Discussion:
What Evidence Do You Need To Believe God Exists?
(too old to reply)
Absorbed
2010-09-24 15:21:32 UTC
Permalink
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a philosophy
degree, and he was unsatisfied with any answer I gave to this question:
What evidence do you need to believe that God exists? (I'm discussing
the plebeian concept of God.)

While I'm satisfied with my own answer, I'm interested to know how you
would go about answering this question.

On the night, I replied that I would need evidence from which the
concept of God arose. (It's for this reason that I consider the question
itself irrelevant to whether God exists, since imagining an alternative
universe where God exists has no bearing on the universe we live in.)

My friend was looking for a more specific answer, and asked, for
example, how many healed people by preachers would I need to witness in
order to believe God exists.

To this I said I would have to know that the person was actually healed,
that legit doctors had decided they were hopeless, and it would have to
happen often enough for chance and other factors (the doctors getting it
wrong, or it being a placebo etc.) to be less convincing that the
preacher healed them.

Of course, the preacher's healing doesn't necessarily prove that God
exists, but only that the healing took place. The belief that the
healing took place due to God's involvement requires more evidence than
the healing itself, and I'm not sure what form this evidence would take.

Perhaps if the Bible contained many specific predictions that came true,
and God's influence was more stark (a crashing plane, engines blown,
miraculously slows down and gently lands).

I think my friend's point was something along the lines of it being
possible that God does exist, but that He can only exercise an influence
on the universe that doesn't convince me of his existence. To that I
would say that I can only form my beliefs based on the evidence
available, and that to my knowledge there is no better way.
DanielSan
2010-09-24 15:28:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Absorbed
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a philosophy
What evidence do you need to believe that God exists? (I'm discussing
the plebeian concept of God.)
I think the problem with that question is in the question itself. I
would ask the person to define "God" and distinguish this entity from
just a technologically advanced species.

Healing people like we do today would look godlike to the primitive
cultures of just 5,000 years ago. Seeing into human bodies without
opening them up? Sorcery!

That's kind of the problem, isn't it?

How does one define "God"?
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
-------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
-------------------------------------------
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye
of reason: The Morning Daylight appears
plainer when you put out your Candle."
--Benjamin Franklin, 1758
-------------------------------------------
ScienceWins
2010-09-25 14:59:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by DanielSan
How does one define "God"?
Deity constructs are the consequences of the fear of death. Period.

---
Does belief in astrology cause stupidity? http://www.skeptictank.org/edm.htm
There is no such thing as a "virgin daughter of a Republican."
Christopher A. Lee
2010-09-24 15:45:57 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 16:21:32 +0100, Absorbed
Post by Absorbed
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a philosophy
What evidence do you need to believe that God exists? (I'm discussing
the plebeian concept of God.)
It's a stupid question that shows your friend doesn't know where his
religion stops and the real world starts.

It's not your problem. He knows what he is supposed to have.

Asking the question confirms he has nothing.

For anything to be "evidence for XYZ" it as to lead to the conclusion
of XYZ.

He has to step aside from his presumption of God in the real world
beyond his religion, and reach it as a real world conclusion using
real world evidence, methods etc.

Ask him for a valid, justified definition for it in the real world.
Until he does that is just another member of a class of beliefs that
includes Zeus, Odin and all the others.

He won't be able to give you one - the plebeians say something like
"the creator of everything".

Which only "works" inside their religion.

What "creator of everything" in the real world?

In the real world it is no different than talking about Zeus as if he
were real.

They start by defining it into existence and then trying to
rationalise it.

The only 100% accurate definitions add something like "as believed in
the Christian, Muslim and Jewish religions".

Which limits the scope of the original definition. Outside those
religions it is merely what they believe.
Post by Absorbed
While I'm satisfied with my own answer, I'm interested to know how you
would go about answering this question.
On the night, I replied that I would need evidence from which the
concept of God arose. (It's for this reason that I consider the question
itself irrelevant to whether God exists, since imagining an alternative
universe where God exists has no bearing on the universe we live in.)
My friend was looking for a more specific answer, and asked, for
example, how many healed people by preachers would I need to witness in
order to believe God exists.
He was just being stupid - because that wouldn't be evidence for it.
Post by Absorbed
To this I said I would have to know that the person was actually healed,
that legit doctors had decided they were hopeless, and it would have to
happen often enough for chance and other factors (the doctors getting it
wrong, or it being a placebo etc.) to be less convincing that the
preacher healed them.
And it could be for all sorts of other reasons.
Post by Absorbed
Of course, the preacher's healing doesn't necessarily prove that God
exists, but only that the healing took place. The belief that the
healing took place due to God's involvement requires more evidence than
the healing itself, and I'm not sure what form this evidence would take.
Perhaps if the Bible contained many specific predictions that came true,
and God's influence was more stark (a crashing plane, engines blown,
miraculously slows down and gently lands).
I think my friend's point was something along the lines of it being
possible that God does exist, but that He can only exercise an influence
on the universe that doesn't convince me of his existence. To that I
would say that I can only form my beliefs based on the evidence
available, and that to my knowledge there is no better way.
Absorbed
2010-09-24 16:25:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
For anything to be "evidence for XYZ" it as to lead to the conclusion
of XYZ.
He has to step aside from his presumption of God in the real world
beyond his religion, and reach it as a real world conclusion using
real world evidence, methods etc.
You could reach a perfectly rational conclusion that God exists using
"real world evidence". If you've experienced some sort of divine
revelation, then that can be strong evidence to you that God exists. Of
course, you cannot share that evidence with others, and there are
alternative explanations for such experiences, but it's evidence
nonetheless.

I think William James discusses divine revelation type experiences in
The Varieties Of Religious Experience, and the effect they have on the
those that experience them. In my opinion, if you haven't personally had
such an experience, you don't really have an understanding of how
persuasive such an experience can be. They are life changing.

Many schizophrenics experience these types of experience regularly, and
despite their experience of being grossly deluded by them, still fall
for them again and again.
DanielSan
2010-09-24 16:30:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Absorbed
Post by Christopher A. Lee
For anything to be "evidence for XYZ" it as to lead to the conclusion
of XYZ.
He has to step aside from his presumption of God in the real world
beyond his religion, and reach it as a real world conclusion using
real world evidence, methods etc.
You could reach a perfectly rational conclusion that God exists using
"real world evidence". If you've experienced some sort of divine
revelation, then that can be strong evidence to you that God exists. Of
course, you cannot share that evidence with others, and there are
alternative explanations for such experiences, but it's evidence
nonetheless.
If there are alternative explanations, how is that "evidence"?
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
-------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
-------------------------------------------
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye
of reason: The Morning Daylight appears
plainer when you put out your Candle."
--Benjamin Franklin, 1758
-------------------------------------------
Absorbed
2010-09-24 17:09:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by Christopher A. Lee
For anything to be "evidence for XYZ" it as to lead to the conclusion
of XYZ.
He has to step aside from his presumption of God in the real world
beyond his religion, and reach it as a real world conclusion using
real world evidence, methods etc.
You could reach a perfectly rational conclusion that God exists using
"real world evidence". If you've experienced some sort of divine
revelation, then that can be strong evidence to you that God exists. Of
course, you cannot share that evidence with others, and there are
alternative explanations for such experiences, but it's evidence
nonetheless.
If there are alternative explanations, how is that "evidence"?
The experience itself is evidence, not the explanation of what that
evidence suggests. Since the experience suggests to that person that God
exists, it's evidence of God's existence to them. That doesn't make
their account of that experience evidence of God's existence for you or
me. Evidence is subjective.

I suspect that the reason religious experiences mislead so strongly is
that the experience is deeply entwined with their explanation of it,
with sometimes the explanation influencing the experience as it occurs.
That could mean that their explanation, in a sense, becomes evidence to
them. I imagine it would be tough to dispel such an delusion.
DanielSan
2010-09-24 17:19:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Absorbed
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by Christopher A. Lee
For anything to be "evidence for XYZ" it as to lead to the conclusion
of XYZ.
He has to step aside from his presumption of God in the real world
beyond his religion, and reach it as a real world conclusion using
real world evidence, methods etc.
You could reach a perfectly rational conclusion that God exists using
"real world evidence". If you've experienced some sort of divine
revelation, then that can be strong evidence to you that God exists. Of
course, you cannot share that evidence with others, and there are
alternative explanations for such experiences, but it's evidence
nonetheless.
If there are alternative explanations, how is that "evidence"?
The experience itself is evidence, not the explanation of what that
evidence suggests. Since the experience suggests to that person that God
exists, it's evidence of God's existence to them. That doesn't make
their account of that experience evidence of God's existence for you or
me. Evidence is subjective.
I suspect that the reason religious experiences mislead so strongly is
that the experience is deeply entwined with their explanation of it,
with sometimes the explanation influencing the experience as it occurs.
That could mean that their explanation, in a sense, becomes evidence to
them. I imagine it would be tough to dispel such an delusion.
I think that what they are experiencing is something different from
influence from a tangible entity but is described as such by adherents.

NDEs, for example, lead a lot of people to believe that they're seeing
the "light of heaven", and a feeling of being in a tunnel, but is simply
is the brain malfunctioning from lack of oxygen.
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
-------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
-------------------------------------------
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye
of reason: The Morning Daylight appears
plainer when you put out your Candle."
--Benjamin Franklin, 1758
-------------------------------------------
Christopher A. Lee
2010-09-24 17:26:27 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:19:09 -0700, DanielSan
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by Christopher A. Lee
For anything to be "evidence for XYZ" it as to lead to the conclusion
of XYZ.
He has to step aside from his presumption of God in the real world
beyond his religion, and reach it as a real world conclusion using
real world evidence, methods etc.
You could reach a perfectly rational conclusion that God exists using
"real world evidence". If you've experienced some sort of divine
revelation, then that can be strong evidence to you that God exists. Of
course, you cannot share that evidence with others, and there are
alternative explanations for such experiences, but it's evidence
nonetheless.
If there are alternative explanations, how is that "evidence"?
The experience itself is evidence, not the explanation of what that
evidence suggests. Since the experience suggests to that person that God
exists, it's evidence of God's existence to them. That doesn't make
their account of that experience evidence of God's existence for you or
me. Evidence is subjective.
I suspect that the reason religious experiences mislead so strongly is
that the experience is deeply entwined with their explanation of it,
with sometimes the explanation influencing the experience as it occurs.
That could mean that their explanation, in a sense, becomes evidence to
them. I imagine it would be tough to dispel such an delusion.
I think that what they are experiencing is something different from
influence from a tangible entity but is described as such by adherents.
NDEs, for example, lead a lot of people to believe that they're seeing
the "light of heaven", and a feeling of being in a tunnel, but is simply
is the brain malfunctioning from lack of oxygen.
NDEs in members of other religions get interpreted as what _they_
expect to see as well.

But in any case, NASA research has showed NDEs to be the random
electric impulses in brains deprived of oxygen.
Don Martin
2010-09-24 17:19:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Absorbed
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by Christopher A. Lee
For anything to be "evidence for XYZ" it as to lead to the conclusion
of XYZ.
He has to step aside from his presumption of God in the real world
beyond his religion, and reach it as a real world conclusion using
real world evidence, methods etc.
You could reach a perfectly rational conclusion that God exists using
"real world evidence". If you've experienced some sort of divine
revelation, then that can be strong evidence to you that God exists. Of
course, you cannot share that evidence with others, and there are
alternative explanations for such experiences, but it's evidence
nonetheless.
If there are alternative explanations, how is that "evidence"?
The experience itself is evidence, not the explanation of what that
evidence suggests. Since the experience suggests to that person that God
exists, it's evidence of God's existence to them. That doesn't make
their account of that experience evidence of God's existence for you or
me. Evidence is subjective.
It is not the evidence that is subjective, but the _interpretation_ of
that evidence that is. Evidence just is there or it is not.
Absorbed
2010-09-24 17:29:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Martin
Post by Absorbed
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by Christopher A. Lee
For anything to be "evidence for XYZ" it as to lead to the conclusion
of XYZ.
He has to step aside from his presumption of God in the real world
beyond his religion, and reach it as a real world conclusion using
real world evidence, methods etc.
You could reach a perfectly rational conclusion that God exists using
"real world evidence". If you've experienced some sort of divine
revelation, then that can be strong evidence to you that God exists. Of
course, you cannot share that evidence with others, and there are
alternative explanations for such experiences, but it's evidence
nonetheless.
If there are alternative explanations, how is that "evidence"?
The experience itself is evidence, not the explanation of what that
evidence suggests. Since the experience suggests to that person that God
exists, it's evidence of God's existence to them. That doesn't make
their account of that experience evidence of God's existence for you or
me. Evidence is subjective.
It is not the evidence that is subjective, but the _interpretation_ of
that evidence that is. Evidence just is there or it is not.
I would define evidence as something that suggests something is or isn't
true. Without interpretation, there is no evidence, by my definition.
DanielSan
2010-09-24 17:30:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Absorbed
Post by Don Martin
Post by Absorbed
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by Christopher A. Lee
For anything to be "evidence for XYZ" it as to lead to the conclusion
of XYZ.
He has to step aside from his presumption of God in the real world
beyond his religion, and reach it as a real world conclusion using
real world evidence, methods etc.
You could reach a perfectly rational conclusion that God exists using
"real world evidence". If you've experienced some sort of divine
revelation, then that can be strong evidence to you that God exists. Of
course, you cannot share that evidence with others, and there are
alternative explanations for such experiences, but it's evidence
nonetheless.
If there are alternative explanations, how is that "evidence"?
The experience itself is evidence, not the explanation of what that
evidence suggests. Since the experience suggests to that person that God
exists, it's evidence of God's existence to them. That doesn't make
their account of that experience evidence of God's existence for you or
me. Evidence is subjective.
It is not the evidence that is subjective, but the _interpretation_ of
that evidence that is. Evidence just is there or it is not.
I would define evidence as something that suggests something is or isn't
true. Without interpretation, there is no evidence, by my definition.
So, a tree falling in the forest with no one there to hear it doesn't
make a sound?
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
-------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
-------------------------------------------
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye
of reason: The Morning Daylight appears
plainer when you put out your Candle."
--Benjamin Franklin, 1758
-------------------------------------------
Absorbed
2010-09-24 17:42:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by Don Martin
Post by Absorbed
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by Christopher A. Lee
For anything to be "evidence for XYZ" it as to lead to the conclusion
of XYZ.
He has to step aside from his presumption of God in the real world
beyond his religion, and reach it as a real world conclusion using
real world evidence, methods etc.
You could reach a perfectly rational conclusion that God exists using
"real world evidence". If you've experienced some sort of divine
revelation, then that can be strong evidence to you that God exists. Of
course, you cannot share that evidence with others, and there are
alternative explanations for such experiences, but it's evidence
nonetheless.
If there are alternative explanations, how is that "evidence"?
The experience itself is evidence, not the explanation of what that
evidence suggests. Since the experience suggests to that person that God
exists, it's evidence of God's existence to them. That doesn't make
their account of that experience evidence of God's existence for you or
me. Evidence is subjective.
It is not the evidence that is subjective, but the _interpretation_ of
that evidence that is. Evidence just is there or it is not.
I would define evidence as something that suggests something is or isn't
true. Without interpretation, there is no evidence, by my definition.
So, a tree falling in the forest with no one there to hear it doesn't
make a sound?
Well, I obviously believe in an external universe. But without any
intelligence to interpret the universe, it's just a bunch of stuff that
exists.
DanielSan
2010-09-24 17:44:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Absorbed
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by Don Martin
Post by Absorbed
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by Christopher A. Lee
For anything to be "evidence for XYZ" it as to lead to the conclusion
of XYZ.
He has to step aside from his presumption of God in the real world
beyond his religion, and reach it as a real world conclusion using
real world evidence, methods etc.
You could reach a perfectly rational conclusion that God exists using
"real world evidence". If you've experienced some sort of divine
revelation, then that can be strong evidence to you that God exists. Of
course, you cannot share that evidence with others, and there are
alternative explanations for such experiences, but it's evidence
nonetheless.
If there are alternative explanations, how is that "evidence"?
The experience itself is evidence, not the explanation of what that
evidence suggests. Since the experience suggests to that person that God
exists, it's evidence of God's existence to them. That doesn't make
their account of that experience evidence of God's existence for you or
me. Evidence is subjective.
It is not the evidence that is subjective, but the _interpretation_ of
that evidence that is. Evidence just is there or it is not.
I would define evidence as something that suggests something is or isn't
true. Without interpretation, there is no evidence, by my definition.
So, a tree falling in the forest with no one there to hear it doesn't
make a sound?
Well, I obviously believe in an external universe. But without any
intelligence to interpret the universe, it's just a bunch of stuff that
exists.
But that "bunch of stuff" is evidence whether there is anyone there to
"interpret" it or not.
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
-------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
-------------------------------------------
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye
of reason: The Morning Daylight appears
plainer when you put out your Candle."
--Benjamin Franklin, 1758
-------------------------------------------
Absorbed
2010-09-24 17:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by Don Martin
Post by Absorbed
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by Christopher A. Lee
For anything to be "evidence for XYZ" it as to lead to the conclusion
of XYZ.
He has to step aside from his presumption of God in the real world
beyond his religion, and reach it as a real world conclusion using
real world evidence, methods etc.
You could reach a perfectly rational conclusion that God exists using
"real world evidence". If you've experienced some sort of divine
revelation, then that can be strong evidence to you that God exists. Of
course, you cannot share that evidence with others, and there are
alternative explanations for such experiences, but it's evidence
nonetheless.
If there are alternative explanations, how is that "evidence"?
The experience itself is evidence, not the explanation of what that
evidence suggests. Since the experience suggests to that person that God
exists, it's evidence of God's existence to them. That doesn't make
their account of that experience evidence of God's existence for you or
me. Evidence is subjective.
It is not the evidence that is subjective, but the _interpretation_ of
that evidence that is. Evidence just is there or it is not.
I would define evidence as something that suggests something is or isn't
true. Without interpretation, there is no evidence, by my definition.
So, a tree falling in the forest with no one there to hear it doesn't
make a sound?
Well, I obviously believe in an external universe. But without any
intelligence to interpret the universe, it's just a bunch of stuff that
exists.
But that "bunch of stuff" is evidence whether there is anyone there to
"interpret" it or not.
I think our usage of evidence differs. To you everything is evidence,
while to me it's possible to have something that isn't evidence.
Fred Thomas
2010-09-25 14:30:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by Don Martin
Post by Absorbed
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by Christopher A. Lee
For anything to be "evidence for XYZ" it as to lead to the conclusion
of XYZ.
He has to step aside from his presumption of God in the real world
beyond his religion, and reach it as a real world conclusion using
real world evidence, methods etc.
You could reach a perfectly rational conclusion that God exists using
"real world evidence". If you've experienced some sort of divine
revelation, then that can be strong evidence to you that God exists. Of
course, you cannot share that evidence with others, and there are
alternative explanations for such experiences, but it's evidence
nonetheless.
If there are alternative explanations, how is that "evidence"?
The experience itself is evidence, not the explanation of what that
evidence suggests. Since the experience suggests to that person that God
exists, it's evidence of God's existence to them. That doesn't make
their account of that experience evidence of God's existence for you or
me. Evidence is subjective.
It is not the evidence that is subjective, but the _interpretation_ of
that evidence that is. Evidence just is there or it is not.
I would define evidence as something that suggests something is or isn't
true. Without interpretation, there is no evidence, by my definition.
So, a tree falling in the forest with no one there to hear it doesn't
make a sound?
Well, I obviously believe in an external universe. But without any
intelligence to interpret the universe, it's just a bunch of stuff that
exists.
But that "bunch of stuff" is evidence whether there is anyone there to
"interpret" it or not.
What evidence? The statement "Well, I obviously believe in an external
universe."? That is just a statement of belief. "But without any
intelligence to interpret the universe," is not a statement of evidence.
DanielSan
2010-09-25 14:37:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Thomas
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by Don Martin
Post by Absorbed
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by Christopher A. Lee
For anything to be "evidence for XYZ" it as to lead to the conclusion
of XYZ.
He has to step aside from his presumption of God in the real world
beyond his religion, and reach it as a real world conclusion using
real world evidence, methods etc.
You could reach a perfectly rational conclusion that God exists using
"real world evidence". If you've experienced some sort of divine
revelation, then that can be strong evidence to you that God exists. Of
course, you cannot share that evidence with others, and there are
alternative explanations for such experiences, but it's evidence
nonetheless.
If there are alternative explanations, how is that "evidence"?
The experience itself is evidence, not the explanation of what that
evidence suggests. Since the experience suggests to that person that God
exists, it's evidence of God's existence to them. That doesn't make
their account of that experience evidence of God's existence for you or
me. Evidence is subjective.
It is not the evidence that is subjective, but the
_interpretation_ of
that evidence that is. Evidence just is there or it is not.
I would define evidence as something that suggests something is or isn't
true. Without interpretation, there is no evidence, by my definition.
So, a tree falling in the forest with no one there to hear it doesn't
make a sound?
Well, I obviously believe in an external universe. But without any
intelligence to interpret the universe, it's just a bunch of stuff that
exists.
But that "bunch of stuff" is evidence whether there is anyone there to
"interpret" it or not.
What evidence? The statement "Well, I obviously believe in an external
universe."? That is just a statement of belief. "But without any
intelligence to interpret the universe," is not a statement of evidence.
I think it is because things exist without us needing to interpret it.
I know that there is a cat dish for my cat out in the kitchen and that
my cat is currently sleeping in the living room without me having to go
out there and look.
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
-------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
-------------------------------------------
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye
of reason: The Morning Daylight appears
plainer when you put out your Candle."
--Benjamin Franklin, 1758
-------------------------------------------
Fred Thomas
2010-09-25 15:18:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by DanielSan
Post by Fred Thomas
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by Don Martin
Post by Absorbed
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by Christopher A. Lee
For anything to be "evidence for XYZ" it as to lead to the conclusion
of XYZ.
He has to step aside from his presumption of God in the real world
beyond his religion, and reach it as a real world conclusion using
real world evidence, methods etc.
You could reach a perfectly rational conclusion that God exists using
"real world evidence". If you've experienced some sort of divine
revelation, then that can be strong evidence to you that God exists. Of
course, you cannot share that evidence with others, and there are
alternative explanations for such experiences, but it's evidence
nonetheless.
If there are alternative explanations, how is that "evidence"?
The experience itself is evidence, not the explanation of what that
evidence suggests. Since the experience suggests to that person that God
exists, it's evidence of God's existence to them. That doesn't make
their account of that experience evidence of God's existence for you or
me. Evidence is subjective.
It is not the evidence that is subjective, but the
_interpretation_ of
that evidence that is. Evidence just is there or it is not.
I would define evidence as something that suggests something is or isn't
true. Without interpretation, there is no evidence, by my definition.
So, a tree falling in the forest with no one there to hear it doesn't
make a sound?
Well, I obviously believe in an external universe. But without any
intelligence to interpret the universe, it's just a bunch of stuff that
exists.
But that "bunch of stuff" is evidence whether there is anyone there to
"interpret" it or not.
What evidence? The statement "Well, I obviously believe in an external
universe."? That is just a statement of belief. "But without any
intelligence to interpret the universe," is not a statement of evidence.
I think it is because things exist without us needing to interpret it.
Evidence is something I.E. an argument, some kind physical thing such as a
document that leads to a conclusion. Are there concepts, ideas, things not
thought of that exist? Sure the possibility exists, however to say such a thing
exists with out that support is a mere belief based on preconceived ideas.
Post by DanielSan
I know
that there is a cat dish for my cat out in the kitchen and that my cat is
currently sleeping in the living room without me having to go out there and look.
Of course, you live with the cat, you have observed the behavior. However you do
not know for a fact the cat is sleeping in the living room with out looking. You
at this point are going by past observations that this is what the cat is doing
currently. So you do not know the cat is sleeping in the living room, you
believe the cat is sleeping in the living room.
DanielSan
2010-09-25 15:23:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Thomas
Post by DanielSan
Post by Fred Thomas
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by Don Martin
Post by Absorbed
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by Christopher A. Lee
For anything to be "evidence for XYZ" it as to lead to the conclusion
of XYZ.
He has to step aside from his presumption of God in the real world
beyond his religion, and reach it as a real world conclusion using
real world evidence, methods etc.
You could reach a perfectly rational conclusion that God exists using
"real world evidence". If you've experienced some sort of divine
revelation, then that can be strong evidence to you that God exists. Of
course, you cannot share that evidence with others, and there are
alternative explanations for such experiences, but it's evidence
nonetheless.
If there are alternative explanations, how is that "evidence"?
The experience itself is evidence, not the explanation of what that
evidence suggests. Since the experience suggests to that person
that
God
exists, it's evidence of God's existence to them. That doesn't make
their account of that experience evidence of God's existence for you or
me. Evidence is subjective.
It is not the evidence that is subjective, but the
_interpretation_ of
that evidence that is. Evidence just is there or it is not.
I would define evidence as something that suggests something is or isn't
true. Without interpretation, there is no evidence, by my definition.
So, a tree falling in the forest with no one there to hear it doesn't
make a sound?
Well, I obviously believe in an external universe. But without any
intelligence to interpret the universe, it's just a bunch of stuff that
exists.
But that "bunch of stuff" is evidence whether there is anyone there to
"interpret" it or not.
What evidence? The statement "Well, I obviously believe in an external
universe."? That is just a statement of belief. "But without any
intelligence to interpret the universe," is not a statement of evidence.
I think it is because things exist without us needing to interpret it.
Evidence is something I.E. an argument, some kind physical thing such as
a document that leads to a conclusion. Are there concepts, ideas, things
not thought of that exist? Sure the possibility exists, however to say
such a thing exists with out that support is a mere belief based on
preconceived ideas.
Post by DanielSan
I know
that there is a cat dish for my cat out in the kitchen and that my cat is
currently sleeping in the living room without me having to go out there and look.
Of course, you live with the cat, you have observed the behavior.
However you do not know for a fact the cat is sleeping in the living
room with out looking. You at this point are going by past observations
that this is what the cat is doing currently. So you do not know the cat
is sleeping in the living room, you believe the cat is sleeping in the
living room.
No. I know that he went to sleep a half hour ago. He sleeps between
4-6 hours at a time. Therefore, I know he's asleep.
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
-------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
-------------------------------------------
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye
of reason: The Morning Daylight appears
plainer when you put out your Candle."
--Benjamin Franklin, 1758
-------------------------------------------
DanielSan
2010-09-25 15:25:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Thomas
Post by DanielSan
Post by Fred Thomas
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by Don Martin
Post by Absorbed
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by Christopher A. Lee
For anything to be "evidence for XYZ" it as to lead to the
conclusion
of XYZ.
He has to step aside from his presumption of God in the real world
beyond his religion, and reach it as a real world conclusion using
real world evidence, methods etc.
You could reach a perfectly rational conclusion that God exists using
"real world evidence". If you've experienced some sort of divine
revelation, then that can be strong evidence to you that God
exists. Of
course, you cannot share that evidence with others, and there are
alternative explanations for such experiences, but it's evidence
nonetheless.
If there are alternative explanations, how is that "evidence"?
The experience itself is evidence, not the explanation of what that
evidence suggests. Since the experience suggests to that person
that
God
exists, it's evidence of God's existence to them. That doesn't make
their account of that experience evidence of God's existence for you or
me. Evidence is subjective.
It is not the evidence that is subjective, but the
_interpretation_ of
that evidence that is. Evidence just is there or it is not.
I would define evidence as something that suggests something is or isn't
true. Without interpretation, there is no evidence, by my definition.
So, a tree falling in the forest with no one there to hear it doesn't
make a sound?
Well, I obviously believe in an external universe. But without any
intelligence to interpret the universe, it's just a bunch of stuff that
exists.
But that "bunch of stuff" is evidence whether there is anyone there to
"interpret" it or not.
What evidence? The statement "Well, I obviously believe in an external
universe."? That is just a statement of belief. "But without any
intelligence to interpret the universe," is not a statement of evidence.
I think it is because things exist without us needing to interpret it.
Evidence is something I.E. an argument, some kind physical thing such as
a document that leads to a conclusion. Are there concepts, ideas, things
not thought of that exist? Sure the possibility exists, however to say
such a thing exists with out that support is a mere belief based on
preconceived ideas.
Post by DanielSan
I know
that there is a cat dish for my cat out in the kitchen and that my cat is
currently sleeping in the living room without me having to go out there and look.
Of course, you live with the cat, you have observed the behavior.
However you do not know for a fact the cat is sleeping in the living
room with out looking. You at this point are going by past observations
that this is what the cat is doing currently. So you do not know the cat
is sleeping in the living room, you believe the cat is sleeping in the
living room.
No. I know that he went to sleep a half hour ago. He sleeps between 4-6
hours at a time. Therefore, I know he's asleep.
Correction: I believe he's sleeping and I know he's sleeping. Don't
try to equate belief with faith.
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
-------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
-------------------------------------------
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye
of reason: The Morning Daylight appears
plainer when you put out your Candle."
--Benjamin Franklin, 1758
-------------------------------------------
Fred Thomas
2010-09-25 14:28:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by Don Martin
Post by Absorbed
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by Christopher A. Lee
For anything to be "evidence for XYZ" it as to lead to the conclusion
of XYZ.
He has to step aside from his presumption of God in the real world
beyond his religion, and reach it as a real world conclusion using
real world evidence, methods etc.
You could reach a perfectly rational conclusion that God exists using
"real world evidence". If you've experienced some sort of divine
revelation, then that can be strong evidence to you that God exists. Of
course, you cannot share that evidence with others, and there are
alternative explanations for such experiences, but it's evidence
nonetheless.
If there are alternative explanations, how is that "evidence"?
The experience itself is evidence, not the explanation of what that
evidence suggests. Since the experience suggests to that person that God
exists, it's evidence of God's existence to them. That doesn't make
their account of that experience evidence of God's existence for you or
me. Evidence is subjective.
It is not the evidence that is subjective, but the _interpretation_ of
that evidence that is. Evidence just is there or it is not.
I would define evidence as something that suggests something is or isn't
true. Without interpretation, there is no evidence, by my definition.
So, a tree falling in the forest with no one there to hear it doesn't
make a sound?
Well, I obviously believe in an external universe. But without any intelligence
to interpret the universe, it's just a bunch of stuff that exists.
Would it not be more accurate to say it is a concept, an idea, that may or may
not exist?
Fred Thomas
2010-09-25 14:26:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Absorbed
Post by Don Martin
Post by Absorbed
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by Christopher A. Lee
For anything to be "evidence for XYZ" it as to lead to the conclusion
of XYZ.
He has to step aside from his presumption of God in the real world
beyond his religion, and reach it as a real world conclusion using
real world evidence, methods etc.
You could reach a perfectly rational conclusion that God exists using
"real world evidence". If you've experienced some sort of divine
revelation, then that can be strong evidence to you that God exists. Of
course, you cannot share that evidence with others, and there are
alternative explanations for such experiences, but it's evidence
nonetheless.
If there are alternative explanations, how is that "evidence"?
The experience itself is evidence, not the explanation of what that
evidence suggests. Since the experience suggests to that person that God
exists, it's evidence of God's existence to them. That doesn't make
their account of that experience evidence of God's existence for you or
me. Evidence is subjective.
It is not the evidence that is subjective, but the _interpretation_ of
that evidence that is. Evidence just is there or it is not.
I would define evidence as something that suggests something is or isn't
true. Without interpretation, there is no evidence, by my definition.
So, a tree falling in the forest with no one there to hear it doesn't make a sound?
And that relates to the topic how?
DanielSan
2010-09-25 14:28:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Thomas
Post by Absorbed
Post by Don Martin
Post by Absorbed
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by Christopher A. Lee
For anything to be "evidence for XYZ" it as to lead to the conclusion
of XYZ.
He has to step aside from his presumption of God in the real world
beyond his religion, and reach it as a real world conclusion using
real world evidence, methods etc.
You could reach a perfectly rational conclusion that God exists using
"real world evidence". If you've experienced some sort of divine
revelation, then that can be strong evidence to you that God exists. Of
course, you cannot share that evidence with others, and there are
alternative explanations for such experiences, but it's evidence
nonetheless.
If there are alternative explanations, how is that "evidence"?
The experience itself is evidence, not the explanation of what that
evidence suggests. Since the experience suggests to that person that God
exists, it's evidence of God's existence to them. That doesn't make
their account of that experience evidence of God's existence for you or
me. Evidence is subjective.
It is not the evidence that is subjective, but the _interpretation_ of
that evidence that is. Evidence just is there or it is not.
I would define evidence as something that suggests something is or isn't
true. Without interpretation, there is no evidence, by my definition.
So, a tree falling in the forest with no one there to hear it doesn't make a sound?
And that relates to the topic how?
Because, if there's no one to interpret the waves as sound, is it sound?
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
-------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
-------------------------------------------
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye
of reason: The Morning Daylight appears
plainer when you put out your Candle."
--Benjamin Franklin, 1758
-------------------------------------------
Fred Thomas
2010-09-25 15:26:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by DanielSan
Post by Fred Thomas
Post by Absorbed
Post by Don Martin
Post by Absorbed
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by Christopher A. Lee
For anything to be "evidence for XYZ" it as to lead to the conclusion
of XYZ.
He has to step aside from his presumption of God in the real world
beyond his religion, and reach it as a real world conclusion using
real world evidence, methods etc.
You could reach a perfectly rational conclusion that God exists using
"real world evidence". If you've experienced some sort of divine
revelation, then that can be strong evidence to you that God exists. Of
course, you cannot share that evidence with others, and there are
alternative explanations for such experiences, but it's evidence
nonetheless.
If there are alternative explanations, how is that "evidence"?
The experience itself is evidence, not the explanation of what that
evidence suggests. Since the experience suggests to that person that God
exists, it's evidence of God's existence to them. That doesn't make
their account of that experience evidence of God's existence for you or
me. Evidence is subjective.
It is not the evidence that is subjective, but the _interpretation_ of
that evidence that is. Evidence just is there or it is not.
I would define evidence as something that suggests something is or isn't
true. Without interpretation, there is no evidence, by my definition.
So, a tree falling in the forest with no one there to hear it doesn't make a sound?
And that relates to the topic how?
Because, if there's no one to interpret the waves as sound, is it sound?
Same argument as your "cat sleeping in the living room". What is sound? Sound is
a traveling wave that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid,
liquid, or gas, composed of frequencies within the range of hearing and of a
level sufficiently strong to be heard, or the sensation stimulated in organs of
hearing by such vibrations. A falling tree will certainly produce sounds during
the events of it's falling and then hitting the ground. If somebody is there or
not there to hear the sounds is then moot and irrelevant.
DanielSan
2010-09-25 15:29:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Thomas
Post by DanielSan
Post by Fred Thomas
Post by Absorbed
Post by Don Martin
Post by Absorbed
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by Christopher A. Lee
For anything to be "evidence for XYZ" it as to lead to the conclusion
of XYZ.
He has to step aside from his presumption of God in the real world
beyond his religion, and reach it as a real world conclusion using
real world evidence, methods etc.
You could reach a perfectly rational conclusion that God exists using
"real world evidence". If you've experienced some sort of divine
revelation, then that can be strong evidence to you that God exists. Of
course, you cannot share that evidence with others, and there are
alternative explanations for such experiences, but it's evidence
nonetheless.
If there are alternative explanations, how is that "evidence"?
The experience itself is evidence, not the explanation of what that
evidence suggests. Since the experience suggests to that person that God
exists, it's evidence of God's existence to them. That doesn't make
their account of that experience evidence of God's existence for you or
me. Evidence is subjective.
It is not the evidence that is subjective, but the
_interpretation_ of
that evidence that is. Evidence just is there or it is not.
I would define evidence as something that suggests something is or isn't
true. Without interpretation, there is no evidence, by my definition.
So, a tree falling in the forest with no one there to hear it doesn't make a sound?
And that relates to the topic how?
Because, if there's no one to interpret the waves as sound, is it sound?
Same argument as your "cat sleeping in the living room". What is sound?
Sound is a traveling wave that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted
through a solid, liquid, or gas, composed of frequencies within the
range of hearing and of a level sufficiently strong to be heard, or the
sensation stimulated in organs of hearing by such vibrations. A falling
tree will certainly produce sounds during the events of it's falling and
then hitting the ground. If somebody is there or not there to hear the
sounds is then moot and irrelevant.
Correct. That's what I was saying.
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
-------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
-------------------------------------------
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye
of reason: The Morning Daylight appears
plainer when you put out your Candle."
--Benjamin Franklin, 1758
-------------------------------------------
Fred Thomas
2010-09-25 14:25:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Martin
Post by Absorbed
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by Christopher A. Lee
For anything to be "evidence for XYZ" it as to lead to the conclusion
of XYZ.
He has to step aside from his presumption of God in the real world
beyond his religion, and reach it as a real world conclusion using
real world evidence, methods etc.
You could reach a perfectly rational conclusion that God exists using
"real world evidence". If you've experienced some sort of divine
revelation, then that can be strong evidence to you that God exists. Of
course, you cannot share that evidence with others, and there are
alternative explanations for such experiences, but it's evidence
nonetheless.
If there are alternative explanations, how is that "evidence"?
The experience itself is evidence, not the explanation of what that
evidence suggests. Since the experience suggests to that person that God
exists, it's evidence of God's existence to them. That doesn't make
their account of that experience evidence of God's existence for you or
me. Evidence is subjective.
It is not the evidence that is subjective, but the _interpretation_ of
that evidence that is. Evidence just is there or it is not.
I would define evidence as something that suggests something is or isn't true.
Without interpretation, there is no evidence, by my definition.
Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or
demonstrate the truth of an assertion.
Christopher A. Lee
2010-09-24 17:18:28 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 09:30:07 -0700, DanielSan
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by Christopher A. Lee
For anything to be "evidence for XYZ" it as to lead to the conclusion
of XYZ.
He has to step aside from his presumption of God in the real world
beyond his religion, and reach it as a real world conclusion using
real world evidence, methods etc.
You could reach a perfectly rational conclusion that God exists using
"real world evidence". If you've experienced some sort of divine
revelation, then that can be strong evidence to you that God exists. Of
course, you cannot share that evidence with others, and there are
alternative explanations for such experiences, but it's evidence
nonetheless.
If there are alternative explanations, how is that "evidence"?
It isn't.

It's picking and choosing and making an arbitrary decision where there
is no reason to do so.

Everything is evidence for something, but for it to be evidence for a
particular conclusion, it has to lead to it.

And just saying something is evidence for God doesn't make it so
unless they can demonstrate it as a conclusion.

Which they can't do because it's a pre-existing belief.
Fred Thomas
2010-09-25 14:44:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by Christopher A. Lee
For anything to be "evidence for XYZ" it as to lead to the conclusion
of XYZ.
He has to step aside from his presumption of God in the real world
beyond his religion, and reach it as a real world conclusion using
real world evidence, methods etc.
You could reach a perfectly rational conclusion that God exists using
"real world evidence". If you've experienced some sort of divine
revelation, then that can be strong evidence to you that God exists. Of
course, you cannot share that evidence with others, and there are
alternative explanations for such experiences, but it's evidence
nonetheless.
If there are alternative explanations, how is that "evidence"?
Evidence is something that shows a assertion is true or not.
DanielSan
2010-09-25 14:48:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Thomas
Post by DanielSan
Post by Absorbed
Post by Christopher A. Lee
For anything to be "evidence for XYZ" it as to lead to the conclusion
of XYZ.
He has to step aside from his presumption of God in the real world
beyond his religion, and reach it as a real world conclusion using
real world evidence, methods etc.
You could reach a perfectly rational conclusion that God exists using
"real world evidence". If you've experienced some sort of divine
revelation, then that can be strong evidence to you that God exists. Of
course, you cannot share that evidence with others, and there are
alternative explanations for such experiences, but it's evidence
nonetheless.
If there are alternative explanations, how is that "evidence"?
Evidence is something that shows a assertion is true or not.
But if there are alternative explanations, how is that evidence?
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
-------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
-------------------------------------------
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye
of reason: The Morning Daylight appears
plainer when you put out your Candle."
--Benjamin Franklin, 1758
-------------------------------------------
Christopher A. Lee
2010-09-24 17:15:58 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:25:23 +0100, Absorbed
Post by Absorbed
Post by Christopher A. Lee
For anything to be "evidence for XYZ" it as to lead to the conclusion
of XYZ.
He has to step aside from his presumption of God in the real world
beyond his religion, and reach it as a real world conclusion using
real world evidence, methods etc.
You could reach a perfectly rational conclusion that God exists using
"real world evidence".
So provide some.
Post by Absorbed
If you've experienced some sort of divine
revelation, then that can be strong evidence to you that God exists. Of
course, you cannot share that evidence with others, and there are
alternative explanations for such experiences, but it's evidence
nonetheless.
No.

It requires that you already believe.

You rationalise things that happen in terms your your unjustified
presumptions about it.

How the heck is that meant to be evidence?

Especially for somebody else who has said they don't believe?
Post by Absorbed
I think William James discusses divine revelation type experiences in
The Varieties Of Religious Experience, and the effect they have on the
those that experience them. In my opinion, if you haven't personally had
such an experience, you don't really have an understanding of how
persuasive such an experience can be. They are life changing.
They are subjective, and hardly evidence.

"Just the facts, Ma'am"
Post by Absorbed
Many schizophrenics experience these types of experience regularly, and
despite their experience of being grossly deluded by them, still fall
for them again and again.
They don't understand the difference between rationalisation of their
pre-existing belief, and evidence for its hypothetical object.
Absorbed
2010-09-24 17:33:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:25:23 +0100, Absorbed
Post by Absorbed
Post by Christopher A. Lee
For anything to be "evidence for XYZ" it as to lead to the conclusion
of XYZ.
He has to step aside from his presumption of God in the real world
beyond his religion, and reach it as a real world conclusion using
real world evidence, methods etc.
You could reach a perfectly rational conclusion that God exists using
"real world evidence".
So provide some.
I already imagined up some hypothetical evidence for God's existence. It
may not be evidence that convinces you or me, but the same thing can
suggest different things to different people.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Absorbed
If you've experienced some sort of divine
revelation, then that can be strong evidence to you that God exists. Of
course, you cannot share that evidence with others, and there are
alternative explanations for such experiences, but it's evidence
nonetheless.
No.
It requires that you already believe.
You rationalise things that happen in terms your your unjustified
presumptions about it.
How the heck is that meant to be evidence?
Especially for somebody else who has said they don't believe?
I wish I were a theist with you, because despite being wrong, I'd still
make you look like an idiot. Any theist with a little debating skill
could easily make you look like an idiot.
Christopher A. Lee
2010-09-24 19:33:15 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 18:33:50 +0100, Absorbed
Post by Absorbed
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:25:23 +0100, Absorbed
Post by Absorbed
Post by Christopher A. Lee
For anything to be "evidence for XYZ" it as to lead to the conclusion
of XYZ.
He has to step aside from his presumption of God in the real world
beyond his religion, and reach it as a real world conclusion using
real world evidence, methods etc.
You could reach a perfectly rational conclusion that God exists using
"real world evidence".
So provide some.
I already imagined up some hypothetical evidence for God's existence. It
may not be evidence that convinces you or me, but the same thing can
suggest different things to different people.
Why don't you learn what the word "evidence" means, and what makes it
"Evidence for a particular conclusion"?

You have a funny "understanding" of the word "vidence.
Post by Absorbed
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Absorbed
If you've experienced some sort of divine
revelation, then that can be strong evidence to you that God exists. Of
course, you cannot share that evidence with others, and there are
alternative explanations for such experiences, but it's evidence
nonetheless.
No.
It requires that you already believe.
You rationalise things that happen in terms your your unjustified
presumptions about it.
How the heck is that meant to be evidence?
Especially for somebody else who has said they don't believe?
I wish I were a theist with you, because despite being wrong, I'd still
make you look like an idiot. Any theist with a little debating skill
could easily make you look like an idiot.
Translation: you can't address what people have taken the teouble to
explain and tacitly admit you were trolling.
Larry
2010-09-25 02:15:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
They don't understand the difference between rationalisation of their
pre-existing belief, and evidence for its hypothetical object.
Someone says Joe Doe is dead.....no evidence, conjecture.

Joe Doe laying on a slab, dead......EVIDENCE
Tom
2010-09-25 13:19:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry
Post by Christopher A. Lee
They don't understand the difference between rationalisation of their
pre-existing belief, and evidence for its hypothetical object.
Someone says Joe Doe is dead.....no evidence, conjecture.
Joe Doe laying on a slab, dead......EVIDENCE
So evidence must convince you or it's not evidence?
Fred Thomas
2010-09-25 14:00:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Larry
Post by Christopher A. Lee
They don't understand the difference between rationalisation of their
pre-existing belief, and evidence for its hypothetical object.
Someone says Joe Doe is dead.....no evidence, conjecture.
Joe Doe laying on a slab, dead......EVIDENCE
So evidence must convince you or it's not evidence?
Evidence can prove or disprove, be weak or strong, it is the "argument" for a "I
agree" or "I disagree". If the evidence is not strong and compelling the
"argument" fails, who ever you are trying to convince is not convinced.
Tom
2010-09-25 14:42:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Thomas
Post by Tom
Post by Larry
Post by Christopher A. Lee
They don't understand the difference between rationalisation of their
pre-existing belief, and evidence for its hypothetical object.
Someone says Joe Doe is dead.....no evidence, conjecture.
Joe Doe laying on a slab, dead......EVIDENCE
So evidence must convince you or it's not evidence?
Evidence can prove or disprove, be weak or strong, it is the "argument" for a "I
agree" or "I disagree". If the evidence is not strong and compelling the
"argument" fails, who ever you are trying to convince is not convinced.
So why would the testimony of a witness (what someone says) not be
evidence? Is testimony always nothing but conjecture?
DanielSan
2010-09-25 14:45:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Fred Thomas
Post by Tom
Post by Larry
Post by Christopher A. Lee
They don't understand the difference between rationalisation of their
pre-existing belief, and evidence for its hypothetical object.
Someone says Joe Doe is dead.....no evidence, conjecture.
Joe Doe laying on a slab, dead......EVIDENCE
So evidence must convince you or it's not evidence?
Evidence can prove or disprove, be weak or strong, it is the "argument" for a "I
agree" or "I disagree". If the evidence is not strong and compelling the
"argument" fails, who ever you are trying to convince is not convinced.
So why would the testimony of a witness (what someone says) not be
evidence? Is testimony always nothing but conjecture?
Without other corroborating evidence, witness testimony isn't worth much.
--
DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226
-------------------------------------------
EAC Warden - Occam Asylum
-------------------------------------------
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye
of reason: The Morning Daylight appears
plainer when you put out your Candle."
--Benjamin Franklin, 1758
-------------------------------------------
Mike Jones
2010-09-24 19:35:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Absorbed
Post by Christopher A. Lee
For anything to be "evidence for XYZ" it as to lead to the conclusion
of XYZ.
He has to step aside from his presumption of God in the real world
beyond his religion, and reach it as a real world conclusion using real
world evidence, methods etc.
You could reach a perfectly rational conclusion that God exists using
"real world evidence". If you've experienced some sort of divine
revelation,
=[FAIL]

U-R-B-sussed, xtian troll.
--
*=( http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
*=( For all your UK news needs.
Fred Thomas
2010-09-25 14:41:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
For anything to be "evidence for XYZ" it as to lead to the conclusion
of XYZ.
He has to step aside from his presumption of God in the real world
beyond his religion, and reach it as a real world conclusion using
real world evidence, methods etc.
You could reach a perfectly rational conclusion that God exists using "real
world evidence".
Real world evidence such as?
If you've experienced some sort of divine revelation, then that
can be strong evidence to you that God exists.
Subjective reasoning. By the statement it is clear there is a belief in
something, and because you do not have or accept other explanations it is
automatically assumed to be caused by that belief. That is a jump to a
conclusion with out evidence.
Of course, you cannot share that
evidence with others, and there are alternative explanations for such
experiences, but it's evidence nonetheless.
I think William James discusses divine revelation type experiences in The
Varieties Of Religious Experience, and the effect they have on the those that
experience them. In my opinion, if you haven't personally had such an
experience, you don't really have an understanding of how persuasive such an
experience can be. They are life changing.
Many schizophrenics experience these types of experience regularly, and despite
their experience of being grossly deluded by them, still fall for them again and
again.
Tom
2010-09-24 16:23:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Absorbed
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a philosophy
What evidence do you need to believe that God exists? (I'm discussing
the plebeian concept of God.)
While I'm satisfied with my own answer, I'm interested to know how you
would go about answering this question.
Consider the existence of "east". You can point eastwardly and apply
the label to anything in that direction, but any point you label
"east" might also be labelled "west" from some other point of view.
"East" is an abstract concept. Does "east" exist? As a concept of
direction, yes. As a specific location, no. If someone says that
this spot isn't east because it's west of him, he's right. But it
would be absurd of him to claim that east does not exist simply
because there isn't any specific location which must always be east of
him.

What we call "God", the Prime Mover, the ineffable and transcendent
source and destination of everything, is also a conceptual
abstraction. We are trying to label a thing which cannot be contained
by any label. So we assign a label that has no operational definition
at all, just a sense of direction: "God". Towards good. Away from
evil. Towards being. Away from oblivion. Towards truth. Away from
falsehood. Just as you can be sure "east" exists even though there
may not be any specific place in which one may find "self-evident
eastness", you also can be sure God exists even though there may be no
specific place in which you can find "self-evident godness".

This kind of belief in God is not falsifiable, since the idea of God
is not tied to any given physical thing No physical evidence compels
a belief in God just as no physical evidence compels a disbelief in
God.

This, of course, is a deist view of God, not a theist's view. A
theist claims not only that God exists but that God cares about what
you do and has specific instructions for you. The theist claims to
know what those instructions are and will tell you all about them if
you ask, or perhaps even if you don't. In terms of our analogy, the
theist claims to know which direction is east and that people who say
some other direction is east are incorrect. How does the theist
support that claim? Does physical evidence apply now?
Witziges Rätsel
2010-09-24 16:45:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Absorbed
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a philosophy
What evidence do you need to believe that God exists? (I'm discussing
the plebeian concept of God.)
While I'm satisfied with my own answer, I'm interested to know how you
would go about answering this question.
What we call "God", the Prime Mover, the ineffable and
transcendent source and destination of everything, is also
a conceptual abstraction.
We don't call anything "god"; we're atheists.
Tom
2010-09-24 17:21:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Absorbed
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a philosophy
What evidence do you need to believe that God exists? (I'm discussing
the plebeian concept of God.)
While I'm satisfied with my own answer, I'm interested to know how you
would go about answering this question.
What we call "God", the Prime Mover, the ineffable and
transcendent source and destination of everything, is also
a conceptual abstraction.
    We don't call anything "god"; we're atheists.
It doesn't matter what label you put upon it. It's a conceptual
abstraction. The label is merely a convenience of language; it has no
operational definition as a physical thing but simply denotes a
direction. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of an
abstraction. You have the term in your vocabulary, so it's conceptual
existence is self-evident. The concept of God exists in your mind
just as the concept of east does and applies to reality in precisely
the same way. What you're saying is exactly what I was talking
about. You can point to no specific thing and say "that is God and
nothing else but God" any more than you can point at any particular
location and say "that is east and nothing but east". When you do so,
the deist says, "Of course you're right. That thing is not God.
Things have a beginning and an end. Things can be owned, controlled,
hoarded, and manipulated. God is not clearly a thing. You can't do
any of that with God."

As I said, the real issue is not about the existence or non-existence
of a deist abstraction. The real issue is about the theist's claim
that God has instructions for you, that he knows what those
instructions are, and that anybody who says differently is wrong. You
demand evidence for those claims, as well you should, instead of
wasting your time boxing with conceptual shadows. You're a-theists,
not a-deists.
Christopher A. Lee
2010-09-24 17:38:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Tom
Post by Absorbed
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a philosophy
What evidence do you need to believe that God exists? (I'm discussing
the plebeian concept of God.)
While I'm satisfied with my own answer, I'm interested to know how you
would go about answering this question.
What we call "God", the Prime Mover, the ineffable and
transcendent source and destination of everything, is also
a conceptual abstraction.
    We don't call anything "god"; we're atheists.
It doesn't matter what label you put upon it. It's a conceptual
abstraction. The label is merely a convenience of language; it has no
operational definition as a physical thing but simply denotes a
direction. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of an
abstraction. You have the term in your vocabulary, so it's conceptual
existence is self-evident. The concept of God exists in your mind
just as the concept of east does and applies to reality in precisely
the same way. What you're saying is exactly what I was talking
about. You can point to no specific thing and say "that is God and
nothing else but God" any more than you can point at any particular
location and say "that is east and nothing but east". When you do so,
the deist says, "Of course you're right. That thing is not God.
Things have a beginning and an end. Things can be owned, controlled,
hoarded, and manipulated. God is not clearly a thing. You can't do
any of that with God."
As I said, the real issue is not about the existence or non-existence
of a deist abstraction. The real issue is about the theist's claim
that God has instructions for you, that he knows what those
instructions are, and that anybody who says differently is wrong. You
demand evidence for those claims, as well you should, instead of
wasting your time boxing with conceptual shadows. You're a-theists,
not a-deists.
In order to "prove" it, a deist abstraction is one of the steps - they
have to show this is real before demonstrating that this is actually
their god.

But those who make the claims, discuss "proof" etc have no
understanding how the real world works, including things like logic -
they don't seem to grasp that insisting on an attribute that reduces
to zero, reduces the whole thing to zero - whatever the whole thing is
meant to be, it doesn't matter whether it is a god or a pizza.

But that is irrelevant. Chris Hitchens has a way of getting succinctly
to the point: "That which is asserted without evidence can be
dismissed without evidence".

Even though there is considerable evidence against, like the inability
of theists to back up their claims. Each and every time they talk
about "the evidence" but fail to provide it with copouts, red
herrings, ad hominems etc is a data point against.

So far there are bazillions against and none for.

The conclusion is obvious.

And falsifiable.

All they need to do is provide this alleged evidence.

But they have no idea what it is, let alone what the word "evidence"
means or that it has to lead to the conclusion.
Tom
2010-09-24 18:47:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Tom
As I said, the real issue is not about the existence or non-existence
of a deist abstraction.  The real issue is about the theist's claim
that God has instructions for you, that he knows what those
instructions are, and that anybody who says differently is wrong. You
demand evidence for those claims, as well you should, instead of
wasting your time boxing with conceptual shadows. You're a-theists,
not a-deists.
In order to "prove" it, a deist abstraction is one of the steps - they
have to show this is real before demonstrating that this is actually
their god.
The jump from God as an elegant abstraction, the deist approach, to
God as a sentient entity actively involved in our lives and having a
set of expectations for our behavior, the theist approach, is a big
one. The existence of a concept has been used as an argument that
there must be something physical which matches that concept. I can
think of no sound reason why that should be so.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But that is irrelevant. Chris Hitchens has a way of getting succinctly
to the point: "That which is asserted without evidence can be
dismissed without evidence".
Christopher. He's touchy about that.

I agree with him. The converse is also true, that which can be
dismissed without evidence can be asserted without evidence. We don't
need evidence to assert the existence of a concept. It is self-
evident. However, this does not mean that the concept has any
particular physical manifestation or agenda.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Even though there is considerable evidence against, like the inability
of theists to back up their claims. Each and every time they talk
about "the evidence" but fail to provide it with copouts, red
herrings, ad hominems etc is a data point against.
To many theists, evidence is something that confirms belief. Such
theists can find no evidence that disconfirms their belief in whatever
they presume to be God. If it's disconfirmatory, it's simply not
evidence.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
So far there are bazillions against and none for.
Now, don't you go doing the same thing, by discounting evidence that
doesn't agree with your beliefs (or lack of them). If someone says he
saw God, that's evidence for the existence of the God he says he saw.
It's not particularly good evidence, but evidence doesn't need to be
good to be evidence. You would be right in saying that the evidence
in favor of a God who regularly meddles in human affairs and rewards
and punishes us for what often appear to be arbitrary rules is much
flimsier and less reliable that evidence for the non-existence of this
partisan God, but not that it doesn't exist.
Christopher A. Lee
2010-09-24 20:02:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Tom
As I said, the real issue is not about the existence or non-existence
of a deist abstraction.  The real issue is about the theist's claim
that God has instructions for you, that he knows what those
instructions are, and that anybody who says differently is wrong. You
demand evidence for those claims, as well you should, instead of
wasting your time boxing with conceptual shadows. You're a-theists,
not a-deists.
In order to "prove" it, a deist abstraction is one of the steps - they
have to show this is real before demonstrating that this is actually
their god.
The jump from God as an elegant abstraction, the deist approach, to
God as a sentient entity actively involved in our lives and having a
set of expectations for our behavior, the theist approach, is a big
one. The existence of a concept has been used as an argument that
there must be something physical which matches that concept. I can
think of no sound reason why that should be so.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But that is irrelevant. Chris Hitchens has a way of getting succinctly
to the point: "That which is asserted without evidence can be
dismissed without evidence".
Christopher. He's touchy about that.
True - that was an artifact of my spelling checker.
Post by Tom
I agree with him. The converse is also true, that which can be
dismissed without evidence can be asserted without evidence. We don't
need evidence to assert the existence of a concept. It is self-
evident. However, this does not mean that the concept has any
particular physical manifestation or agenda.
There's no symmetry.

The real world methodology is that baseless claims are considered
false until demonstrated to be true.

"There's no God" is simply the falsifiable default pending evidence
that there actually is one, because until then there might as well not
be one.

It is not the counter claim theists imagine.

Apart from being the falsifiable default, it is also the obvious
conclusion based on the fact that each and every demand theists prove
it, has been met with all sorts of fallacies and cop outs. Each one of
which is a data point against. So far the have been bazillions against
and none for. Let alone that most variants claimed by theists disprove
themselves when you apply simple logic to them.

But the biggest problem is that theists don't seem to understand the
world beyond their religion, where there are thousands of equivalent
god beliefs that are all of them only special to their believers.

Which leads to another falsifiable default: that theirs is no
different, in the real world beyond their religion. Which stands until
they demonstrate that is actually is.
Post by Tom
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Even though there is considerable evidence against, like the inability
of theists to back up their claims. Each and every time they talk
about "the evidence" but fail to provide it with copouts, red
herrings, ad hominems etc is a data point against.
To many theists, evidence is something that confirms belief. Such
theists can find no evidence that disconfirms their belief in whatever
they presume to be God. If it's disconfirmatory, it's simply not
evidence.
The OP's question was what would convince somebody who doesn't already
believe.

The theists you describe have invented their own meaning for
"evidence", to go alongside all the other words they have redefined to
fit their beliefs - and don't seem to understand that the rest of the
world still uses the original one.

Or that the burden of proof is entirely theirs: nobody would demand
proof if they didn't beg the question by presuming it outside their
religion.
Post by Tom
Post by Christopher A. Lee
So far there are bazillions against and none for.
Now, don't you go doing the same thing, by discounting evidence that
doesn't agree with your beliefs (or lack of them).
You know perfectly well I'm not doing that. Stop pretending.

I'm simply being objective in the real world beyond the virtual
reality of their religion where their particular god is one of
hundreds of similar beliefs, and not substantively different from all
the others.
Post by Tom
If someone says he
saw God, that's evidence for the existence of the God he says he saw.
No it's not. It begs the same question that prompts the original
demands for proof.

And assumes we know what he means by the word "God".

Which in spite of what too many (mostly) theists imagine, doesn't mean
the same thing outside their religion as inside it.

He hasn't even tried to define of describe what he thinks it is he
saw, let alone in a way that makes sense outside one particular family
of religions.

It's a rationalisation in terms of what he already believes.

Again, you forget that the original poster's question was about what
would convince somebody who doesn't already believe.
Post by Tom
It's not particularly good evidence, but evidence doesn't need to be
good to be evidence. You would be right in saying that the evidence
in favor of a God who regularly meddles in human affairs and rewards
and punishes us for what often appear to be arbitrary rules is much
flimsier and less reliable that evidence for the non-existence of this
partisan God, but not that it doesn't exist.
It's not even evidence.
Bassos
2010-09-24 17:48:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
As I said, the real issue is not about the existence or non-existence
of a deist abstraction. The real issue is about the theist's claim
that God has instructions for you, that he knows what those
instructions are, and that anybody who says differently is wrong.
Well, as someone who does hear the song of the universe, i am offended
by your callous use of what you present as being possible to actually
interpret.

Then again;
I am Bassos.
Fred Thomas
2010-09-25 14:55:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Witziges Rätsel
Post by Tom
Post by Absorbed
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a philosophy
What evidence do you need to believe that God exists? (I'm discussing
the plebeian concept of God.)
While I'm satisfied with my own answer, I'm interested to know how you
would go about answering this question.
What we call "God", the Prime Mover, the ineffable and
transcendent source and destination of everything, is also
a conceptual abstraction.
We don't call anything "god"; we're atheists.
It doesn't matter what label you put upon it. It's a conceptual
abstraction. The label is merely a convenience of language; it has no
operational definition as a physical thing but simply denotes a
direction. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of an
abstraction.
However, it's human nature to want an ending of some type to a story. By not
having any evidence for something, the logical conclusion is that, at this point
in time it appears that something does not exist.
Post by Tom
You have the term in your vocabulary, so it's conceptual
existence is self-evident. The concept of God exists in your mind
just as the concept of east does and applies to reality in precisely
the same way. What you're saying is exactly what I was talking
about. You can point to no specific thing and say "that is God and
nothing else but God" any more than you can point at any particular
location and say "that is east and nothing but east". When you do so,
the deist says, "Of course you're right. That thing is not God.
Things have a beginning and an end. Things can be owned, controlled,
hoarded, and manipulated. God is not clearly a thing. You can't do
any of that with God."
As I said, the real issue is not about the existence or non-existence
of a deist abstraction. The real issue is about the theist's claim
that God has instructions for you, that he knows what those
instructions are, and that anybody who says differently is wrong.
Which makes the concept something beyond a concept. This concept has somehow
interacted. Something that can be tested by empirical methods.
Post by Tom
You
demand evidence for those claims, as well you should, instead of
wasting your time boxing with conceptual shadows. You're a-theists,
not a-deists.
Absorbed
2010-09-24 17:24:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Witziges Rätsel
Post by Tom
Post by Absorbed
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a philosophy
What evidence do you need to believe that God exists? (I'm discussing
the plebeian concept of God.)
While I'm satisfied with my own answer, I'm interested to know how you
would go about answering this question.
What we call "God", the Prime Mover, the ineffable and
transcendent source and destination of everything, is also
a conceptual abstraction.
We don't call anything "god"; we're atheists.
Atheists are opposed to theists, and therefore don't believe in God. If
you don't call God anything, how do you know that you don't believe in
God? You must have a idea of what "God" relates to, if you don't believe
that it exists. Otherwise that makes atheists people who aren't sure
what they don't believe in.
655321
2010-09-24 17:27:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Absorbed
Post by Tom
Post by Absorbed
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a philosophy
What evidence do you need to believe that God exists? (I'm discussing
the plebeian concept of God.)
While I'm satisfied with my own answer, I'm interested to know how you
would go about answering this question.
What we call "God", the Prime Mover, the ineffable and
transcendent source and destination of everything, is also
a conceptual abstraction.
     We don't call anything "god"; we're atheists.
Atheists are opposed to theists, and therefore don't believe in God. If
you don't call God anything, how do you know that you don't believe in
God? You must have a idea of what "God" relates to, if you don't believe
that it exists. Otherwise that makes atheists people who aren't sure
what they don't believe in.
Silly wordplay that is either meant to confuse or from a confused
person.

655321
Absorbed
2010-09-24 18:04:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by 655321
Post by Absorbed
Post by Witziges Rätsel
Post by Tom
Post by Absorbed
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a philosophy
What evidence do you need to believe that God exists? (I'm discussing
the plebeian concept of God.)
While I'm satisfied with my own answer, I'm interested to know how you
would go about answering this question.
What we call "God", the Prime Mover, the ineffable and
transcendent source and destination of everything, is also
a conceptual abstraction.
We don't call anything "god"; we're atheists.
Atheists are opposed to theists, and therefore don't believe in God. If
you don't call God anything, how do you know that you don't believe in
God? You must have a idea of what "God" relates to, if you don't believe
that it exists. Otherwise that makes atheists people who aren't sure
what they don't believe in.
Silly wordplay that is either meant to confuse or from a confused
person.
I know what I'd call a unicorn, even though they don't exist.
655321
2010-09-24 18:25:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Absorbed
Post by 655321
Post by Absorbed
Post by Tom
Post by Absorbed
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a philosophy
What evidence do you need to believe that God exists? (I'm discussing
the plebeian concept of God.)
While I'm satisfied with my own answer, I'm interested to know how you
would go about answering this question.
What we call "God", the Prime Mover, the ineffable and
transcendent source and destination of everything, is also
a conceptual abstraction.
      We don't call anything "god"; we're atheists.
Atheists are opposed to theists, and therefore don't believe in God. If
you don't call God anything, how do you know that you don't believe in
God? You must have a idea of what "God" relates to, if you don't believe
that it exists. Otherwise that makes atheists people who aren't sure
what they don't believe in.
Silly wordplay that is either meant to confuse or from a confused
person.
I know what I'd call a unicorn, even though they don't exist.
The word "unicorn" has a specific etymology and is narrowly defined by
the mythology. By comparison the word "god" is like a greased, under-
filled water balloon.

655321
Thommadura
2010-09-24 18:25:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Absorbed
Post by 655321
Post by Absorbed
Post by Witziges Rätsel
Post by Tom
Post by Absorbed
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a philosophy
What evidence do you need to believe that God exists? (I'm discussing
the plebeian concept of God.)
While I'm satisfied with my own answer, I'm interested to know how you
would go about answering this question.
What we call "God", the Prime Mover, the ineffable and
transcendent source and destination of everything, is also
a conceptual abstraction.
We don't call anything "god"; we're atheists.
Atheists are opposed to theists, and therefore don't believe in God. If
you don't call God anything, how do you know that you don't believe in
God? You must have a idea of what "God" relates to, if you don't believe
that it exists. Otherwise that makes atheists people who aren't sure
what they don't believe in.
Silly wordplay that is either meant to confuse or from a confused
person.
I know what I'd call a unicorn, even though they don't exist.
THe problem here is that - with the Hundreds of Thousands of different
religions - the term "god" as used by religion alone is not consistent
over all of those possibilities.

There is no such thing as the "plebian" concept of a god. One needs to
look at the way a particular religion defines its gods. FOr example -
not all gods of religion are immortal.

WHat makes this easier - is the poster used the christian concept of a
god - and that is easy to describe - it is an impossibility as defined
by christianity = period.
655321
2010-09-24 18:54:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thommadura
Post by Absorbed
Post by 655321
Post by Absorbed
Post by Witziges Rätsel
Post by Tom
Post by Absorbed
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a philosophy
What evidence do you need to believe that God exists? (I'm discussing
the plebeian concept of God.)
While I'm satisfied with my own answer, I'm interested to know how you
would go about answering this question.
What we call "God", the Prime Mover, the ineffable and
transcendent source and destination of everything, is also
a conceptual abstraction.
We don't call anything "god"; we're atheists.
Atheists are opposed to theists, and therefore don't believe in God. If
you don't call God anything, how do you know that you don't believe in
God? You must have a idea of what "God" relates to, if you don't believe
that it exists. Otherwise that makes atheists people who aren't sure
what they don't believe in.
Silly wordplay that is either meant to confuse or from a confused
person.
I know what I'd call a unicorn, even though they don't exist.
THe problem here is that - with the Hundreds of Thousands of different
religions - the term "god" as used by religion alone is not consistent
over all of those possibilities.
There is no such thing as the "plebian" concept of a god. One needs to
look at the way a particular religion defines its gods. FOr example -
not all gods of religion are immortal.
WHat makes this easier - is the poster used the christian concept of a
god  - and that is easy to describe - it is an impossibility as defined
by christianity = period.
I think that's what I said. ;-)

655321
Absorbed
2010-09-24 20:57:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thommadura
Post by Absorbed
Post by 655321
Post by Absorbed
Post by Witziges Rätsel
Post by Tom
Post by Absorbed
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a philosophy
What evidence do you need to believe that God exists? (I'm discussing
the plebeian concept of God.)
While I'm satisfied with my own answer, I'm interested to know how you
would go about answering this question.
What we call "God", the Prime Mover, the ineffable and
transcendent source and destination of everything, is also
a conceptual abstraction.
We don't call anything "god"; we're atheists.
Atheists are opposed to theists, and therefore don't believe in God. If
you don't call God anything, how do you know that you don't believe in
God? You must have a idea of what "God" relates to, if you don't believe
that it exists. Otherwise that makes atheists people who aren't sure
what they don't believe in.
Silly wordplay that is either meant to confuse or from a confused
person.
I know what I'd call a unicorn, even though they don't exist.
THe problem here is that - with the Hundreds of Thousands of different
religions - the term "god" as used by religion alone is not consistent
over all of those possibilities.
The point remains that what it is to "not be a theist" has no meaning
unless "being a theist" itself has some meaning. God may mean many
things to many people, but to say that you don't believe in God only has
some meaning if you have some concept of what a God is, regardless of
how vague it is and whether those versions of God exist or not.
Post by Thommadura
There is no such thing as the "plebian" concept of a god. One needs to
look at the way a particular religion defines its gods. FOr example -
not all gods of religion are immortal.
In this interview between Richard Dawkins and Archbishop Rowan Williams,
Dawkins himself states that he has been criticised for not doing
"sufficient justice to real theologians and attribute a naive
Christianity [that's my plebeian concept of God] to people who don't
deserve that" and then accepts that he does do that:

Christopher A. Lee
2010-09-24 23:27:15 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 21:57:30 +0100, Absorbed
Post by Absorbed
Post by Thommadura
Post by Absorbed
Post by 655321
Post by Absorbed
Post by Witziges Rätsel
Post by Tom
Post by Absorbed
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a philosophy
What evidence do you need to believe that God exists? (I'm discussing
the plebeian concept of God.)
While I'm satisfied with my own answer, I'm interested to know how you
would go about answering this question.
What we call "God", the Prime Mover, the ineffable and
transcendent source and destination of everything, is also
a conceptual abstraction.
We don't call anything "god"; we're atheists.
Atheists are opposed to theists, and therefore don't believe in God. If
you don't call God anything, how do you know that you don't believe in
God? You must have a idea of what "God" relates to, if you don't believe
that it exists. Otherwise that makes atheists people who aren't sure
what they don't believe in.
Silly wordplay that is either meant to confuse or from a confused
person.
I know what I'd call a unicorn, even though they don't exist.
THe problem here is that - with the Hundreds of Thousands of different
religions - the term "god" as used by religion alone is not consistent
over all of those possibilities.
The point remains that what it is to "not be a theist" has no meaning
unless "being a theist" itself has some meaning. God may mean many
things to many people, but to say that you don't believe in God only has
some meaning if you have some concept of what a God is, regardless of
how vague it is and whether those versions of God exist or not.
That's the theists' problem. Not ours.

We're not theists.

We are absent the property of theism.

Which by the rules of language and grammar means prefixing the absent
property with "a-".

Therefore we are atheist.

Live with it.

You don't get to ask "innocent" questions and dismiss honestly given
answers, let alone amateur-psychologies lies about why they were
given.

You have to accept them even if you don't like them.
Fred Thomas
2010-09-25 15:04:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Absorbed
Post by 655321
Post by Absorbed
Post by Witziges Rätsel
Post by Tom
Post by Absorbed
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a philosophy
What evidence do you need to believe that God exists? (I'm discussing
the plebeian concept of God.)
While I'm satisfied with my own answer, I'm interested to know how you
would go about answering this question.
What we call "God", the Prime Mover, the ineffable and
transcendent source and destination of everything, is also
a conceptual abstraction.
We don't call anything "god"; we're atheists.
Atheists are opposed to theists, and therefore don't believe in God. If
you don't call God anything, how do you know that you don't believe in
God? You must have a idea of what "God" relates to, if you don't believe
that it exists. Otherwise that makes atheists people who aren't sure
what they don't believe in.
Silly wordplay that is either meant to confuse or from a confused
person.
I know what I'd call a unicorn, even though they don't exist.
Unicorns in antiquity were simply single horned animals, such as the single
horned Rhinoceros. They do exist.
Witziges Rätsel
2010-09-24 18:16:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Absorbed
Post by Witziges Rätsel
Post by Tom
What we call "God", the Prime Mover, the ineffable and
transcendent source and destination of everything, is also
a conceptual abstraction.
We don't call anything "god"; we're atheists.
Atheists are opposed to theists, and therefore don't believe in God. If
you don't call God anything, how do you know that you don't believe in
God? You must have a idea of what "God" relates to, if you don't believe
that it exists. Otherwise that makes atheists people who aren't sure what
they don't believe in.
The poster wrote, "What we call 'God', the Prime Mover..." and I
was correcting him. "We" atheists don't call gods prime movers or
anything else. Pay attention.
Tom
2010-09-24 19:08:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Absorbed
Post by Tom
What we call "God", the Prime Mover, the ineffable and
transcendent source and destination of everything, is also
a conceptual abstraction.
     We don't call anything "god"; we're atheists.
Atheists are opposed to theists, and therefore don't believe in God. If
you don't call God anything, how do you know that you don't believe in
God? You must have a idea of what "God" relates to, if you don't believe
that it exists. Otherwise that makes atheists people who aren't sure what
they don't believe in.
    The poster wrote, "What we call 'God', the Prime Mover..." and I
was correcting him. "We" atheists don't call gods prime movers or
anything else. Pay attention.
First you said that we atheists don't call anything god. Now you say
that you said that we atheists don't call god anything. These two
statements are constructed similarly but they have very different
meanings to me and both are in some way incorrect. You do indeed have
an idea called "God" in your mind or you wouldn't know what I'm
talking about. So you do call something "God" even if you don't
accept that this something actually exists. You are addressing the
concept of God as "God", as I am. And you do indeed call god
something. You call god a myth, an imaginary being, and so on. I
know that I'm quibbling, but I think you are too, so in my book we're
even.

The conventional western view of the entity called "God" is as the
creator of the universe. I am not asserting that I believe this to be
the case, but that this is a conventional idea of God in our society
and the conception which I was addressing in that post.
Christopher A. Lee
2010-09-24 20:05:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Absorbed
Post by Tom
What we call "God", the Prime Mover, the ineffable and
transcendent source and destination of everything, is also
a conceptual abstraction.
     We don't call anything "god"; we're atheists.
Atheists are opposed to theists, and therefore don't believe in God. If
you don't call God anything, how do you know that you don't believe in
God? You must have a idea of what "God" relates to, if you don't believe
that it exists. Otherwise that makes atheists people who aren't sure what
they don't believe in.
    The poster wrote, "What we call 'God', the Prime Mover..." and I
was correcting him. "We" atheists don't call gods prime movers or
anything else. Pay attention.
First you said that we atheists don't call anything god. Now you say
that you said that we atheists don't call god anything. These two
statements are constructed similarly but they have very different
meanings to me and both are in some way incorrect. You do indeed have
an idea called "God" in your mind or you wouldn't know what I'm
talking about. So you do call something "God" even if you don't
accept that this something actually exists. You are addressing the
concept of God as "God", as I am. And you do indeed call god
something. You call god a myth, an imaginary being, and so on. I
know that I'm quibbling, but I think you are too, so in my book we're
even.
The conventional western view of the entity called "God" is as the
creator of the universe. I am not asserting that I believe this to be
the case, but that this is a conventional idea of God in our society
and the conception which I was addressing in that post.
Only among theists.

In case you hadn't noticed, the question was asked in an atheist
newsgroup to people many of whom have never been Christian.
Christopher A. Lee
2010-09-24 19:36:35 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 14:16:41 -0400, "Witziges Rätsel"
Post by Witziges Rätsel
Post by Absorbed
Post by Witziges Rätsel
Post by Tom
What we call "God", the Prime Mover, the ineffable and
transcendent source and destination of everything, is also
a conceptual abstraction.
We don't call anything "god"; we're atheists.
Atheists are opposed to theists, and therefore don't believe in God. If
you don't call God anything, how do you know that you don't believe in
God? You must have a idea of what "God" relates to, if you don't believe
that it exists. Otherwise that makes atheists people who aren't sure what
they don't believe in.
The poster wrote, "What we call 'God', the Prime Mover..." and I
was correcting him. "We" atheists don't call gods prime movers or
anything else. Pay attention.
It's trolling.
walksalone
2010-09-24 18:56:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Absorbed
Post by Witziges Rätsel
Post by Tom
Post by Absorbed
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a
philosophy degree, and he was unsatisfied with any answer I gave to
this question: What evidence do you need to believe that God
exists? (I'm discussing the plebeian concept of God.)
While I'm satisfied with my own answer, I'm interested to know how
you would go about answering this question.
What we call "God", the Prime Mover, the ineffable and
transcendent source and destination of everything, is also
a conceptual abstraction.
We don't call anything "god"; we're atheists.
Atheists are opposed to theists, and therefore don't believe in God.
I did not know that, nor do I believe you. I don't believe in any god
because they all suffer from the same fatal disease, lacka. First and
foremost, the lack of need.
Post by Absorbed
If you don't call God anything, how do you know that you don't believe
It's very easy, I watch people like you in posture and pose, make your
pretentious claims, and strut off stage expecting thunderous applause and
a standing ovation. And yet, when I examine your claims, I still find no
evidence any god or reason to believe you.
Post by Absorbed
in God? You must have a idea of what "God" relates to, if you don't
believe that it exists. Otherwise that makes atheists people who
aren't sure what they don't believe in.
Really, I am quite certain about what I don't believe in, I don't believe
those like you have the answers to the questions they pretend to ask.
Now, are the things I don't believe in? I'm certain there are but until
somebody is foolish enough to insist I consider their fantasy as reality,
there's a reason to waste the skull sweat.
And yet, with the provision of evidence, I would have a choice but to
change my mind about that particular topic. Be it a god, or leprechauns.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to permit my AVR system to train me
in its proper usage.


walksalone who sees no reason to continue feeding the droll, after all, I
don't need to waste my remaining time on people, who by their actions,
make the word trivial seem important.


It has always seemed absurd to suppose that a god would choose for his
companions, during all eternity, the dear souls whose highest and only
ambition is to obey. -Robert Green Ingersoll, lawyer and orator (1833-
1899)
Christopher A. Lee
2010-09-24 19:30:08 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 18:24:32 +0100, Absorbed
Post by Absorbed
Post by Witziges Rätsel
Post by Tom
Post by Absorbed
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a philosophy
What evidence do you need to believe that God exists? (I'm discussing
the plebeian concept of God.)
While I'm satisfied with my own answer, I'm interested to know how you
would go about answering this question.
What we call "God", the Prime Mover, the ineffable and
transcendent source and destination of everything, is also
a conceptual abstraction.
We don't call anything "god"; we're atheists.
Atheists are opposed to theists,
No, moron - we're simply not theists.

Why not just leave it at that?
Post by Absorbed
and therefore don't believe in God. If
you don't call God anything, how do you know that you don't believe in
God? You must have a idea of what "God" relates to, if you don't believe
that it exists. Otherwise that makes atheists people who aren't sure
what they don't believe in.
Don't be so stupid.
Tom
2010-09-24 21:10:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 18:24:32 +0100, Absorbed
Post by Absorbed
Atheists are opposed to theists,
No, moron - we're simply not theists.
Why not just leave it at that?
Because that woud be too vague. Amnong the sets of beliefs that are
not theists are atheists, agnostics, and deists. An atheist has a
very specific belief in opposition to that of theists, whereas
agnostics and deists do not contradict theism but also do not endorse
it. Atheists, at least strong atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins, do
indeed contradict theist assertions.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Don't be so stupid.
Many people say this whenever someone argues with them.
Christopher A. Lee
2010-09-24 22:08:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 18:24:32 +0100, Absorbed
Post by Absorbed
Atheists are opposed to theists,
No, moron - we're simply not theists.
Why not just leave it at that?
Because that woud be too vague. Amnong the sets of beliefs that are
not theists are atheists, agnostics, and deists. An atheist has a
very specific belief in opposition to that of theists, whereas
agnostics and deists do not contradict theism but also do not endorse
it. Atheists, at least strong atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins, do
indeed contradict theist assertions.
Why would it be too vague?

We're simply people outside any of the theist paradigms and cannot be
described according to inside-the-paradigm presumptions which simply
don't apply.

Dawkins and Hitchens are only "strong atheists" in the imagination of
theists who can't think outside their box and don't understand the
natural human reaction to their attacks on science, scientists and
atheists - all of which is outside the box.

Strong atheism isn't about the strength of some kind of non-existent
atheist faith, but about the strength of their argument.

Which whether it is strong or weak, is simply how they respond to
theists who can't live and let live.
Post by Tom
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Don't be so stupid.
Many people say this whenever someone argues with them.
And many people say stupid things because they can't address points.

Like the idiot who said "If you don't call God anything, how do you
know that you don't believe in God? You must have a idea of what "God"
relates to, if you don't believe that it exists. Otherwise that makes
atheists people who aren't sure what they don't believe in"...

...after it had been explained that all an atheist is, is somebody who
isn't theist.

It is a simple demographic label that acknowledges people called
theists exists and we are not part of that group.

I really don't understand why so many non-atheists arrogantly and
rudely imagine they get to tell us we're not.
Absorbed
2010-09-24 23:19:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Tom
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Don't be so stupid.
Many people say this whenever someone argues with them.
And many people say stupid things because they can't address points.
And many people argue against the grossly deluded to feel better about
themselves. Such people don't like any suggestion that they're not the
intelligent person they imagine themselves to be, that something they
believe may not be 100% correct.

But I'd just forget all about that. Tell yourself how stupid those
grossly deluded people are, how they avoid your points, laugh at them.

"If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not
understand, things are just as they are."
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Like the idiot who said "If you don't call God anything, how do you
know that you don't believe in God? You must have a idea of what "God"
relates to, if you don't believe that it exists. Otherwise that makes
atheists people who aren't sure what they don't believe in"...
...after it had been explained that all an atheist is, is somebody who
isn't theist.
It is a simple demographic label that acknowledges people called
theists exists and we are not part of that group.
It's not just a label; the label says something about that group of
people. Like that they believe in some sort of God. In order to not be
in that group, you must not believe in any sort of God.

My argument was against the person who said "We don't call anything
"god"; we're atheists." My point was that you have to call something
God, because otherwise how do you know that you don't believe in God?

It's a simple, albeit nit-picking, point. I don't think there is
anything arrogant or rude about it.
Christopher A. Lee
2010-09-24 23:22:17 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 00:19:13 +0100, Absorbed
Post by Absorbed
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Tom
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Don't be so stupid.
Many people say this whenever someone argues with them.
And many people say stupid things because they can't address points.
And many people argue against the grossly deluded to feel better about
themselves. Such people don't like any suggestion that they're not the
intelligent person they imagine themselves to be, that something they
believe may not be 100% correct.
Why didn't you listen to the answers to your original question, troll?

Instead of dismissing them and lying about people here "losing debates
with theists" because you couldn't address what was explained?
Thommadura
2010-09-24 23:45:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Absorbed
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Tom
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Don't be so stupid.
Many people say this whenever someone argues with them.
And many people say stupid things because they can't address points.
And many people argue against the grossly deluded to feel better about
themselves. Such people don't like any suggestion that they're not the
intelligent person they imagine themselves to be, that something they
believe may not be 100% correct.
But I'd just forget all about that. Tell yourself how stupid those
grossly deluded people are, how they avoid your points, laugh at them.
"If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not
understand, things are just as they are."
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Like the idiot who said "If you don't call God anything, how do you
know that you don't believe in God? You must have a idea of what "God"
relates to, if you don't believe that it exists. Otherwise that makes
atheists people who aren't sure what they don't believe in"...
...after it had been explained that all an atheist is, is somebody who
isn't theist.
It is a simple demographic label that acknowledges people called
theists exists and we are not part of that group.
It's not just a label; the label says something about that group of
people. Like that they believe in some sort of God. In order to not be
in that group, you must not believe in any sort of God.
My argument was against the person who said "We don't call anything
"god"; we're atheists." My point was that you have to call something
God, because otherwise how do you know that you don't believe in God?
AS noted - the correct and supportable definition of a "god" is a
fictional character created by ancient leaders to SCARE their masses of
uneducated people into absolute compliance through fear. AS I note -
History has LOTS of examples that can be shown of this.

Since a god is a fictional character - and we ALL know that fictional
characters DO NOT ACTUALLY exist. So - to an atheist - there are no
gods - period.

An agnostic is NOT someone who is NOT SURE - that is nonsense from a
theist. HE is someone who based his opinion on what can be established
to be true or NOT TRUE. SO in fact - NEITHER side can do so - there is
actually NO true information about a god. AN agnostic only accepts what
is PROVEN to be true about supernatural gods and religions - and he
rejects a religion when it can be proven that a tenet of that religion
is NOT TRUE.

IF you have another definition of a god - that is YOUR problem WE do not
have to address YOUR thoughts - unless of course - you have PROOF our
definition is NOT TRUE - and YOU do not.

AS an agnostic - I CAN reject virtually ALL ancient religions because
they all have FACTUAL errors in them. THERE is no story of creation of
ancient religions - including christianity, judaism, and islam - that
does not have MAJOR errors in it. WE can reject THOSE religions as being
false when those religions claim their stories are the inerrant word of
their perfect god.

I can reject many other religions because they define there gods in a
manner that cannot be true. IT is NOT possible - for example - for a
being to be ALMIGHTY without limits - and those religions that make
that claim can be rejected for that reason. (Same three plus others)

IF an educated person of today simply looked into the religion in an
objective manner - they would discover that religions have holes so big
in them that you could drive an 18 Wheeler through the holes. When
people REFUSE to do so - ignore the obvious - and continue to make
claims for which they cannot provide any basis - they are simply proving
that there is a sucker born every minute!
Tom
2010-09-25 14:16:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thommadura
AS noted - the correct and supportable definition of a "god" is a
fictional character created by ancient leaders to SCARE their masses of
uneducated people into absolute compliance through fear. AS I note -
History has LOTS of examples that can be shown of this.
Hitchens argues that religion was not just scare tactics but
humanity's first attempt at explaining to universe. "Religion is our
first attempt at the truth. It's what we tried when we didn't know
anything. It's also our first attempt at philosophy, our first
attempt at morality, our first attempt at health care, actually. But
because it is our first, it is our worst."

There is a lot to criticize in the history of religious thought and
practice since the dawn of civilization. Pretty much everybody cocks
up their first attempt at anything. Still, it wasn't all just an evil
intent to manipulate people by fear, as you assert. It was an attempt
to make sense of a confusing and frightening world. Nobody knew why
people got sick and died, why the weather changed, what those balls of
light in the sky were, and so on. Religion was our first fumbling
step toward figuring out what's going on.

You're screaming at a toddler that he's a stupid, evil, lying moron
for drawing a picture that lacks photorealism.
Post by Thommadura
Since a god is a fictional character - and we ALL know that fictional
characters DO NOT ACTUALLY exist.
Now wait a minute. I've read any number of novels in which the
characters are taken from actual living people. The events of their
life story may not have happened as depicted in the novel, but just
because they appear in a fiction does not mean they cannot also be
real. I'm not saying God is real, but I am saying that just because
what is written about a person is a fiction, that doesn't necessarily
mean the person depicted does not exist and never did.
Post by Thommadura
An agnostic is NOT someone who is NOT SURE - that is nonsense from a
theist. HE is someone who based his opinion on what can be established
to be true or NOT TRUE. SO in fact - NEITHER side can do so - there is
actually NO true information about a god. AN agnostic only accepts what
is PROVEN to be true about supernatural gods and religions - and he
rejects a religion when it can be proven that a tenet of that religion
is NOT TRUE.
I think your categories are a little broad and too clearly delineated
to accurately represent to totality of human thought and feeling about
the existence of God. Richard Dawkins offers a continuum of attitudes
about the existence of God and points out seven significant milestones
along it.

http://youtu.be/Y_jD-ki6b_Q
Post by Thommadura
IF you have another definition of a god - that is YOUR problem WE do not
have to address YOUR thoughts - unless of course - you have PROOF our
definition is NOT TRUE - and YOU do not.
Of course you do. If you claim there that no God exists, you have to
address each and every version of God as they arise. The most you can
honestly say is that no one has ever offered you a definition of God
in which you could believe.
Post by Thommadura
AS an agnostic - I CAN reject virtually ALL ancient religions because
they all have FACTUAL errors in them.
There are also factual errors in scientific lore. Does that mean you
reject science?
Post by Thommadura
THERE is no story of creation of
ancient religions - including christianity, judaism, and islam - that
does not have MAJOR errors in it. WE can reject THOSE religions as being
false when those religions claim their stories are the inerrant word of
their perfect god.
We may reject them as being literally untrue, but how about
figuratively? Augustine of Hippo, one of the most ardent of theists,
argued that it is a gross error to interpret biblical stories
literally. So while he would agree with you that the stories are not
literally true, they contain within them a set of principles that are
true. What is your argument against the figurative truth of religious
myths?
Post by Thommadura
I can reject many other religions because they define there gods in a
manner that cannot be true. IT is NOT possible - for example - for a
being to be ALMIGHTY without limits  - and those religions that make
that claim can be rejected for that reason. (Same three plus others)
Why is it not possible for a god to be unlimited?
Post by Thommadura
IF an educated person of today simply looked into the religion in an
objective manner - they would discover that  religions have holes so big
in them that you could drive an 18 Wheeler through the holes. When
people REFUSE to do so - ignore the obvious - and continue to make
claims for which they cannot provide any basis - they are simply proving
that there is a sucker born every minute!
Once more, your criticism applies to science as well as religion.
There are all sorts of gaps and holes in scientific theories, all
sorts of controversies over what the results of this or that
experiment actually mean or even if the experiment was conducted
honestly or not, and so forth. There is no perfect, monolithic
edifice of True Knowledge that has no holes in it at all. So, do you
reject science too? The total skeptic doesn't believe that knowledge
of any kind is possible. Nothing can be proved. Every proposition is
in question, even the evidence of one's senses or the results of one's
attempts at logic. Do you subscribe to that philosophy?
Tom
2010-09-25 03:57:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
No, moron - we're simply not theists.
Why not just leave it at that?
Because that woud be too vague.  Among the sets of beliefs that are
not theists are atheists, agnostics, and deists.  An atheist has a
very specific belief in opposition to that of theists, whereas
agnostics and deists do not contradict theism but also do not endorse
it.  Atheists, at least strong atheists like Hitchens and Dawkins, do
indeed contradict theist assertions.
Why would it be too vague?
Because you cannot define something as what it is not. You define
something by what it is.

If I ask you what a snake is, do you inform me better by describing
the attributes of a snake or by telling me that it's not an elephant?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
We're simply people outside any of the theist paradigms and cannot be
described according to inside-the-paradigm presumptions which simply
don't apply.
There are a lot of people outside the "theist paradigm" who are not
atheists. You do not define who you are by refusing to distinguish
between the various distinct non-theistic views.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Dawkins and Hitchens are only "strong atheists" in the imagination of
theists who can't think outside their box and don't understand the
natural human reaction to their attacks on science, scientists and
atheists - all of which is outside the box.
Apparently Dawkins doesn't entirely agree with you. He puts strong
atheism on a the endpoint of a spectrum of beliefs about god and
considers himself very close to it.


Post by Christopher A. Lee
Strong atheism isn't about the strength of some kind of non-existent
atheist faith, but about the strength of their argument.
Dawkins definitely disagrees with that.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Don't be so stupid.
Many people say this whenever someone argues with them.
And many people say stupid things because they can't address points.
Yes, they do.
ThomM
2010-09-24 22:15:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 18:24:32 +0100, Absorbed
Post by Absorbed
Atheists are opposed to theists,
No, moron - we're simply not theists.
Why not just leave it at that?
Because that woud be too vague.  Amnong the sets of beliefs that are
not theists are atheists, agnostics, and deists.  An atheist has a
very specific belief in opposition to that of theists,
Sorry - but YOU are simply Wrong TOM


YOU are trying to classify atheism and agnosticism as a belief systems
- when they are actually NOT belief systems at all.

As an atheist or an agnostic - the HISTORICALLY TRUE definition of a
"god" is a FICTIONAL character(or a number of them) made up by elite
humans as a way of controlling the masses of uneducated humans in
doing the will of the "leaders" through threat and intimidation. (Hell
- sin - etc) and explaining things that those leaders had no true and
supportable explanation of. History is filled with examples of this -
enough to support this as being true.


Atheism is actually the opposite of a belief system - it is the
rejection of gods period. That is not a belief. YOU would not call
rejection of Leprechauns as a belief system - and neither is atheism.

In the Same vein - while theists like to classify agnostics as those
who are not sure - that is also not the case. Agnostics say that there
is NO knowledge EITHER way about the existence of gods and that it is
essentially UNKNOWABLE. - so there is no established TRUTH in any
claims about gods from EITHER side. Agnostics accept (Not believe)
only proven truth on the subject - and reject anything that cannot be
proven.
Tom
2010-09-25 02:39:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by ThomM
Because that woud be too vague.  Amnong the sets of beliefs that are
not theists are atheists, agnostics, and deists.  An atheist has a
very specific belief in opposition to that of theists,
Sorry - but YOU are simply Wrong TOM
YOU are trying to classify atheism and agnosticism as a belief systems
- when they are  actually NOT  belief systems at all.
I agree in part. Atheism and agnosticism are not, in and of
themselves, an entire belief system but they can be components of a
larger belief system which might be more accurately described as
humanist or materialist belief systems. I might also say the same of
theism. Almost no one describes their religion as "theism". Theism
is just one component of a larger belief system. Yet, you seem to
have no argument with me describing theism as a belief system,
although the same objection could be made.
Post by ThomM
As an  atheist or an agnostic - the HISTORICALLY TRUE definition of a
"god" is a FICTIONAL character(or a number of them) made up by elite
humans as a way of controlling the masses of uneducated humans in
doing the will of the "leaders" through threat and intimidation. (Hell
- sin - etc) and explaining things that those leaders had no true and
supportable explanation of.  History is filled with examples of this -
enough to support this as being true.
The "true definition" of the word "god" is not the one found in
dictionaries? Aside from the fact that it agrees with what you
believe, exactly what makes you assert it as the one true way to
define the term?
Post by ThomM
Atheism is actually the opposite of a belief system
That would be skepticism, actually. Atheism is, to give you some
credit, not in and of itself, a belief system nor its opposite. It's
a component of humanism or materialism, and even some kinds of
Buddhism.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/buddhism_atheism.html
Post by ThomM
In the Same vein - while theists like to classify agnostics as those
who are not sure - that is also not the case. Agnostics say that there
is NO knowledge EITHER way about the existence of gods and that it is
essentially UNKNOWABLE. - so there is no established TRUTH in any
claims about gods from EITHER side. Agnostics accept (Not believe)
only proven truth on the subject - and reject anything that cannot be
proven.
Which includes pretty much every assertion about the real world.
Science is not about proving things absolutely, but about assembling
the best guesses possible and revising them whenever new evidence
indicates that things may not be as they seemed.
Fred Thomas
2010-09-25 14:18:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by ThomM
Post by Tom
Because that woud be too vague. Amnong the sets of beliefs that are
not theists are atheists, agnostics, and deists. An atheist has a
very specific belief in opposition to that of theists,
Sorry - but YOU are simply Wrong TOM
YOU are trying to classify atheism and agnosticism as a belief systems
- when they are actually NOT belief systems at all.
I agree in part. Atheism and agnosticism are not, in and of
themselves, an entire belief system
To believe or not to believe in anything, god, monster under the bed, is not a
belief system period. A belief system can be built on that single belief,
however the simple thing of believing or not believing in something by it self
is not a belief system.
Post by Tom
but they can be components of a
larger belief system which might be more accurately described as
humanist or materialist belief systems. I might also say the same of
theism. Almost no one describes their religion as "theism". Theism
is just one component of a larger belief system. Yet, you seem to
have no argument with me describing theism as a belief system,
although the same objection could be made.
Post by ThomM
As an atheist or an agnostic - the HISTORICALLY TRUE definition of a
"god" is a FICTIONAL character(or a number of them) made up by elite
humans as a way of controlling the masses of uneducated humans in
doing the will of the "leaders" through threat and intimidation. (Hell
- sin - etc) and explaining things that those leaders had no true and
supportable explanation of. History is filled with examples of this -
enough to support this as being true.
The "true definition" of the word "god" is not the one found in
dictionaries? Aside from the fact that it agrees with what you
believe, exactly what makes you assert it as the one true way to
define the term?
Post by ThomM
Atheism is actually the opposite of a belief system
That would be skepticism, actually. Atheism is, to give you some
credit, not in and of itself, a belief system nor its opposite. It's
a component of humanism or materialism, and even some kinds of
Buddhism.
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/buddhism_atheism.html
Post by ThomM
In the Same vein - while theists like to classify agnostics as those
who are not sure - that is also not the case. Agnostics say that there
is NO knowledge EITHER way about the existence of gods and that it is
essentially UNKNOWABLE. - so there is no established TRUTH in any
claims about gods from EITHER side. Agnostics accept (Not believe)
only proven truth on the subject - and reject anything that cannot be
proven.
Which includes pretty much every assertion about the real world.
Science is not about proving things absolutely, but about assembling
the best guesses possible and revising them whenever new evidence
indicates that things may not be as they seemed.
Tom
2010-09-25 03:55:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by ThomM
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 18:24:32 +0100, Absorbed
Post by Absorbed
Atheists are opposed to theists,
No, moron - we're simply not theists.
Why not just leave it at that?
Because that woud be too vague.  Amnong the sets of beliefs that are
not theists are atheists, agnostics, and deists.  An atheist has a
very specific belief in opposition to that of theists,
Sorry - but YOU are simply Wrong TOM
YOU are trying to classify atheism and agnosticism as a belief systems
- when they are  actually NOT  belief systems at all.
You're technically correct but that's really a small side-issue and
not particularly germane to my larger point. Still, let's get into it
for a moment, because it is an interesting subject. Actually, theism
isn't a belief system in and of itself either. Almost nobody defines
their religion as "theist". Rather theism is a component of a larger
belief system, such as Catholicism or Hinduism or Sunni Muslim, for
example. Similarly atheism and agnosticism are parts of larger
philosophical or religious viewpoints and not stand-alone belief
systems. Humanism, for instance, has an atheistic or agnostic
component, as does materialism and even some forms of Buddhism.
Post by ThomM
As an  atheist or an agnostic - the HISTORICALLY TRUE definition of a
"god" is a FICTIONAL character(or a number of them) made up by elite
humans as a way of controlling the masses of uneducated humans in
doing the will of the "leaders" through threat and intimidation.
By "historically true", do you mean that it supercedes the dictionary
definition which are now false?
Post by ThomM
Atheism is actually the opposite of a belief system
That would be skepticism, I think.
Post by ThomM
In the Same vein - while theists like to classify agnostics as those
who are not sure - that is also not the case. Agnostics say that there
is NO knowledge EITHER way about the existence of gods and that it is
essentially UNKNOWABLE. - so there is no established TRUTH in any
claims about gods from EITHER side.
That's also skepticism.
Post by ThomM
Agnostics accept (Not believe)
only proven truth on the subject - and reject anything that cannot be
proven.
Proof is whatever will convince you. It's not an objective standard.
Christopher A. Lee
2010-09-25 04:01:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Proof is whatever will convince you. It's not an objective standard.
Yet another word you have redefined.
Tom
2010-09-25 13:17:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Proof is whatever will convince you.  It's not an objective standard.
Yet another word you have redefined.
Have I? Define your idea of "proof" and show me that it's not simply
whatever convinces you.
Larry
2010-09-25 02:34:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Absorbed
Post by Witziges Rätsel
Post by Tom
Post by Absorbed
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a
philosophy degree, and he was unsatisfied with any answer I gave to
this question: What evidence do you need to believe that God
exists? (I'm discussing the plebeian concept of God.)
While I'm satisfied with my own answer, I'm interested to know how
you would go about answering this question.
What we call "God", the Prime Mover, the ineffable and
transcendent source and destination of everything, is also
a conceptual abstraction.
We don't call anything "god"; we're atheists.
Atheists are opposed to theists, and therefore don't believe in God.
If you don't call God anything, how do you know that you don't believe
in God? You must have a idea of what "God" relates to, if you don't
believe that it exists. Otherwise that makes atheists people who
aren't sure what they don't believe in.
And, theists are fantastic doubletalkers. They can rationalize their way
out of almost anything.

Evidence - I'm evidence, against a space alien controlling us. There is
zero statistical differences between the planet's atheist population and
theist populations when it comes to diseases, accidents, unexpected
death, disasters, and anything else man has no direct control over.
Theists have cancer, just like atheists. Theists have lethal accidents,
exactly like atheists. Theists cannot grow missing limbs, exactly like
atheists. Theists who pray 20 times a day for something have exactly the
same chance of getting it as an atheist who never believes in their space
alien. Theists have no statistical advantage over atheists, whatsoever.

I believe this statistical lack of advantage is good evidence no
benevolent deity who knows all and sees all and controls everything
exists, or ever existed. I use this obvious fact when challenged by
theists. If there were this all powerful god who hates any of us who
don't believe, all atheists would be dead as soon as they popped out of
the womb. It doesn't happen because there is no diety to cause it to
happen. That's a kind of evidence I can "believe" in.

Huge crowds praying over someone laying in a hospital bed to get well
have no statistical advantage over the atheist laying in the bed next
door of a complete recovery....NONE....NADA.
Tom
2010-09-25 14:37:22 UTC
Permalink
And, theists are fantastic doubletalkers.  They can rationalize their way
out of almost anything.
Well, of course. It's a big part of the motivation to have a religion
in the first place, if you credit Ernest Becker ("The Denial of
Death").
Evidence - I'm evidence, against a space alien controlling us.  There is
zero statistical differences between the planet's atheist population and
theist populations when it comes to diseases, accidents, unexpected
death, disasters, and anything else man has no direct control over.  
Theists have cancer, just like atheists.  Theists have lethal accidents,
exactly like atheists.  Theists cannot grow missing limbs, exactly like
atheists.  Theists who pray 20 times a day for something have exactly the
same chance of getting it as an atheist who never believes in their space
alien.  Theists have no statistical advantage over atheists, whatsoever.
Not from the bare fact that they're theists anyway. However, lots of
research shows that strong social connections with one's community
contribute significantly to longevity. The establishment and
maintenance of strong social connections is a major function of most
churches. Now there's no reason why atheists cannot have strong
social connections, but there is no established community mechanism
for them as there is for theists. Perhaps that means that,
statistically, theists might live longer than atheists, although it
couldn't be attributed directly to their belief in God. I haven't
seen any research at all on this particular point. Have you?
I believe this statistical lack of advantage is good evidence no
benevolent deity who knows all and sees all and controls everything
exists, or ever existed.  I use this obvious fact when challenged by
theists.
I always suspect alleged "obvious facts" that are not established by
careful and replicable research. Do you have any actual statistical
studies that show theists do not differ statistically in any
beneficial way from atheists?
Don Martin
2010-09-24 16:50:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Absorbed
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a philosophy
What evidence do you need to believe that God exists? (I'm discussing
the plebeian concept of God.)
While I'm satisfied with my own answer, I'm interested to know how you
would go about answering this question.
Consider the existence of "east".  You can point eastwardly and apply
the label to anything in that direction, but any point you label
"east" might also be labelled "west" from some other point of view.
"East" is an abstract concept.  Does "east" exist?   As a concept of
direction, yes.  As a specific location, no.
East: the direction toward which the earth rotates. (Confused persons
with strings and balls need not dispute).
Tom
2010-09-24 18:00:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Absorbed
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a philosophy
What evidence do you need to believe that God exists? (I'm discussing
the plebeian concept of God.)
While I'm satisfied with my own answer, I'm interested to know how you
would go about answering this question.
Consider the existence of "east".  You can point eastwardly and apply
the label to anything in that direction, but any point you label
"east" might also be labelled "west" from some other point of view.
"East" is an abstract concept.  Does "east" exist?   As a concept of
direction, yes.  As a specific location, no.
East: the direction toward which the earth rotates.  (Confused persons
with strings and balls need not dispute).
Exactly. It's a direction, not a location.

In any navigation system in any environment, a set of coordinate
directions is established. You may label them whatever you like. On
earth, and in the language with which I am most familiar, a convention
arose in which we call the direction of the dawn "east", but in other
systems other conventions will apply. It doesn't matter what they are
labelled or which conventions are used. What matters is what the
labels denote, which is direction rather than location.

If you're lost, you may not know which direction is which, but that
doesn't mean there are no directions. You simply haven't decided
which is which yet. Belief in God is like belief in directions. You
don't need proof that your directions are the "right" ones. All you
need is to decide to make a map.

The problematic part is when someone gets into their heads that only
one direction is good and all others are bad. The nonsense of Dr.
Seuss' north-going zax versus the south-going zax.


Bassos
2010-09-24 18:06:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
http://youtu.be/2cNbii3mbhM
We'll see.
Bassos
2010-09-24 18:06:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
http://youtu.be/2cNbii3mbhM
We'll see.
Bassos
2010-09-24 17:31:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Absorbed
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a philosophy
What evidence do you need to believe that God exists? (I'm discussing
the plebeian concept of God.)
While I'm satisfied with my own answer, I'm interested to know how you
would go about answering this question.
Consider the existence of "east".
Wow, actually posting on topic, el salute.
Post by Tom
You can point eastwardly and apply
the label to anything in that direction, but any point you label
"east" might also be labelled "west" from some other point of view.
Choose directions for particular purposes.
Post by Tom
"East" is an abstract concept. Does "east" exist?
Turtles all the way down :)
Post by Tom
As a concept of direction, yes.
What concept is that ?
A reference to the inherent magnetical nature of matter ?
Post by Tom
What we call "God", the Prime Mover, the ineffable and transcendent
source and destination of everything, is also a conceptual
abstraction.
*also*
Post by Tom
We are trying to label a thing which cannot be contained
by any label.
No worries, every label *also* describes god.
Post by Tom
So we assign a label that has no operational definition
at all, just a sense of direction: "God". Towards good. Away from
evil. Towards being. Away from oblivion. Towards truth. Away from
falsehood.
I thought you better than that.

Unity dude.
Post by Tom
Just as you can be sure "east" exists even though there
may not be any specific place in which one may find "self-evident
eastness", you also can be sure God exists even though there may be no
specific place in which you can find "self-evident godness".
You do not interpret every experience as a direct interaction between
god and your soul, even though you kinda know that is actually actual
for everybody ?
Post by Tom
This kind of belief in God is not falsifiable, since the idea of God
is not tied to any given physical thing No physical evidence compels
a belief in God just as no physical evidence compels a disbelief in
God.
Disbelief in god is easy;
how could reality be like it is?

That is why they call IT faith.
Post by Tom
This, of course, is a deist view of God, not a theist's view. A
theist claims not only that God exists but that God cares about what
you do and has specific instructions for you.
Not instructions.
Actions.
Post by Tom
The theist claims to
know what those instructions are and will tell you all about them if
you ask, or perhaps even if you don't.
Heh.

You seem quite guilty in that yourself.
Post by Tom
In terms of our analogy, the
theist claims to know which direction is east and that people who say
some other direction is east are incorrect. How does the theist
support that claim? Does physical evidence apply now?
Referencing my LBRP thread, so openly;
weird ?
JohnN
2010-09-24 16:43:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Absorbed
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a philosophy
What evidence do you need to believe that God exists? (I'm discussing
the plebeian concept of God.)
If God were any kind of god, God would know what evidence I needed.

JohnN
655321
2010-09-24 17:24:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnN
Post by Absorbed
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a philosophy
What evidence do you need to believe that God exists? (I'm discussing
the plebeian concept of God.)
If God were any kind of god, God would know what evidence I needed.
Exactly my thought. Theists and what leads them to believe in any god
are irrelevant.

655321
Larry
2010-09-24 17:20:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Absorbed
My friend was looking for a more specific answer, and asked, for
example, how many healed people by preachers would I need to witness in
order to believe God exists.
Just one. The preacher calls his god to grow a new limb for the little guy
in the wheelchair. AS WE WATCH, the new limb grows, filling the empty
pantleg and a new foot pokes out from below the hemline, toes a wiggling.

THEN, and only then, would I believe. All the other ear popping going on
by the bastards faith healing is fake.....and they all know it.

Not a single human has ever grown a missing arm, leg, hand, finger, toe
after praying for it for thousands and thousands of years. This is PROOF
no god exists and no human has the "power of prayer" which has never been
detected.

Delusion and fantasy are wonderful things, until the delusional acquires
the weaponry to commit genocide on the rest of us.
Christopher A. Lee
2010-09-24 17:30:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Larry
Post by Absorbed
My friend was looking for a more specific answer, and asked, for
example, how many healed people by preachers would I need to witness in
order to believe God exists.
Just one. The preacher calls his god to grow a new limb for the little guy
in the wheelchair. AS WE WATCH, the new limb grows, filling the empty
pantleg and a new foot pokes out from below the hemline, toes a wiggling.
THEN, and only then, would I believe. All the other ear popping going on
by the bastards faith healing is fake.....and they all know it.
Not a single human has ever grown a missing arm, leg, hand, finger, toe
after praying for it for thousands and thousands of years. This is PROOF
no god exists and no human has the "power of prayer" which has never been
detected.
And it still needn't be a god doing it.

That is not beyond the bounds of some future technology. Starfish can
already regenerate lost limbs. Couple that with stem cells, some kind
of forced growth etc.

What I don't understand is why people like the OP's friend can't
understand that unless you already believe in it, their god is merely
"Somebody else's religious belief".

They have a heck of a lot of work to do to make it more than that
before even discussing proof.

They can't grasp that it is somewhere between the exact equivalent of
Zeus, Odin and all the others, and an abstract intellectual exercise
in logic.
Post by Larry
Delusion and fantasy are wonderful things, until the delusional acquires
the weaponry to commit genocide on the rest of us.
Larry
2010-09-25 02:10:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
What I don't understand is why people like the OP's friend can't
understand that unless you already believe in it, their god is merely
"Somebody else's religious belief".
Definition -

CULT - The next church down the street from yours.
Linda Lee
2010-09-24 17:44:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Absorbed
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a philosophy
What evidence do you need to believe that God exists? (I'm discussing
the plebeian concept of God.)
While I'm satisfied with my own answer, I'm interested to know how you
would go about answering this question.
On the night, I replied that I would need evidence from which the
concept of God arose. (It's for this reason that I consider the question
itself irrelevant to whether God exists, since imagining an alternative
universe where God exists has no bearing on the universe we live in.)
My friend was looking for a more specific answer, and asked, for
example, how many healed people by preachers would I need to witness in
order to believe God exists.
To this I said I would have to know that the person was actually healed,
that legit doctors had decided they were hopeless, and it would have to
happen often enough for chance and other factors (the doctors getting it
wrong, or it being a placebo etc.) to be less convincing that the
preacher healed them.
Of course, the preacher's healing doesn't necessarily prove that God
exists, but only that the healing took place. The belief that the
healing took place due to God's involvement requires more evidence than
the healing itself, and I'm not sure what form this evidence would take.
Perhaps if the Bible contained many specific predictions that came true,
and God's influence was more stark (a crashing plane, engines blown,
miraculously slows down and gently lands).
I think my friend's point was something along the lines of it being
possible that God does exist, but that He can only exercise an influence
on the universe that doesn't convince me of his existence. To that I
would say that I can only form my beliefs based on the evidence
available, and that to my knowledge there is no better way.
Have you considered the fact that the Hebrew Scriptures repeatedly say
that although God/YHWH would scatter the Israelites throughout the
world (for example, Deut. 4:27 & Deut. 28:64) if they were disobedient
to God (and they were disobedient and were scattered worldwide), God
would also reform the nation of Israel in the latter days.

The restoration of the nation of Israel occurred at the end of WWII,
and it was unique in all the annals of world history that a nation
that did not exist for a couple of thousand years had 'risen from the
ashes' back to life, so to speak. That is how the SCriptures say you
can know God exists, because what He says will come to pass, and those
countless prophesies about the scattering of Israel and its
restoration did come to pass.

Isa. 46:9-13, "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and
there is none else; I am God, and ***there is none like me, Declaring
the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are
not yet done,*** saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my
pleasure ...yea, **I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I
have purposed it, I will also do it.** Hearken unto me, ye
stouthearted, that are far from righteousness: I bring near my
righteousness; it shall not be far off, and my salvation shall not
tarry: and I will place salvation in Zion [Jerusalem] for Israel my
glory".
Christopher A. Lee
2010-09-24 19:35:56 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:44:50 -0700 (PDT), Linda Lee
Post by Linda Lee
Post by Absorbed
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a philosophy
What evidence do you need to believe that God exists? (I'm discussing
the plebeian concept of God.)
While I'm satisfied with my own answer, I'm interested to know how you
would go about answering this question.
On the night, I replied that I would need evidence from which the
concept of God arose. (It's for this reason that I consider the question
itself irrelevant to whether God exists, since imagining an alternative
universe where God exists has no bearing on the universe we live in.)
My friend was looking for a more specific answer, and asked, for
example, how many healed people by preachers would I need to witness in
order to believe God exists.
To this I said I would have to know that the person was actually healed,
that legit doctors had decided they were hopeless, and it would have to
happen often enough for chance and other factors (the doctors getting it
wrong, or it being a placebo etc.) to be less convincing that the
preacher healed them.
Of course, the preacher's healing doesn't necessarily prove that God
exists, but only that the healing took place. The belief that the
healing took place due to God's involvement requires more evidence than
the healing itself, and I'm not sure what form this evidence would take.
Perhaps if the Bible contained many specific predictions that came true,
and God's influence was more stark (a crashing plane, engines blown,
miraculously slows down and gently lands).
I think my friend's point was something along the lines of it being
possible that God does exist, but that He can only exercise an influence
on the universe that doesn't convince me of his existence. To that I
would say that I can only form my beliefs based on the evidence
available, and that to my knowledge there is no better way.
Have you considered the fact that the Hebrew Scriptures repeatedly say
that although God/YHWH would scatter the Israelites throughout the
world (for example, Deut. 4:27 & Deut. 28:64) if they were disobedient
to God (and they were disobedient and were scattered worldwide), God
would also reform the nation of Israel in the latter days.
Why do you imagine anybody gives a flying fuck what the scripture of
somebody else's religion says, imbecile?
Post by Linda Lee
The restoration of the nation of Israel occurred at the end of WWII,
and it was unique in all the annals of world history that a nation
that did not exist for a couple of thousand years had 'risen from the
ashes' back to life, so to speak. That is how the SCriptures say you
can know God exists, because what He says will come to pass, and those
countless prophesies about the scattering of Israel and its
restoration did come to pass.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, imbecile.

And what about all the cases where it gets things wrong?
Post by Linda Lee
Isa. 46:9-13, "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and
there is none else; I am God, and ***there is none like me, Declaring
the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are
not yet done,*** saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my
pleasure ...yea, **I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I
have purposed it, I will also do it.** Hearken unto me, ye
stouthearted, that are far from righteousness: I bring near my
righteousness; it shall not be far off, and my salvation shall not
tarry: and I will place salvation in Zion [Jerusalem] for Israel my
glory".
Can't you morons ever say anything without preaching?

W
Thommadura
2010-09-24 17:58:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Absorbed
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a philosophy
What evidence do you need to believe that God exists? (I'm discussing
the plebeian concept of God.)
While I'm satisfied with my own answer, I'm interested to know how you
would go about answering this question.
That's EASY

THE GOD ITSELF

So far - EVERYTHING we have heard about supernatural gods has been told
to us by holier than thou HUMANS who cannot provide a single piece of
PROOF of anything they say.

As far as the "christian" god - that one is even easier

Based on the definition of that god - IT IS NOT POSSIBLE for that god to
exist.

Any religion that claims that its god is ALMIGHTY without exception
CANNOT be true because it is NOT POSSIBLE to be almighty without
exception. So - the christian and islamic gods actually CANNOT EXIST as
defined. (THe bible says that NOTHING is impossible with god)

A god that could create a disease he cannot cure can not be almighty
without exception (He cannot cure it)
A god that CANNOT create a disease he cannot cure ALSO can not be
almighty without exception.(He cannot create it)
THERE are literally Hundreds of THOUSANDS of these paradoxes that cannot
be resolved.

IN addition - the REST of the "alls" are actually limitations on
almighty as well.

A god that is supposedly "ALL GOOD" SHOULD be incapable of being evil.
A god that is supposedly "all just" - should be incapable being unjust.
A god that is supposedly "ALL knowing" would be incapable of doing
something today that he did not previously know about. Since HUMANS
actually have the ability to do things today that they did not
previously know about - WE have a power that an ALL KNOWING god CANNOT have.

WHen you add the basic problem with virtually the MONOTHEISTIC religions
- plus those Polytheisms like christianity that have only ONE creator -
you can simply reject those religions as being wrong.

IF there is ONLY ONE creator - and no other has the power of creation =-
then that one creator had to create EVERYTHING. That would include what
we call GOOD and what we call EVIL as well. ANy religion that claims ONE
creator and claims that their god is ALL GOOD is again NOT possible to
be true. IF there is ONE creator - then that creator HAS TO BE the
source of ALL EVIL.

(NOTE _ both the bible and the koran state that their god created evil -
and yet those religions still claim their gods to be ALL GOOD as well -
which is a direct contradiction)
zenworm
2010-09-24 20:49:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thommadura
Post by Absorbed
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a philosophy
What evidence do you need to believe that God exists? (I'm discussing
the plebeian concept of God.)
While I'm satisfied with my own answer, I'm interested to know how you
would go about answering this question.
That's EASY
THE GOD ITSELF
So far  - EVERYTHING we have heard about supernatural gods has been told
to us by holier than thou HUMANS who cannot provide a single piece of
PROOF of anything they say.
As far as the "christian" god - that one is even easier
Based on the definition of that god - IT IS NOT POSSIBLE for that god to
exist.
Any religion that claims that its god is ALMIGHTY without exception
CANNOT be true because it is NOT POSSIBLE to be almighty without
exception. So - the christian and islamic gods actually CANNOT EXIST as
defined. (THe bible says that NOTHING is impossible with god)
A god that could create a disease he cannot cure can not be almighty
without exception (He cannot cure it)
A god that CANNOT create a disease he cannot cure ALSO can not be
almighty without exception.(He cannot create it)
THERE are literally Hundreds of THOUSANDS of these paradoxes that cannot
be resolved.
IN addition - the REST of the "alls" are actually limitations on
almighty as well.
A god that is supposedly "ALL GOOD" SHOULD be incapable of being evil.
A god that is supposedly "all just" - should be incapable being unjust.
A god that is supposedly "ALL knowing" would be incapable of doing
something today that he did not previously know about. Since HUMANS
actually have the ability to do things today that they did not
previously know about - WE have a power that an ALL KNOWING god CANNOT have.
WHen you add the basic problem with virtually the MONOTHEISTIC religions
- plus those Polytheisms like christianity that have only ONE creator -
you can simply reject those religions as being wrong.
IF there is ONLY ONE creator - and no other has the power of creation =-
then that one creator had to create EVERYTHING. That would include what
we call GOOD and what we call EVIL as well. ANy religion that claims ONE
creator and claims that their god is ALL GOOD is again NOT possible to
be true. IF there is ONE creator - then that creator HAS TO BE the
source of ALL EVIL.
(NOTE _ both the bible and the koran state that their god created evil -
and yet those religions still claim their gods to be ALL GOOD as well -
which is a direct contradiction)
Does 'Omnipotence' include the power to forget?
if so...
is 'living' teaching "God" what "God" is?

Perhaps this is done by discovering
'what' *we* are in an arena of evolutionary causality
wherein our choices/actions impact everything and
having become conscious of this, we may choose?
(to survive and evolve vs inevitable extinction)

The world is whatever we choose to make of it?
In this 'living' we discover both "God" and *ourselves*?

Through the ripples of suffering causality we
may accept responsibility for our choices/actions
and discover the Grace of harmony underlying the
illusion of separation.

This is Moment

^~
Doc Smartass
2010-09-24 18:25:38 UTC
Permalink
Subject: What Evidence Do You Need To Believe God Exists?
A pic of Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell in a threesome with The Big G.

Mind you, he'd probably be humiliated when the pics came out and vanish
again.
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling aa # 1939

Kooks! http://kookclearinghouse.blogspot.com/

Books! http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/

"Just when you think you've seen stupid, along comes religion." - J.L.
walksalone
2010-09-24 18:48:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Absorbed
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a philosophy
That explains the cross posting to philosophy news group, a particular
philosophy and newsgroup. Actually, it does not go to does give me the
impression that a troll is in progress.
Post by Absorbed
What evidence do you need to believe that God exists? (I'm discussing
the plebeian concept of God.)
I am unaware of opinion concept of god. Perchance you care to expand on
that and remove my ignorance of your version of what a god might be. And
yes, I do have a concept of what a god, small g, is. A god with a large g
is what I would expect find at the beginning of a sentence.

Did this to my knowledge, only one requirement is valid or gods are
requiring or demanding, the worship of humanity. They must be
supernatural.
Post by Absorbed
While I'm satisfied with my own answer, I'm interested to know how you
would go about answering this question.
Which kind of god are you referring to here, one of the revealed gods of
the Desert perchance? In that case, they cannot provide the evidence
because, according to their own holy writ they cannot exist. Yes I realize
that engaging you on that point is exercise in futility for anybody being
so foolish.
On the other hand, gods as claimed by the various societies of humanity,
there's a possibility they could exist in some cases. But those who do not
desire worship, how can you provide evidence. Or gods, such as the
brownies, they're always shy & humans never get to see them. Again, how
can you provide evidence other than circumstantial evidence.
But is circumstantial evidence repeatable, it's not, it's not evidence
worth considering.
And the question of if you have asked, begs a very serious question. Just
how psychotic and self-centered is a god that requires us to believe in it?
Post by Absorbed
On the night, I replied that I would need evidence from which the
concept of God arose. (It's for this reason that I consider the question
itself irrelevant to whether God exists, since imagining an alternative
universe where God exists has no bearing on the universe we live in.)
Not only that, it's not germane. Alternate universes are not allowed to
directly influence in our universe.
Post by Absorbed
My friend was looking for a more specific answer, and asked, for
example, how many healed people by preachers would I need to witness in
order to believe God exists.
Without medical records, you cant count that high. Currently, the known
verifiable number of healed people by preachers is zero. Now, I'm a god to
healing after tea, and you will have something worthy of interest and
discussion.
Post by Absorbed
To this I said I would have to know that the person was actually healed,
that legit doctors had decided they were hopeless, and it would have to
happen often enough for chance and other factors (the doctors getting it
wrong, or it being a placebo etc.) to be less convincing that the
preacher healed them.
Make it easy on yourself, settle for nothing less than amputees. And the
gene is in the human body, but apparently, it has been switched off for
good.
Post by Absorbed
Of course, the preacher's healing doesn't necessarily prove that God
exists, but only that the healing took place. The belief that the
healing took place due to God's involvement requires more evidence than
the healing itself, and I'm not sure what form this evidence would take.
For the god in question, just quit playing hide and seek?
Post by Absorbed
Perhaps if the Bible contained many specific predictions that came true,
and God's influence was more stark (a crashing plane, engines blown,
miraculously slows down and gently lands).
Except, there has been no predictions that can be verified as coming to
pass after the prediction was made.
Post by Absorbed
I think my friend's point was something along the lines of it being
possible that God does exist, but that He can only exercise an influence
on the universe that doesn't convince me of his existence. To that I
would say that I can only form my beliefs based on the evidence
available, and that to my knowledge there is no better way.
Then why call him god?

By the way, you have stated or implied elsewhere that your friend is be
used in nature and yet, you are referring to a question. Yes, the smell of
troll is very strong in this thread.


walksalone who suspects he will not be in this thread very long, after all
a god that cannot provide the evidence I would need to accept its presence,
again, why call it god.
By the way, thank you for chance for my AVR system to train me its usage.


Religions are conclusions for which the
facts of nature supply no major premises.
Ambrose Bierce, Collected Works(1912)
Christopher A. Lee
2010-09-24 20:04:17 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 18:48:39 GMT, walksalone
Post by walksalone
Post by Absorbed
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a philosophy
That explains the cross posting to philosophy news group, a particular
philosophy and newsgroup. Actually, it does not go to does give me the
impression that a troll is in progress.
It is.

He demonstrated that by dismissing explanation as "theists would
trounce me in debate" rather than addressing the points.
Absorbed
2010-09-24 21:09:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 18:48:39 GMT, walksalone
Post by walksalone
Post by Absorbed
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a philosophy
That explains the cross posting to philosophy news group, a particular
philosophy and newsgroup. Actually, it does not go to does give me the
impression that a troll is in progress.
It is.
He demonstrated that by dismissing explanation as "theists would
trounce me in debate" rather than addressing the points.
Well, believe what you want. You're free to ignore me.
zenworm
2010-09-24 21:26:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by walksalone
Post by Absorbed
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a philosophy
That explains the cross posting to philosophy news group, a particular
philosophy and newsgroup.  Actually, it does not go to does give me the
impression that a troll is in progress.
Post by Absorbed
What evidence do you need to believe that God exists? (I'm discussing
the plebeian concept of God.)
I am unaware of opinion concept of god.  Perchance you care to expand on
that and remove my ignorance of your version of what a god might be.  And
yes, I do have a concept of what a god, small g, is.  A god with a large g
is what I would expect find at the beginning of a sentence.
Did this to my knowledge, only one requirement is valid or gods are
requiring or demanding, the worship of humanity.  They must be
supernatural.
Post by Absorbed
While I'm satisfied with my own answer, I'm interested to know how you
would go about answering this question.
Which kind of god are you referring to here, one of the revealed gods of
the Desert perchance?  In that case, they cannot provide the evidence
because, according to their own holy writ they cannot exist.  Yes I realize
that engaging you on that point is exercise in futility for anybody being
so foolish.
On the other hand, gods as claimed by the various societies of humanity,
there's a possibility they could exist in some cases.  But those who do not
desire worship, how can you provide evidence.  Or gods, such as the
brownies, they're always shy & humans never get to see them.  Again, how
can you provide evidence other than circumstantial evidence.
But is circumstantial evidence repeatable, it's not, it's not evidence
worth considering.
And the question of if you have asked, begs a very serious question.  Just
how psychotic and self-centered is a god that requires us to believe in it?
Post by Absorbed
On the night, I replied that I would need evidence from which the
concept of God arose. (It's for this reason that I consider the question
itself irrelevant to whether God exists, since imagining an alternative
universe where God exists has no bearing on the universe we live in.)
Not only that, it's not germane.  Alternate universes are not allowed to
directly influence in our universe.
Post by Absorbed
My friend was looking for a more specific answer, and asked, for
example, how many healed people by preachers would I need to witness in
order to believe God exists.
Without medical records, you cant count that high.  Currently, the known
verifiable number of healed people by preachers is zero.  Now, I'm a god to
healing after tea, and you will have something worthy of interest and
discussion.
Post by Absorbed
To this I said I would have to know that the person was actually healed,
that legit doctors had decided they were hopeless, and it would have to
happen often enough for chance and other factors (the doctors getting it
wrong, or it being a placebo etc.) to be less convincing that the
preacher healed them.
Make it easy on yourself, settle for nothing less than amputees.  And the
gene is in the human body, but apparently, it has been switched off for
good.
Post by Absorbed
Of course, the preacher's healing doesn't necessarily prove that God
exists, but only that the healing took place. The belief that the
healing took place due to God's involvement requires more evidence than
the healing itself, and I'm not sure what form this evidence would take.
For the god in question, just quit playing hide and seek?
Post by Absorbed
Perhaps if the Bible contained many specific predictions that came true,
and God's influence was more stark (a crashing plane, engines blown,
miraculously slows down and gently lands).
Except, there has been no predictions that can be verified as coming to
pass after the prediction was made.
Post by Absorbed
I think my friend's point was something along the lines of it being
possible that God does exist, but that He can only exercise an influence
on the universe that doesn't convince me of his existence. To that I
would say that I can only form my beliefs based on the evidence
available, and that to my knowledge there is no better way.
Then why call him god?
By the way, you have stated or implied elsewhere that your friend is be
used in nature and yet, you are referring to a question.  Yes, the smell of
troll is very strong in this thread.
walksalone who suspects he will not be in this thread very long, after all
a god that cannot provide the evidence I would need to accept its presence,
again, why call it god.
By the way, thank you for chance for my AVR system to train me its usage.
 Religions are conclusions for which the
facts of nature supply no major premises.  
Ambrose Bierce, Collected Works(1912)
LOL!

"OBLIVION, n.
The state or condition in which the wicked
cease from struggling and the dreary are at rest.
Fame's eternal dumping ground.
Cold storage for high hopes.
A place where ambitious authors meet their works
without pride and their betters without envy.
A dormitory without an alarm clock."
- Ambrose Bierce 'The Devils Dictionary'

ah... home sweet home

^~
Chade
2010-09-25 00:13:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Absorbed
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a philosophy
What evidence do you need to believe that God exists? (I'm discussing
the plebeian concept of God.)
While I'm satisfied with my own answer, I'm interested to know how you
would go about answering this question.
On the night, I replied that I would need evidence from which the
concept of God arose. (It's for this reason that I consider the question
itself irrelevant to whether God exists, since imagining an alternative
universe where God exists has no bearing on the universe we live in.)
While I agree that imagining a God doesn't change weather or not it
exists I'm not so sure that being able to imagine the situation has no
bearing on the question. If you can clearly and coherently imagine the
situation where what you are calling evidence of God exists then that
evidence of God is metaphysically possible, even if it involves
changing the laws of nature. That is to say it's not metaphysically
impossible meaning it couldn't exist no matter what the laws of nature
were. For example no matter how much power God had or how much he
could change the laws of nature he can't create four sided triangles
or post boxes that are both red and green all over at the same time.
Chade
2010-09-25 00:34:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chade
Post by Absorbed
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a philosophy
What evidence do you need to believe that God exists? (I'm discussing
the plebeian concept of God.)
While I'm satisfied with my own answer, I'm interested to know how you
would go about answering this question.
On the night, I replied that I would need evidence from which the
concept of God arose. (It's for this reason that I consider the question
itself irrelevant to whether God exists, since imagining an alternative
universe where God exists has no bearing on the universe we live in.)
While I agree that imagining a God doesn't change weather or not it
exists I'm not so sure that being able to imagine the situation has no
bearing on the question. If you can clearly and coherently imagine the
situation where what you are calling evidence of God exists then that
evidence of God is metaphysically possible, even if it involves
changing the laws of nature. That is to say it's not metaphysically
impossible meaning it couldn't exist no matter what the laws of nature
were. For example no matter how much power God had or how much he
could change the laws of nature he can't create four sided triangles
or post boxes that are both red and green all over at the same time.
So the imaginability of a universe where God does exist, and changes
the laws of nature, has a bearing on the universe we live in, in so
much as it can establish if that change is metaphysically possible.
Like walking on water unaided.

Sorry for the double post, really I'm a bit too tired for this, but
I'm probably AFK for most of the weekend and I wanted to get my
tuppence worth in. :)
Absorbed
2010-09-25 08:05:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chade
Post by Chade
Post by Absorbed
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a philosophy
What evidence do you need to believe that God exists? (I'm discussing
the plebeian concept of God.)
While I'm satisfied with my own answer, I'm interested to know how you
would go about answering this question.
On the night, I replied that I would need evidence from which the
concept of God arose. (It's for this reason that I consider the question
itself irrelevant to whether God exists, since imagining an alternative
universe where God exists has no bearing on the universe we live in.)
While I agree that imagining a God doesn't change weather or not it
exists I'm not so sure that being able to imagine the situation has no
bearing on the question. If you can clearly and coherently imagine the
situation where what you are calling evidence of God exists then that
evidence of God is metaphysically possible, even if it involves
changing the laws of nature. That is to say it's not metaphysically
impossible meaning it couldn't exist no matter what the laws of nature
were. For example no matter how much power God had or how much he
could change the laws of nature he can't create four sided triangles
or post boxes that are both red and green all over at the same time.
So the imaginability of a universe where God does exist, and changes
the laws of nature, has a bearing on the universe we live in, in so
much as it can establish if that change is metaphysically possible.
Like walking on water unaided.
You could also argue that the imagination of the alternative universe
exists within universe, and that it may alter the way I act, and thereby
it doesn't have no bearing on the universe we live in.
Post by Chade
Sorry for the double post, really I'm a bit too tired for this, but
I'm probably AFK for most of the weekend and I wanted to get my
tuppence worth in. :)
Nothing like a post after coming home from the pub. :)
Budikka666
2010-09-25 15:17:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Absorbed
I recently had a debate with a Christian friend who has a philosophy
What evidence do you need to believe that God exists? (I'm discussing
the plebeian concept of God.)
While I'm satisfied with my own answer, I'm interested to know how you
would go about answering this question.
On the night, I replied that I would need evidence from which the
concept of God arose. (It's for this reason that I consider the question
itself irrelevant to whether God exists, since imagining an alternative
universe where God exists has no bearing on the universe we live in.)
My friend was looking for a more specific answer, and asked, for
example, how many healed people by preachers would I need to witness in
order to believe God exists.
To this I said I would have to know that the person was actually healed,
that legit doctors had decided they were hopeless, and it would have to
happen often enough for chance and other factors (the doctors getting it
wrong, or it being a placebo etc.) to be less convincing that the
preacher healed them.
Of course, the preacher's healing doesn't necessarily prove that God
exists, but only that the healing took place. The belief that the
healing took place due to God's involvement requires more evidence than
the healing itself, and I'm not sure what form this evidence would take.
Perhaps if the Bible contained many specific predictions that came true,
and God's influence was more stark (a crashing plane, engines blown,
miraculously slows down and gently lands).
I think my friend's point was something along the lines of it being
possible that God does exist, but that He can only exercise an influence
on the universe that doesn't convince me of his existence. To that I
would say that I can only form my beliefs based on the evidence
available, and that to my knowledge there is no better way.
They already proved their god is nonexistent by their behavior
throughout history so far, and by their 100% comprehensive inability
to provide a shred of independent evidence for a creator or a
creation. We need no futher proof of their impotence at this point.

Budikka
Loading...