Atheists: what would it take?

[Brian2]

If we're talking about detectable in a way that can be verified, science can use it.

If we aren't, then I don't think we'd have good reason to consider it a way to detect things at all.

On a personal level we can do it, but not as a scientific experiment that can be peer reviewed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

On a personal level we can do it, but not as a scientific experiment that can be peer reviewed.

That makes no sense. Any observation we can make, if we document it in a rigorous way, can be a scientific experiment.

You're trying to sell us a bill of goods.

 

[Brian2]

Even if prophecies were specific (not vague), and accurate, my main concern is morality, not accurate predictions.

What is achieved - if everyone goes to heaven, does the means justify the end? If the end goal can be achieved through humane methods, and I believe it can, then no - I do not believe the means justifies the end.

God is a realist and where necessary He uses violence.
I would say that violence is often necessary in a violent age when God is out to achieve certain outcomes.
So I believe what God is said to have done in the OT was necessary.
But of course that is an answer of faith, believing the Bible and giving God there the benefit of the doubt.
If I did not believe the Bible then I might also look at the violence and say that a God like that is evil OR surely this God could have done things a different way, and thus leaving no room for any doubt in your mind about your present beliefs.

 

[Brian2]

I'm genuinely interested in learning how you would suggest we do "find god" without looking for "empirical evidence". I can't think of a way. Take prayer as an example. I pray, God answers in some way. Isn't that evidence? Even hearing the belief of another is evidence of a sort.

(Skeptics - I didn't say "good evidence").

Yes praying for God to show you He exists is probably a good way. This does not mean that you will suddenly find empirical evidence for God however.
Hearing the belief of another is evidence of a sort too.
Both these things are personal things and have to be somehow met with faith in the individual.
A person with faith might see a spider build a web and it convinces them more that there is a God, even if they are a scientist and might understand ideas about how a spider could have evolved to do that and even believe the spider evolved that way.
Faith gives us a different way of viewing things.

 

[Brian2]

What is "the Old Testament manly"?

What do you think did Moses write down?

See:
Composition of the Torah - Wikipedia

The only writings of the apostles are Paul's letters. Paul met Jesus only in visions (posthumously).

Word of God? Without eyewitness testimony you only have hearsay.

This is what happens when you believe the opinions of people (albeit historians) about the historicity of the New Testament.
Maybe you should listen to more conservative historians.

 

[Brian2]

It seems to work fine with false gods, too.

And your god - at least according to the stories about him - has a lot of bad fruit.

The judgement of the Bible God is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Brian2]

That makes no sense. Any observation we can make, if we document it in a rigorous way, can be a scientific experiment.

You're trying to sell us a bill of goods.

Not according to the scientific view of religious faith. People can rigorously document what happened to them when they got faith and it is not called science.

 

[Polymath257]

Detected yes but not believed to be evidence by skeptics probably. Skeptics seem to want the same type of evidence that science can use.

Then what type of evidence do you propose?

The whole point of evidence is that it helps to convince a skeptic. Otherwise it is simply confirmation bias, which humans are very prone to.

For example, if a scientist is skeptical about the existence of the top quark, she can look at the data, look over the theory, and, if not convinced, say specifically what is missing that would help to convince her. Then, the scientific community will perform that test and see what happens.

If, instead, there is no way to help to convince a skeptic, why should anyone believe it?

Through faith someone might believe something and then go on and learn a lot through having that faith.
Many faiths are not true but then again much of science is not necessarily true.

Belief comes *after* evidence, not before.

Science can be wrong, but it self-corrects. That is why testing is so important. That is what keeps science honest. Scientists *know* they can be wrong and want to determine what is right. So they are skeptical and test every aspect of every idea they have. Any scientist can question the methods and try to duplicate the results of any other scientist. Any scientist can propose a new idea *if* they can show how to test it.

Ideas have had effects on people and nations and the history of the earth. If some of these ideas are from God then God is having a big effect. It is through faith that we see the ideas as being of God however.

In other words, all you have is confirmation bias. Sorry, that isn't good enough. And it *shouldn't* be good enough.

How do you determine the difference between ideas that are from God and those that are not?

By verifiable events I am not talking about the white light that is commonly reported in NDEs.
But it is interesting that this seems to be seen as "common mental phenomena for brains that are under stress and oxygen deprivation" but when OBEs are reported and the events in these OBEs are verified as real events that took place while the experiencer was unconscious on the operating table, that is first and illogically also seen as mental phenomena.

Any in a double-blind study where nobody that talked to the patient knew this information?

Nope.

That would be the first thing to check out of course.

And it has been. No verifiable cases of such actual information have been seen.

It is interesting that setting up experiments to try to determine if these OBEs in NDEs actually happen does not show that the ones that have already been reported and verified are not true.

How would it? We can only go on what we can test and we cannot test those past events (unless you can figure out a way to do so).

Which ones have been verified? Are they done in a double blind situation?

 

[Polymath257]

You have tested out not believing. You could test believing.

Belief isn't a choice. Belief is what happens after the evidence convinces a person, not before.

You are setting up a situation prone to confirmation bias. How do you control for that?

This probably has to be an individual thing and without wanting to find verification in a scientific sense. I suppose verification might be to continue to have faith after living with it for a while.

Again, this looks exactly like confirmation bias. And we know people are prone to such. How do you avoid it?

But all this is supposing that faith is just a matter of choice. Can one feign belief if they do not believe.
I imagine that wanting to believe is a good start and then asking God to show you if He exists.

I want to believe the truth. If a God does exist, I want to believe. If no God exists, I want to NOT believe. I *have* asked to be shown the existence of God. Yes, at home, alone, and by the text saying exactly what needs to be done.

I have done this multiple times. None showed anything other than me talking to myself.

When I talk to believers, I find bad arguments, evidence based on personal feelings, statements that belief has to come before evidence, etc. ALL of the bad, illogical tricks that are used for fooling oneself.

So, your test has been done and your belief system failed the test.

 

[PearlSeeker]

This is what happens when you believe the opinions of people (albeit historians) about the historicity of the New Testament.
Maybe you should listen to more conservative historians.

Traditional ascriptions Vs. unbiased research, evidence, common sense...

 

[Polymath257]

Not according to the scientific view of religious faith. People can rigorously document what happened to them when they got faith and it is not called science.

Have you ever read William James 'Varieties of Religious Experience'? It is old now, but it was a scientist investigating religious beliefs and conversions. It looks, rigorously, at what happens when people 'got their faith'.

 

[Alien826]

Yes praying for God to show you He exists is probably a good way. This does not mean that you will suddenly find empirical evidence for God however.
Hearing the belief of another is evidence of a sort too.
Both these things are personal things and have to be somehow met with faith in the individual.
A person with faith might see a spider build a web and it convinces them more that there is a God, even if they are a scientist and might understand ideas about how a spider could have evolved to do that and even believe the spider evolved that way.
Faith gives us a different way of viewing things.

Perhaps we should make sure that we are using the same definition of "empirical". From a dictionary, "Relying on or derived from observation or experiment".

Praying would be, in a sense, experiment, would it not? If you get a response (you observe it, so it's observation) it's evidence that something exists that responded. So at that stage you have empirical evidence, albeit flimsy. From there one could go on to ask questions and so on.

I suppose your answer to my question is "faith". From my point of view, that doesn't add anything. You are just choosing to adopt a certain conclusion.

 

[Polymath257]

Perhaps we should make sure that we are using the same definition of "empirical". From a dictionary, "Relying on or derived from observation or experiment".

Praying would be, in a sense, experiment, would it not? If you get a response (you observe it, so it's observation) it's evidence that something exists that responded. So at that stage you have empirical evidence, albeit flimsy. From there one could go on to ask questions and so on.

I suppose your answer to my question is "faith". From my point of view, that doesn't add anything. You are just choosing to adopt a certain conclusion.

After a 'response' is obtained (which is a type of observation), we can then formulate alternative explanations for the observation.

For example, do we know that it was actually a 'response', as opposed to something only in our own minds? Are there other explanations that don't have the postulate of something otherwise undetectable? How do we test between those alternatives?

So, suppose I pray and feel better afterwards. is that because I took time in a peaceful situation? or is it divine intervention? how do I distinguish between the two? Suppose that I pray for an answer to a life question and then I see something later that I interpret as an answer. How can I tell if it was an actual communication as opposed to a simple coincidence along with sensory priming?

How can we distinguish between people who are actually able to 'see through faith' and those that only think they can? What if two people who both claim such sight disagree? is there a way to tell who is right and/or who is wrong?

This is why 'getting a response' is flimsy evidence. There are too many more likely alternatives than divine intervention.

 

[Polymath257]

The judgement of the Bible God is in the eye of the beholder.

So it is not objective? It is a matter of opinion?

And doesn't that mean there is no actual 'truth of the matter'?

 

[Five Solas]

What is "the Old Testament manly"?

When NT writers refer to the Scriptures, they meant the Old Testament because the NT, logically, did not exist yet.

Jesus said that the Scriptures was from God. He said, ‘The Scripture cannot be broken’ (Jn 10:35). He referred to Scripture as ‘the commandment of God’ (Mt15:3) and as the ‘Word of God’ Mk 7:13) He also indicated that it was indestructible: ‘Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished’ (Mt 5:18).

When dealing with the crowds.
, His disciples or religious rulers, Jesus constantly referred to the Old Testament: ‘Have you not read that which was spoken to you by God?’ (Mt 22:31) etc.

What do you think did Moses write down?

Most of the Pentateuch. I know it's being disputed but that it ... its disputed. So?

I believe Jesus more than the sceptics who do not believe in God.

 

[Five Solas]

It happens in all scriptures. Take Mahabharata. Was there such a big war? That region did not have that many people. It is something like 3 hundred thousand or 3 million, of Moses wandering in Sinai for 40 years.

What you say is not clear to me.

 

[Five Solas]

OK. Then why should anyone else take your speculations seriously?

They don't have to. You are simply argumentative.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The Bible describes people and events as real and true. This doesn’t happen in ‘myths.’

My contention is that it always happens in mythical descriptions - exaggeration.

 

[Polymath257]

They don't have to. You are simply argumentative.

How so? I simply want to know what sort of evidence you are claiming. How do you guard against confirmation bias? if it can't be done 'scientifically', in what sense *can* it be done? Why can't it convince a skeptic that is open minded?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So it is not objective? It is a matter of opinion?

And doesn't that mean there is no actual 'truth of the matter'?

Well, the problem with truth, is that there are at least 5 versions and they are not coherent. So to me, truth is also a matter of opinion. I have mine and you have yours.