Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,208 Year: 5,465/9,624 Month: 490/323 Week: 130/204 Day: 4/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   We know there's a God because...
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 21 of 256 (458159)
02-27-2008 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object
02-27-2008 1:43 PM


The observation of design and organized complexity seen in all aspects of nature and organisms logically corresponds to the work of an invisible Designer or Creator.
This would do exactly what Percy was asking for. Now, what evidence do you have for this?
Anything but your own emotional need to see design and complex organization as god?
Anything out there that literally could not have been designed by nature and can only be attributed (considering all other possibilities) to your version of your god?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-27-2008 1:43 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-27-2008 5:25 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 27 of 256 (458211)
02-27-2008 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by iano
02-27-2008 4:55 PM


In terms of knowing he exists in an "as sure as night follows day" kind of way then the answer is yes. He has to provide you with clear evidence of his existance before you can know a) he exists b) get to know something about him.
And what kind of evidence of his existance does he provide?
Note the evidence only need be sufficient to convince you.
I don't want to seem insultive here, iano, but there are a whole lot of people out there with limited critical thinking skills and believe that finding a penny on a sidwalk is enough evidence of god.
Other than the personal emotional comfort of wanting to see something as evidence, and thus declaring it so, is there any other evidence available? Or is it only personal evidence that counts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by iano, posted 02-27-2008 4:55 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by iano, posted 02-29-2008 9:08 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 31 of 256 (458220)
02-27-2008 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Cold Foreign Object
02-27-2008 5:25 PM


Of course you knew this but have no way of refuting so you ask a rhetorical question that presupposes said observation to not be evidence.
I know you are quick to anger and I suppose I should have expected this kind of BS.
The question is what design do you see that could only have been from your god?
Again, the answer is the observation of design and organized complexity seen in nature.
I’ll take that as “None.”
Do you know what an observation is? Evolutionists use observation to say that gradations infer evolution.
Observation is the sensory discernment of physical objective reality. Something of which you seem incapable.
Science uses observation to verify, not prove or infer, the efficacy of an hypothesis and the predictions it makes. When all present observations verify the mechanisms of biological variation as predicted by evolution then we must accept where the evidence points. I realize this is one element those with limited intellectual ability cannot understand.
In reverse: what evidence do you have for the observation of gradations to infer evolution?
If you are asking what observations verify biological variation in nature then, oh, there are so many of them . where to begin?
I don’t want to get too far off-topic but since you asked, take a look at Australopithecine to Homo Sapiens, or Archaeopteryx to Turdus migratorius.
Maybe you would care to explain the existence of Deinococcus radiodurans without some evolutionary mechanism.
How do you like a taste of your own stupid medicine?
I can’t taste it. You seem to have swallowed the whole lot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-27-2008 5:25 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 35 of 256 (458313)
02-28-2008 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by iano
02-28-2008 8:15 AM


Re: Once Upon A Time
If you cannot escape referring to a religous text of some description, then your approach cannot be said to be one that doesn't refer to a religious text - obviously.
But isn't this the intellectual exercise Percy is asking us to take on? In the same way as the ancients did without reference to religious texts (since there were none) yet with the benefits of modern knowledge?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by iano, posted 02-28-2008 8:15 AM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Rahvin, posted 02-28-2008 11:06 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 38 of 256 (458334)
02-28-2008 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Rahvin
02-28-2008 11:06 AM


Re: Once Upon A Time
Rahvin, I agree with everything you said but my read of the OP is that Percy is asking if we wanted to show evidence of god without recourse to spiritual texts what might that evidence entail.
Right now just about all religionists point to their texts as the major body of evidence for their god. Without this, what other evidence might be used?
Teleology might be evidence in that direction but hardly conclusive. A hierarchy structure of biology that is not nested might be another, but, again, not conclusive, and since we already know this does not exist this is a really bad example on my part.
In the old days the villagers could see the face of their god in the billowing clouds erupting from the local volcano without need of some text.
(Then again, consider myth and legend story-telling as “spiritual text”? I can see that.)
These days, however, we know better. That “gap” has closed.
So many of the “gaps” have closed in light of modern knowledge. You are correct. Due to this phenomenon the use of “god of the gaps” is now ludicrous. Trying to hide god in abiogenesis or in a singularity won't work.
So what, if anything, is left for the religionist to point to other than their texts? How might we go about finding evidence of a god in the absence of a 4000 to 1700 year old set of books to keep him in, or in the myths and legends of an ancient oral tradition?
I don’t think anyone can point to any such evidence but I may not be creative enough, thus the OP.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Rahvin, posted 02-28-2008 11:06 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 62 of 256 (458508)
02-29-2008 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by iano
02-29-2008 9:08 AM


The Court of Reality
Question for you: you know what you thought 5 seconds ago. All you have is personal evidence for it. Now, did that thought really occur?
This all depends, of course, on what I was doing the night before.
But I understand your point.
My push back is that whether this occurred or not is wholly within me and cannot be used as evidence for anything outside me. I also submit there is no such thing as personal evidence, only personal perception.
It's down ultimately to whether you trust your own perceptions as reflecting what actually is the case. I trust my perceptions w.r.t. to the world around me being real. I also trust my perceptions w.r.t. to the reality of Gods existance.
Esse est aut percipi aut percipere.
But there is an objective reality. With properly functioning senses we can perceive this objective reality. But “evidence” requires an higher standard. Evidence is not left to one’s perception but can only be regarded when others independently and dispassionately verify this perception.
You trust your perceptions of reality of the world around you because throughout your life others have verified these perceptions. The chair really is there because not only do you see it there but so do others. Photons reflecting off the real physical substance of the chair folds the proteins in the receptors of the eye causing an electro-chemical cascade through the brain. The fact that others with different equipment independently see the same thing verifies its objective reality.
The problem with perceptions of gods is that there is no independent verification. Each person’s perception is emotional and different and there appears to be no external “evidence” to be verified independently.
There may be others who have similar enough (emotional) perceptions of one flavor of god who reinforce each other’s perceptions through the formation of a sect with separate rituals. But a complete lack of evidence leaves only fragmented emotional perceptions (as evidenced by the fragmented nature of religious sects) none of which can be said to conform to objective reality.
I submit you do not perceive the reality of god’s existence. I submit you have an emotional perception of a specific flavor of a personal god unique to you.
Both issues are down to me alone. I cannot appeal to a higher court than that.
To thine own self be true.
But objective reality has its own court. You are not in this world alone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by iano, posted 02-29-2008 9:08 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by iano, posted 02-29-2008 6:11 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 107 of 256 (458682)
03-01-2008 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by iano
02-29-2008 6:11 PM


Re: The Court of Reality
Another personal perception is that there is an objective reality "outside" you. That is to say: your personal and subjective perception is that reality is objective and outside you. Again and as far as you are concerned, your personal perception is sufficient for you to know this is the case.
No, iano, this is not correct. The objective reality outside me is verified with evidence. My perceptions are verified by others, independently and dispassionately, on a daily basis. Because of this I now have some confidence that my perceptions of this reality are, for the most part, accurate. I no longer need independent verification that the light is red and I need to stop or risk death and injury to myself and others. Years of evidence have shown me that when I perceive a red light, objective reality will bite me in the butt if I don’t act accordingly.
The perceptions of most humans immersed in objective reality have become so intricately tied to this reality from the benefit of evidence that when we get up in the middle of the night and stub our toes we are certain it is the objective reality of the dresser, not our subjective perception of it, that caused us to perceive pain.
Perception, unverified, is also notoriously bad. Many of the rules of evidence in our courts are there because of the long history of faulty human perception. Though closer to accurate as we continually verify them, without constant independent verification our perceptions are apt to be bogus.
This...
But objective reality has its own court. You are not in this world alone.
..cannot be demonstrated. At least not without hauling yourself up by the bootstraps.
On the contrary, evidence verifies objective reality. You are not alone in this world. Do you deny the presence of other humans around you? Regardless of my Ex’s viewpoint of me to the contrary, no. Are these others just perceptions? I should hope you would acknowledge that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that other humans are indeed real with corporeal substance.
This court of objective reality also limits ones actions regardless of ones perceptions through the laws of physics as well as the laws of man. There is existence outside our individual perceptions, and we are forced (physically and socially), regardless of our perceptions, to act accordingly.
Again, there is an objective reality outside our perceptions, we perceive this reality with proper functioning senses and we verify this reality with independent evidence.
When your perceptions of this reality differ from the evidence it is not the evidence nor the reality that is faulty.
I must reject the contention that objective reality is only perceived and therefore subjective. I will agree, however, that perception, unverified by reality, may indeed be wrong. Even the confidence level I have in my memory of a thought I had 5 minuets ago is suspect.
Now, if always relying on personal, subjective perceptions and a perception happens to be added which fits neither in "inside" nor "outside" categories then a third category is perceived. The fact we can differentiate between inside and outside lends support to the notion that a third would be perceivable as a third.
Sounds like a new age valley girl with a pyramid power hat and a mood ring.
I do not recognize “categories” of perception.
Could it be that you confuse some subconscious emotional need for this “third”?
There are studies out indicating that such perceptions can be the result of subconscious activity involving the Orientation/Association Area (OAA) of the brain and its effects on the higher processing levels in the frontal lobe.
Decreased blood flow to the OAA can manifest as floating, out of body experiences, religious elation, etc., and a person's emotional state (i.e. deep prayer) can affect the blood flow to the OAA.
An overview paper:
410 error - Gone
Detailed papers:
http://www.andrewnewberg.com/pub.asp
The issue is not whether this can be proven to another. The issue is, failing a way to test what is objectively the case for any class of root perception, do I assume them all to be true and follow where that leads. Or don't I. Do I trust what I perceive or don't I.
Perceptions of external reality are tested against objective reality constantly. Failure to recognize that reality is either a sensory problem or an internal processing problem.
With experience of outside evidence telling us our perception processing unit is functioning within acceptable parameters we can also gain a trust of those perceptions which are based only on internally generated information, but only to a degree.
The Yogi declared he levitated because he perceived it, felt it, even saw it from a distance above himself. The video, however, showed otherwise.
As the studies in the above sites indicate, even with fully functioning sensory and processing capabilities, depending upon the emotional fervor of the time, some of our perceptions of “reality” can be just plain wrong when tested. This seems to be especially so for the more religiously inclined.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by iano, posted 02-29-2008 6:11 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by iano, posted 03-01-2008 10:03 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 163 of 256 (458823)
03-02-2008 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by iano
03-01-2008 9:42 PM


Re: The Court of Reality
The problem is that your perception of an objective reality external-to-you is but subjective personal perception. You could be a brain in a jar afterall
It is not possible to verify reality to be objective without reasoning in a circle.
We can always take philosophies to illogical extremes. If all perception is subjective then there is no reality. If this is your reasoning for the vacuous nature of objective reality then this also means your perceptions of the “third” which you describe as god are equally vacuous. Without objective reality you live in a dream world and your perceptions mean nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by iano, posted 03-01-2008 9:42 PM iano has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024