Are there any good arguments for God?

[Tiberius]

Anecdotal evidence is certainly relevant. Anecdotal evidence should not be blindly accepted nor blindly dismissed. One way we can learn about the human experience is to study a body of anecdotal experiences for quantity, quality and consistency and then theories 'normal' and 'beyond the normal' can be considered to see how they fit the data. We may not be able to prove what happen but certainly some theories will become more reasonable than others. Eyewitness evidence is anecdotal but not considered worthless. The scientific method can not really be used with unpredictable/spontaneous phenomena; we have to intelligently consider anecdotal evidence in these cases.

It is not verified, and it is not controlled. So can you tell me how it is reliable?

 

[Tiberius]

Thoughts and words, the communication about an evidence of something unseen are imprisioned in the cage of logic in advance. What you claim for cant be given.

Would you like to translate this into clear english please?

Its not about to observe things for and against. Your life has its own arguments. You seem to claim for an evidence of something unseen before you can see the evidence. But only the evidence will make you see.

If you can't see the evidence until you believe, then it sounds to me like getting people to believe so they will be less critical of weak arguments supporting the claim.

No. To have evidence is based on each ones life. Looking back reveals the most about oneself. Ones life will be the objective evidence but for another its a subjective speculation which is not based on his logic or sense thats why we disregard it. We simply cant imagine it. And to be honest we think its totally weird and laughable. An evidence cant be asked from those who probably have it. Evidence still relies on you.

No, evidence is based on reality.

You didnt asked yourself for an evidence. You want this evidence to be shown from others.

That's not a question.

Emotions are created by your experiences of your past and simply have a solid background story. Emotions are compressed events where love and the loss of it are the strongest which are also the oldest.

And my experiences are unique to me, and thus anything that comes from them is objective.

 

[Tiberius]

Probably the first part of the modal Leibnitz argument for a necessary being, even though I am a bit skeptical about the principle of sufficient reason to be water proof. Nevertheless, I think it is the only viable cosmological argument. Kalam strenght pales in comparison.

I don't think it holds up. The claim that there is a neccessary being needs to be supported. It still seems like trying to define God into existence to me.

On second thought, this argument does not say much about the qualities of this necessary being and might very well be consistent with naturalism.

Maybe.

Moral arguments are generally hopelessly circular. In most cases they try to deduce the existence of God by the existence of objective moral values defined by what God emanates.

Agreed. I've never seen any argument from morality that withstands scrutiny, and there are other explanations for the source of morality.

Ontological arguments are... well.

lol!

Personal experiences prove God as much as experiences of UFO abductees prove the existence of life outside earth.

Agreed. Anecdotal evidence should not be considered.

Now, teleological arguments. Evidence of teleology would be the real defeater of naturalism. I do not see any of those being convincing, obviously, by not being convinced. I think I could defeat the fine tuning one even without invoking multiverses or anthropic principles.

Yeah, there are naturalistic explanations.

Empty tomb arguments have also some theological relevance. However, if conclusive, they would make the previous ones superflous.

But no verifiable evidence, at least, not that I have seen.

Some say that even though none of these arguments are conclusive, they provide cumulative evidence of God. Alas, a cumulation of no conclusions is not a conclusion.

True.

But all this does not entail the non existence of God. I am not an atheist because the arguments are weak. It just entails that all these arguments are not sufficient to deduce His existence. Yet.

Ciao

- viole

I agree completely.

 

[Tiberius]

Not in this example. Now if someone is observing you, there perception may be credible.


Do you want people who see things not there describing reality for you?

Even then, the only credible evidence would be that the person is hallucinating. There is nothing in the universe that I can think of which would show if the hallucinations are accurate descriptions of reality - unless there was some way to objectively test them.

 

[George-ananda]

It is not verified, and it is not controlled. So can you tell me how it is reliable?

Think about journalism, criminal court cases, history, etc.. Very little about events in the human experience can be verified in a controlled environment. Intelligent consideration of anecdotal observations is basically how we know much of what we know about human events. Is it always perfect, no. How do we know George Washington existed without a shipload of 'anecdotal' evidence?

For example, I believe that people have experienced what are colloquially called ghosts because of the quantity, quality and consistency of the anecdotal evidence along with the anaylsis of all possible explanations (both 'normal' and 'beyond the normal').

 

[Yerda]

And I'm trying to explain why I don't find the fact that lots of people believe to be even remotely convincing.

Neither do I. As I've said.

As you know, there is a difference between having an experience and holding a belief.

If the only support for an idea is anecdotal evidence, it's not really support.

If you ask someone if they would likea drink, and they say yes, do you refuse to get them a drink on the grounds that there is only anecdotal evidence for their thirst?

There is evidence that meditative states can have physiological changes, but that comes from the reduction of stress etc.

What is the evidence that a person had a particular quality of experience? As far as I can tell it is exactly the kind of evidence you don't consider credible.

 

[Yerda]

Not in this example. Now if someone is observing you, there perception may be credible.


Do you want people who see things not there describing reality for you?

You are saying my claim to be hallucinating pink chess-playing elephants is not credibly supported by my experience of having the visual perceptions of pink chess-playing elephants? But someone else listening to me describe my hallucination of pink chess-playing elephants is somehow better situated to confirm my perceptions?

 

[outhouse]

You are saying my claim to be hallucinating pink chess-playing elephants is not credibly supported by my experience of having the visual perceptions of pink chess-playing elephants?

Not the context I was stating but YES nothing is credible about said personal experience.

But someone else listening to me describe my hallucination of pink chess-playing elephants is somehow better situated to confirm my perceptions?

NO.

The only thing credible is that you would be hallucinating. What you may have experienced is non sequitur nor relevant.

 

[Tiberius]

Think about journalism, criminal court cases, history, etc.. Very little about events in the human experience can be verified in a controlled environment. Intelligent consideration of anecdotal observations is basically how we know much of what we know about human events. Is it always perfect, no. How do we know George Washington existed without a shipload of 'anecdotal' evidence?

For example, I believe that people have experienced what are colloquially called ghosts because of the quantity, quality and consistency of the anecdotal evidence along with the anaylsis of all possible explanations (both 'normal' and 'beyond the normal').

Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable.

Science, on the other hand, uses thorough, documented and vigorous testing, repeated many times, documented each time, peer review and critical examination to find things out. Science NEVER relies on eyewitness accounts. Can you imagine? "I know a guy who said his best friend's uncles cat saw the Higgs Boson, but then the cat went back to sleep."

 

[Tiberius]

Neither do I. As I've said.

As you know, there is a difference between having an experience and holding a belief.

Apparently, you find it convincing enough to use their personal experiences to keep an open mind that they may be correct.

If you ask someone if they would likea drink, and they say yes, do you refuse to get them a drink on the grounds that there is only anecdotal evidence for their thirst?

If I have any doubt, I can check by asking them if they are still thirsty.

What is the evidence that a person had a particular quality of experience? As far as I can tell it is exactly the kind of evidence you don't consider credible.

Brain activity, blood pressure, pulse rate, breathing rate, blood oxygen levels, stress hormones... These are all things that meditative states can alter, and then can all be clearly measured.

 

[Yerda]

The only thing credible is that you would be hallucinating. What you may have experienced is non sequitur nor relevant.

You seem to be saying an experience is not relevant to claims about the experience. Since that is absurd I'm going to assume that wasn't what you meant. Though I have no idea what you did mean or how an experience can be non sequitur.

 

[George-ananda]

Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable.

Science, on the other hand, uses thorough, documented and vigorous testing, repeated many times, documented each time, peer review and critical examination to find things out. Science NEVER relies on eyewitness accounts. Can you imagine? "I know a guy who said his best friend's uncles cat saw the Higgs Boson, but then the cat went back to sleep."

Can such science tell us if even George Washington existed with thorough, documented and vigorous testing, repeated many times, documented each time, peer review and critical examination?

We gain knowledge in multiple ways.

 

[Yerda]

Apparently, you find it convincing enough to use their personal experiences to keep an open mind that they may be correct.

I don't find their belief to be convincing. I was speaking about experiences which I have been careful to stress I don't find convince me. I can be very patient, Tiberius, but by this point I fear we're long past the stage where even if you intuitively grasped what I meant the impact would not be worth the effort.

If I have any doubt, I can check by asking them if they are still thirsty.

And they will say, yes I am thirsty. And then you are back to relying on what you describe as anecdotal evidence.

So what now?

Brain activity, blood pressure, pulse rate, breathing rate, blood oxygen levels, stress hormones... These are all things that meditative states can alter, and then can all be clearly measured.

And how do we know that meditative states can alter these things we measure?

 

[outhouse]

You seem to be saying an experience is not relevant to claims about the experience. Since that is absurd I'm going to assume that wasn't what you meant. Though I have no idea what you did mean or how an experience can be non sequitur.

There is nothing a person who is hallucinating can say that is ever going to be credible.

Personal perception can be used but exact details of context are required before anything can be stated.


No personal perception for a god can ever be considered credible, because people see what they want to see if they try hard enough.

Nothing credible has ever been reported considering any god mythology because of personal perception..

 

[Tiberius]

Can such science tell us if even George Washington existed with thorough, documented and vigorous testing, repeated many times, documented each time, peer review and critical examination?

We gain knowledge in multiple ways.

History isn't a "hard" science now, is it?

In any case, there is a huge number of contemporary accounts of Washington, written by him, by people who saw him and heard him, and most importantly, they were made at the time that the events they describe actually happened.

Can you do that for God or Jesus?

 

[Tiberius]

I don't find their belief to be convincing. I was speaking about experiences which I have been careful to stress I don't find convince me. I can be very patient, Tiberius, but by this point I fear we're long past the stage where even if you intuitively grasped what I meant the impact would not be worth the effort.

It's just confusing because you claimed their experiences were enough to convince you to keep an open mind about what they said.

And they will say, yes I am thirsty. And then you are back to relying on what you describe as anecdotal evidence.

So what now?

Measure the dryness of their mouth if you want. Check for signs of dehydration. Get them the drink and see if they drink it or not.

In any case, your analogy isn't the best, because a glass of water is a long way removed from the fundamental nature of the universe.

And how do we know that meditative states can alter these things we measure?

By scientific testing. If you have a control group which does not meditate and another group that does meditate, and the changes occur only in the group that meditates, then it is evidence that the meditative state is the cause. Further testing with greater control of the variable (whether the people are meditating or not) will give more accurate answers.

Really, science isn't that hard.

 

[George-ananda]

History isn't a "hard" science now, is it?

Neither is religion/spirituality.

In any case, there is a huge number of contemporary accounts of Washington, written by him, by people who saw him and heard him, and most importantly, they were made at the time that the events they describe actually happened.

OK, then anecdotal evidence is above 'worthless'.

Can you do that for God or Jesus?

The argument I would make for God is certainly more complex than the argument for George Washington but I would argue the best analysis of the evidence and argumentation leads to belief in a God concept. . (I discussed this in my first post #202 in this thread)

 

[outhouse]

Neither is religion/spirituality.

It is the opposite of science.

It is human emotions with a mythological foundation tied to pseudohistory to teach theology.

And we have all seen people pervert this into meaning just about anything and everything and they all feel justified no matter how far fetched their imagination may get.

 

[outhouse]

(I discussed this in my first post #202 in this thread)

Which nothing is substantiated outside imagination and mythology.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

By scientific testing. If you have a control group which does not meditate and another group that does meditate, and the changes occur only in the group that meditates, then it is evidence that the meditative state is the cause. Further testing with greater control of the variable (whether the people are meditating or not) will give more accurate answers.

For the sake of simplicity, I won't get into the issues with NHST and other problems (mostly placebo related) as to why this doesn't work as well as we'd like. But before I get into the real issues:

Really, science isn't that hard.

Now you're just insulting me!

Let's examine scientific testing. I'm not going to check my memory here, but I believe it was oddly enough exactly a century before Einstein's 1905, Nobel Prize winning work on the photoelectric effect that Young "proved" light was a wave. He demonstrated that light behaved in ways that no particle could (although Newton's reputation and preference for the particle/corpuscular theory of light made acceptance of Young's view take time). By the close of the 19th century, not only had Young's view been vindicated but the notion of light (and the electromagnetic spectrum) as consisting of waves was central to physics. A century of scientific testing had shown that not only was light a wave, but it was so definitely a wave the most successful framework in physics since Newton's mechanics required this (that framework being electromagnetism).
Then, in 1905, Einstein showed that light was composed of particles.
If scientific testing were as simple as you state, physicists would have laughed at any attempt to restore the "corpuscular" (particle) view of light. Einstein would have been dismissed. But let's imagine that some scientists, wishing to show him to be wrong rather than rely on established "fact", decided to put his explanation of the photoelectric effect to the test (which was done, actually). They would find evidence that Einstein was, indeed, correct: light is made up of parts. But this presents a very, very big problem. After all, a century of scientific testing and indeed a central theory to all of physics (at the time) held that light was a wave. Now, "The Scientific Method" (which we don't actually practice, at least not as taught) holds that this means we have to perform tests to see which of the opposing hypotheses- light as a wave vs. light as a particle- is the correct one. If scientists had actually done this, had actually followed the naïve, simplified "scientific method" taught in primary school and to undergraduates, they would still be arguing to this day over whether light was a wave or a particle. Luckily, the question was so simplistic and the evidence so clear that, despite the best efforts of the greatest physicists of the period, only one conclusion was possible: any scientific test to determine whether light was a wave or a particle was bound to fail because the entire theoretical framework which stated that something could either be a particle or a wave but not both was ITSELF wrong. Completely wrong. Nothing was either a wave or a particle.

Unfortunately, things in the sciences are rarely so simple and clear when it comes between deciding whether the evidence you get is because you tested the right question the right way, or because your theoretical assumptions falsely dictated either how you would ask a question or how you would test it (or both) or even because your methods (statistical, instrumental, etc.) were flawed. Thus rather basic, fundamental theories over the nature of cognition which are mutually exclusive and incompatible have been tested and supported for almost half a century now (and the older view of cognition has been around since the beginning of the cognitive sciences).
The primary methodology used for scientific testing across the sciences (from particle physics to medicine to the behavioral sciences that begat the method) is NHST (null hypothesis significance testing, a.k.a. significance testing, a.k.a. statistical decision theory). It is the combining of two radically opposed approaches to statistics and data analysis (the approach of Sir Ronald Fisher on the one hand and Pearson & Neyman on the other) that has been criticized as fundamentally flawed since before its inception. It is the standard methodology taught to researchers today, despite the fact that the many, many hundreds of criticisms of the paradigm as fatally flawed go almost completely unanswered (or, in some cases, those trying to answer it, such as an APA task force, have been met not only by apathy but by the adoption of standard practices by the APS and particle physicists more generally of adopting this welding of two opposed statistical testing paradigms in the social/behavioral sciences).

Currently in the "hardest" of sciences (physics) there exists a fundamental dispute. It isn't over experiments or theory. It is over how to do physics and what physics is or should be. On one side are the anthropic physicists who believe that our best theories and evidence make it clear that there is no possible way the classical, reductionist model can succeed and no "theory of everything" that could exist. They regard those (an increasing minority) who stick to the goal of such a theory and the reductionist approach as one of basically religious bias (or something like religious bias). Those with ACTUAL religious bias accuse the anthropic physicists as opting for the anthropic solution over god because they are biased against anything resembling evidence for a creator. And the (ever-dwindling) supporter of the classical approach join those inclined to see evidence for a created or at least "special" universe in physics/cosmology in their critique of the anthropically inclined as too willing to accept mathematical aesthetics as evidence and too willing to opt for solutions other than our universe as "special" in order to bias the evidence by fixing the models/equations.
And an even fewer minority accuse basically everybody else as being too willing to see reality in the mathematical models that were irreparably separated from physical reality by quantum mechanics a century ago, a divide which particle physics, cosmology, etc., have only weakened (this is my position).

In the "hardest" science, therefore, we find as mainstream theories such frameworks as string theory, quantum gravities, inflationary cosmology, supersymmetry, dark energy/matter, and many more theories or notions lacking any empirical support and often even the capacity FOR empirical support.

Historians have more evidence, in general, than exists for M-theory or even any of the theories of gravitation.