk who claim to see a different spaceship, and another crew who say it wasn't a spaceship at all, but a time machine... for over 100,000 different "things." Plus, we have many folk who claim that no space-ship (or anything else) was ever present in the first place. Still though, that doesn't really help us determine who is wrong...
quote: ...and taking reality into account, we see that the only conclusion based on the "subjective evidence" is that we're right back where we began... with no evidence for anything happening at all. So who knows...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Chuck77 writes:
But you chose a different god to all the other religions - despite there being no reason to pick your god over any of the others.
All way don't lead to the truth. One truth, One God. Chuck77 writes:
There is no evidence for a lack of gods, per se. Umm, compared to no god(s)?There is a huge amount of evidence that we make up gods - but that it not exactly the same. I also see no evidence for the existence of gods. So, I think the answer to your question: "Do you think there is more or less evidence for gods?" is: "No, I don't." Chuck77 writes:
I see no reason to value subjective evidence highly - but you claim it is convincing. Subjective evidence, do you feel there is a good amount of subjective evidence for god(s) that you could invest time in that would someday lead you to a realization that a god exists?Do you think that I should believe your subjective evidence over a muslim's subjective evidence? Do you think that I should believe your subjective evidence over a hindu's subjective evidence? Please explain why? Chuck77 writes:
Exactly how do I (or anybody else) investigate this testimony you refer to? Do you even care to? Are you here to shoot down all ideas and evidence or are you willing to investigate claims people have actually made? Peoples testimony is evidence of God even if you don't agree with it. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
RADZ writes:
Note that you are still wrong. Ah, so there are some supernatural concepts that you are agnostic on? That doesn't sound like a 6.9999 (and why not just say 7 at that point - you're just kidding yourself that you fit in the 6 category - rounding error). You are not doing very well - but I see little point in you trying again.Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Panda,
You are not doing very well - but I see little point in you trying again. Well that's okay -- you have nothing to respond to. You just post snipes and quips with no content of value, so there is nothing to "try again" about. http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Pseudoskepticism
quote: Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
RAZD writes:
Note that you continue to be wrong. Well that's okay -- you have nothing to respond to. You just post snipes and quips with no content of value, so there is nothing to "try again" about.Your failure (or refusal) to comprehend my posts is not my problem. RADZ really should pay more attention to the people he debates with, as the falsehood of his misrepresentations are easy to demonstrate. The problem is that he is so pervasive with them, that it's like a Gish gallop to deal with all of them. AND he seems to behave like Hovind, content to believe in his distorted perceptions regardless of evidence contrary to it.Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Over 500 people claimed they saw Jesus alive again for a period of 40 days after the crucifixion. I think if you dig into that a bit, you will find that one (unknown) writer claimed that there were 500 such people. And do you have any source(s) for your claim that "they were exposed to the most extreme form of interrogation possible?" I would be interested to see some reliable documentation on that, too."The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
GDR writes: That's fine, but if there is truth that exists, regardless of whether or not this universe exists, then I still maintain that truth, be it Platonic, mathematical or moral requires some form of intelligence. And intuitively I agree. As did all those ancient invokers of Sun gods and the like. All of those who concluded that some intelligent presence must lay behind the things that they couldn't comprehend. Because I, they and you are all human and all subject to this same intuitive need to explain everything in terms of some sort of vaguely human-like intelligent agent. But where you seem to think that this intuitive thinking is a reasonable basis for drawing the conclusion that some sort of intelligent agent must be present I recognise that this is the same flawed human thinking that has resulted in everything from false gods, to conspiracy theories via imaginary friends and the imbuement of human-mind-like properties to inanimate objects and aspects of nature. So I don't trust this intuitive thinking. Because the evidence suggests it isn't a reliable mathod of drawing conclusions.
GDR writes: Do you suggest that truth or knowledge of any kind can exist in a mental vacuum? I have absolutely no idea what is required for "truth" to exist. This is just a rehashing of "Why is there something rather than nothing?" isn't it? And to that I would say that there are all sorts of philosophically conceivable answers and very possibly some answers that aren't even able to be conceived by humans. But of the vast array of possible answers "God" is just one rather limited and very human one. It is an answer that almost certainly says more about the psychology of man than it does the truth of existence.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024