can you proove there isn't a deity?

[1robin]

Yes. I can prove there is no deity.

Next?

So far you have only proven you will claim to do what all the experts say is impossible. Next.

 

[1robin]

Yup. Understood. Just clarifying that I'm not arguing directly against Christianity, but I'm okay with you arguing from a Christian viewpoint.

I see everything through a Christian lens. I no longer can think in strictly secular terms.

I'd quibble that 2 billion plus Christians make explicit and emphatic claims to have experienced God. I know many who would not make that claim (and plenty who would). But let's say I go with 50/50. Still makes a billion, so I understand your point (like I said...a quibble...)

You can and should do so if I only meant alive today (did I mistakenly say alive today? I may have). There are many people who claim to be Christians but a smaller percentage of them actually are such. Christ made it very clear that only those who have been born again are Christians. People who think hanging a cross around their neck, go to a church, answering a survey, or try and be good get counted as Christians but are not in fact Christians. I made allowance for that although I could never know exactly what percentage are Christians in name only. Since maybe 4 billion people have claimed to be Christians I thought claiming 2 billion actually were was safe, but you are free to adjust that number if you provide good reasons to do so.

That's one way of reading it. But it only works if you assume Biblical beliefs are true.

No assumption was necessary. My argument was an attempt to use data to suggest the Bible is true. I was not assuming it was that would have been incoherent and circular. I think you misunderstood my claim.

How do you reach that conclusion? It's unsupportable unless you use a leading assumption that it's true before you start, or alternatively work from a simple appeal to numbers.

I do not know how to make that any clearer. If 1 million people claim to have been aboard an alien space ship that is not very convincing because a small fringe group will claim all types of things that are known to be false. If a billion out of 6 billion claimed to have done the same that is far more convincing. If one person who knew you said you were an angel I would not find that convincing. If 50% of a respectable number of those claimed the same I would find it compelling. I do not know how to make that any clearer.

No effect on your claim, that's true. I was offering an alternative version of this which did not feature Christians, merely as a way of demonstrating this wasn't ABOUT Christians. I understand that the equation is different from your worldview (ie. Christianity is true)

Very well.

Meh, I could probably prove them if I had to, to be honest. But we're not actually IN a scientific study, I was merely trying to explain my thought process. I would readily admit that my first hand knowledge is indicative only because of additional reading I have done, and doesn't mean too much in and of itself. But given my thoughts on your position (ie. based on a presupposition of correctness, or an appeal to numbers) it would make no difference if I could prove all 7 million PNG residents were both Christians and pagans in any case.

If I considered your claims about what you have no access to they would have to have some common ground (like science, or personal experience) that would enable me to grant them credibility. If you have no personal experience of millions and you have no scientifically collected data then I can only grant them speculative value and could not let them affect my beliefs about the supernatural. I do grant you are sincere. You are right that PNG would be such a fringe data set that it would not make a huge impact regardless of the numbers but if you got high enough numbers from a broad spectrum I can easily grant them relevance. Your personal experience and data are from a unique, radical, and small data subset and have little relevance in any general conclusions.

I understand. I was a psych major, and stats was a key component.

Stats are vicious things that can be tailored to do almost anything.
Are you working is Psychology?

Yep. Agree on all counts with this. Don't live there anymore (just for clarity).

Where do you live? If you want to say.

Seventh Day Adventists.
Lutherans and Catholics were the other main religions I came across, but there were a couple of local Christian churches that were quite large, but which I lacked understanding in their beliefs (beyond the basic).

Oh, I am very familiar with them but have never seen that acronym used for them before.

My points are related to the veracity of claimed belief and the fact that people would claim experiences regardless. I understand that other interpretations are possible if working from the perspective that Christianity is true.

I am not operating from that perspective in this discussion. My data sets and applications of them indicate Christianity is true and other faiths are either untrue or have no claims to experience made in them. I do not even see how a theoretical assumption of truth could be involved or perceived in what I have said. Where is it you get that from?

And I could be communicating my point poorly. But no, that's not what I'm trying to say.
Otherwise, all I need to do is find one imbecile who holds inconsistent beliefs, and hey presto! I can 'scientifically' prove whatever I like is wrong.

What I am talking about (and would readily admit I cannot prove, but only surmise) is that the majority of supernatural belief held by people is false. Perhaps there is supernatural things I don't understand, but my supposition is that the contradictory nature of the various beliefs on Earth indicate to me that much of what is believed is false.

I would go further than this, to also suggest that any meaningful supernatural belief system has a proportion of observers who claim personal experience, and that in my mind this therefore leads me to similarly suppose that people commonly claim beliefs either falsely, or via an interpretation which relies on their pre-existing belief system.

Make sense? (even if you don't agree...just trying to work out if I'm communicating my position effectively)

What is it in what we have been discussing or is in your experience you feel justifies that claim that supernatural claims in general are wrong. Claiming that would by default mean Christianity is wrong. Since I do not have the experience to evaluate every claim to faith I have been testing your claims using Christianity as the subject and I do not think your conclusion follows any possible premise you may make or have. I would still be interested in what you think justifies the claim specifically. Even if everyone in the wild and crazy world of PNG was known to be lying I still do not see how your conclusion could even follow from that hyperbolic premise.

 

[outhouse]

Well let me take a whack at it...

Evidence will suggest that their is no deity or personal God, this doesn't necessarily discredit the idea of an Impersonal God, which is considered a term used to describe the Absolute reality.

When a deity appears, it appears;
Different to each person, which means its subjective. A sign that the perception is simply a hallucination.
When people claim to have been visited by god, they are the only person to receive a "vision".

If it were REAL then it would be relative to all present.
If by chance, the experience was of a lifeform relative to all present, then even then the perception is subjetive to the quality of the senses, thus its an object.
God is the Creator of objects, so an object cannot be God(it could be one with God, but not God itself)

These are the problems with the theory of deity.

That is why it is easy to prove that man has created all deities to date.

After all, it is man who cannot agree on how to define such a concept because so many different men create the concept.

It is why there is no scientific evidence for any deity existing outside mythology. And men create mythology.

 

[1robin]

Really? I think that's the first time I've been called suspicious...lol
Well, fair enough. I'm just some words on the other end of a screen to you, so I know it's not personal. I think the key components you are missing in your hypothesis are the contradictory nature of other claims, plus the lack of the sort of empirical evidence which a mass claim of Bigfoot would result in.

I only meant I suspect motives when the premise does not justify the conclusion. In general you seem to be a very reasonable and sincere person. I spent years counseling Christians and was an atheist for 27 years. I know well what kind of twisted logic can be used to contend with God, and know well that many times it's twistedness is not recognized by the person using it. That is what inspired the verse about having new eyes to see and new ears to hear. When born again you can see the folly of many thoughts you used to have. I was only saying that a persons motivations for not excepting 2 + 2 = 4 are suspicious not that the person does not sincerely see 2 + 2 as = 5. I must include spiritual warfare in my vision of reality as well.

A massive percentage of the PNG population told me witchcraft was real. Its not convincing. I have no reason to doubt that if the whole WORLD was at the same primitive level of education as PNG, and with similar backgrounds, this would be consistent across the globe. Belief and faith are not the same as discovery of a new species (for example) which is, at the end of the day, pretty mundane, and fits within the empirical evidence of the world around me.

Did you mean to say if? How could a massive proportion of the population of PNG have told any one person anything?

In short, I neither believe nor disbelieve in medical theory. I merely suppose it is humanity's collective best guess based on current knowledge. As with cosmology, etc. If anyone told me they have 100% the complete and utter truth of medical theory, and that it's inalienable and unchangeable, you can bet your bottom dollar I'd disbelieve it.

I know of no Christian that would dream of claiming to have 100% of the truth concerning God. That is a fundamental impossibility. A finite mind cannot fully perceive and infinite being.

You mean you would work from an assumption that it's false, due to your pre-existing beliefs. It's fair enough, I would do that same. I find the proposition that I should believe in unproveable things as logically incoherent, whilst also being beneficial to some people. One of the reasons I find theology interesting.

No. If I debate a person I pay close attention to what is motivating their claims. Let's say a person claims multiverses mean that fine tuning is no longer an anomaly that requires explanation. I know two things instantly. That is an emotional or preference based claim not a scientific one 9because multiverses are not accessible and can provide no evidence even if true), and they have a double standard (this one is irrelevant here). I know by these conclusions that evidence will not convince them because evidence is not what their claim is based on. The same is true of a false theological system like witchcraft. It is primarily based on things other than evidence so evidence to the contrary will have almost no effect. That is why false ideals die hard. It has nothing to do with my own faith but simply people. You sure do see an assumption of Christian truth in many of my points that I can't see.

Let me state a couple of things for future relevance.

1. I know Christianity is true. I met Christ spiritually using the Gospels as a road map.
2. I never (or try very hard to never) make any argument based on a truth only knowable to the one who had the experience. I recognize the common ground where arguments take place does not include my subjective experiences with God. I try and make arguments using pure reason and the exact same methodology employed by historians, legal experts, philosophers, and science. If I went back to school instead of a math degree I would have gotten a philosophy degree (not a theological degree).

Almost, yes. I think 'designed' is probably making it sound more deliberate and suspicious (to use your word) than I mean. I would, instead, suggest that one belief system has evolved, whilst the other has not. I would offer (for example) the OT versus the NT as an example of developing belief.

This is certainly a new one and I would not mind discussing it exclusively. Let me make sure I understand it. All supernatural beliefs are false. The more crude they are the easier the falsity is to see. Christianity being very sophisticated is also very hard to falsify whether by design or accident. Is that your position? It is a unique one and one I would love to investigate.

I can talk about this stuff all day, so feel free. But I'm not sure how productive it would be given our different starting points. In terms of the 35%, you're right. It's at best a guesstimate, and I don't claim it as scientific. My nature is to be very conservative on these sort of things, since it's what I build my worldview on, and are therefore something I take seriously. 'Losing' an argument only adds to my worldview, whereas lying or exagerating about such things only robs me of this opportunity for no benefit. I don't get the 'try to win a debate' mindset. Anywhooos...that is neither convincing, nor proof against me simply being mistaken about things.

Are you actually convinced my reasoning is dependent on presupposing Christianity is true? Can you explain where you get that, if so?

Hmmm...well, I have no actual problem with the concept of a historical Jesus, at a simple level. If you have links to the Craig debate you mean I'd be interested. Zacharias....not 100% sure what you mean by the empirical burdens of the Gospels, but it sounds likely.
I've read some Greenleaf, and I'm less enamored, but perhaps that is merely my bias showing...lol

Greenleaf and Lyndhurst are considered among if not the greatest experts on testimony and evidence in history. If you are not impressed something fishy is going on. Lyndhurst is the only man in history to occupy every high court office in the largest empire in history, Greenleaf founded the greatest legal school in history and wrote texts on testimony and evidence. Craig is the most efficient and lethal philosopher alive IMO. Atheist routinely say he is the only philosopher that can put the fear of God into an atheist. He is also one of the most accessible scholars ever. Tell me what you wish to hear him speak on specifically and I will get a link or explain why I could not.
Also see this link.
Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Ch. 10 p. 2

I can understand that viewpoint. If I could ask you a question on it?
Why does a Creator and eternal life, etc actually make life more meaningful in your view? That's something I can't really connect to.

The most obvious would be that my actions and attachments have eternal consequences and potentiality instead of only being relevant for a cosmic blink of time.

Let's say I see a person drowning. Without God I only have the impact of that moment to consider. That person has no actual objective value or worth, they are only a biological anomaly, I am not eternally accountable for what I do, and if no one is looking no one would ever know what I did.

If God exists I am being observed by the moral judge of the universe, the person has absolute significance and worth, if I die trying to help I will not cease to exist eternally, they are a child of God not a biological accident, I am eternally accountable for what I do, and everything including that person and my actions will not end a futile heat death with the rest of the universe.

Which one has more significance and meaning.

Lets say I am a guard at a concentration camp in 1941 Germany. If the Jews are not God's people, if they are not just as loved and valued by God as I am, if they actually have no objective rights or significance then why risk my life to free them or disobey orders. With God this life is not all I have, without him I would be a fool to risk the miniscule time I have rotting in prison or dead by choosing to act morally

Apply those same analogies to every decision and every relationship we have over our lives and I hope the difference is obvious.

Okay. Well, I'd grant the honesty of much belief.

Well sincerity is a start I guess.

 

[Sees]

One of the first Craig debates I watched a few years back.

[youtube]FhT4IENSwac[/youtube]
Did Jesus Rise From The Dead -Bart Ehrman Vs William Lane Craig - YouTube

I have watched at least a dozen Craig debates over time and only in one he seemed to stand a chance or gain ground...against a Muslim.

He constantly ducks, dodges, dances, ignores any problem with the bible or his flavor of theology. The fact he is a leader of Christian apologetics is not a thing to be proud of, in my opinion.

His favorite debate tactic is much like what 1robin attempts, use Judeo-Christian constructs to create a one sided game show and try hard to make sure it never leaves it and/or flat out ignore attempts to discuss the real world.

It means the preacher and choir never see themselves as having lost, whereas all others recognize that there was little real participation to begin with.

Still they are usually worth a watch, sometimes it seems the mind is ever so slightly open for a few moments..

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I see everything through a Christian lens. I no longer can think in strictly secular terms.

Really? Hmmm...okay. I'm talking more about putting yourself in someone else's shoes in order to understand their position, rather than actually believing their position is correct. Anyways, I'm gonna skip some of the points we don't seem to have disagreement or further discussion for. Just re-raise them if you think I've missed something important. Post length, and all that...

I do not know how to make that any clearer. If 1 million people claim to have been aboard an alien space ship that is not very convincing because a small fringe group will claim all types of things that are known to be false. If a billion out of 6 billion claimed to have done the same that is far more convincing. If one person who knew you said you were an angel I would not find that convincing. If 50% of a respectable number of those claimed the same I would find it compelling. I do not know how to make that any clearer.

Well, I think it's clear too. It's an appeal to numbers. It has some validity from your viewpoint, since you would see the Holy Spirit working in the conversion of the masses, I suspect, but if the same judgement was performed in the first century AD, what would an appeal to masses suggest about the 'Truth' in your opinion?

If I considered your claims about what you have no access to they would have to have some common ground (like science, or personal experience) that would enable me to grant them credibility. If you have no personal experience of millions and you have no scientifically collected data then I can only grant them speculative value and could not let them affect my beliefs about the supernatural.

Fair enough. This makes sense.

Your personal experience and data are from a unique, radical, and small data subset and have little relevance in any general conclusions.

Sort of. I'm not using my experience there to draw my conclusions, but as an illustrative example of my conclusions in action. But I agree about the radical subset. Conditions there are unusual and unique in many ways.

Stats are vicious things that can be tailored to do almost anything.
Are you working is Psychology?

Nah. I'm a self-employed business consultant in the ERP industry. Big business systems. Currently fulfilling a role of Program Manager for a major install (2 years, $10 million, 4 countries...fun, fun...)

Where do you live? If you want to say.

Melbourne, Australia, center of the known universe. Spend a bit of time travelling, mostly to Sydney at the moment. Have lived for extended periods in PNG and Auckland (NZ).

I do not even see how a theoretical assumption of truth could be involved or perceived in what I have said. Where is it you get that from?

If you're working via an appeal to numbers, which it seems like you are, then I'd concede that you don't need to hold a theoretical pre-supposition of truth.

What is it in what we have been discussing or is in your experience you feel justifies that claim that supernatural claims in general are wrong. Claiming that would by default mean Christianity is wrong. Since I do not have the experience to evaluate every claim to faith I have been testing your claims using Christianity as the subject and I do not think your conclusion follows any possible premise you may make or have. I would still be interested in what you think justifies the claim specifically. Even if everyone in the wild and crazy world of PNG was known to be lying I still do not see how your conclusion could even follow from that hyperbolic premise.

I'll generalise a little here, but perhaps it will help explain my position.
There are a wide number of supernatural claims made in the world. Astrology, Witchcraft, animism, polytheism, monotheism, with each having various flavours, and each being contradictory to some degree. I think (based on other posts I've seen of yours) you would agree with the premise that whilst one or more of these may hold some truth, or even be the complete truth, it's not possible for them all to be true.

This leads me to conclude that people commonly believe in things which are not true. Further, they will commonly offer personal or anecdotal 'proof' of their personal 'Truth'. Therefore, personal or anecdotal proof of supernatural experience is not compelling evidence to me.

It's not a means of proving anything untrue. So I can't say 'Personal or anecdotal evidence is not compelling to me, therefore Christianity is untrue' for example. Only that I don't believe in Christianity due to a lack of evidence (in my view) and that personal and anecdotal evidence is not going to cut the mustard.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I only meant I suspect motives when the premise does not justify the conclusion. In general you seem to be a very reasonable and sincere person. I spent years counseling Christians and was an atheist for 27 years. I know well what kind of twisted logic can be used to contend with God, and know well that many times it's twistedness is not recognized by the person using it. That is what inspired the verse about having new eyes to see and new ears to hear. When born again you can see the folly of many thoughts you used to have. I was only saying that a persons motivations for not excepting 2 + 2 = 4 are suspicious not that the person does not sincerely see 2 + 2 as = 5. I must include spiritual warfare in my vision of reality as well.

Okay. My take is that you are reading more into my conclusions that I am trying to 'prove'. My argument is really limited to the fact that people will have personal 'proof' of contradictory beliefs, leading me to a conclusion that I don't find personal proof compelling.

Did you mean to say if? How could a massive proportion of the population of PNG have told any one person anything?

Buggered if I know. Certainly not what I wrote, since I agree with you. Ummm...I'm going to guess it should be proceeded by something like 'Even if'. My meaning was that even if it were possible for the whole damn country to tell me...it still would represent a radical set of data (in your words).

No. If I debate a person I pay close attention to what is motivating their claims. Let's say a person claims multiverses mean that fine tuning is no longer an anomaly that requires explanation. I know two things instantly. That is an emotional or preference based claim not a scientific one 9because multiverses are not accessible and can provide no evidence even if true), and they have a double standard (this one is irrelevant here). I know by these conclusions that evidence will not convince them because evidence is not what their claim is based on. The same is true of a false theological system like witchcraft. It is primarily based on things other than evidence so evidence to the contrary will have almost no effect. That is why false ideals die hard. It has nothing to do with my own faith but simply people. You sure do see an assumption of Christian truth in many of my points that I can't see.

What do you think my motivations are, if I might ask? Your call on whether to answer, of course, but it would be interesting to me.

Let me state a couple of things for future relevance.

1. I know Christianity is true. I met Christ spiritually using the Gospels as a road map.
2. I never (or try very hard to never) make any argument based on a truth only knowable to the one who had the experience. I recognize the common ground where arguments take place does not include my subjective experiences with God. I try and make arguments using pure reason and the exact same methodology employed by historians, legal experts, philosophers, and science. If I went back to school instead of a math degree I would have gotten a philosophy degree (not a theological degree).

Yeah. I've read enough of your stuff to understand your position on these two points. I am a regular lurker, far apart from when we post directly. Too much time in airports and hotel rooms...lol

This is certainly a new one and I would not mind discussing it exclusively. Let me make sure I understand it. All supernatural beliefs are false. The more crude they are the easier the falsity is to see. Christianity being very sophisticated is also very hard to falsify whether by design or accident. Is that your position? It is a unique one and one I would love to investigate.

Pretty much, that's my position. I would adjust it slightly though. I don't claim to KNOW all supernatural beliefs are false. I suspect it, and live my life with the presumption that they are false.

Are you actually convinced my reasoning is dependent on presupposing Christianity is true? Can you explain where you get that, if so?

If you're appealing to numbers, it makes sense without presupposing Christianity is true.

Greenleaf and Lyndhurst are considered among if not the greatest experts on testimony and evidence in history. If you are not impressed something fishy is going on.

ROFL. C'mon, now. Apart from any discussion on the merits or otherwise of his argument, there is the small matter of me being able to connect to the author. For example, I don't agree with some of Craig's arguments that I have heard, but I have consistently found him interesting, and his arguments worth considering. Different strokes for different folks. If it helps you picture what I mean, I don't find Richard Dawkins particularly impressive on matters of theology either.

Tell me what you wish to hear him speak on specifically and I will get a link or explain why I could not.
Also see this link.
Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Ch. 10 p. 2

I'll check out the link. In terms of the topic at hand, I'd be interested in anything which separates Christian belief from other belief, I think. My assumption would be that this explores evidentiary differences, but I'm open to anything on that topic, rather than a direct 'My God is true and atheism is a lie' type stuff. That's interesting too, of course, but I'm much more familiar with that topic/material.

The most obvious would be that my actions and attachments have eternal consequences and potentiality instead of only being relevant for a cosmic blink of time.

You see timespan as a determinant of moral value? Interesting. I'm not discounting that out of hand, but on face value that doesn't resonate. I'll think on it though.

Let's say I see a person drowning. Without God I only have the impact of that moment to consider. That person has no actual objective value or worth, they are only a biological anomaly, I am not eternally accountable for what I do, and if no one is looking no one would ever know what I did.

If God exists I am being observed by the moral judge of the universe, the person has absolute significance and worth, if I die trying to help I will not cease to exist eternally, they are a child of God not a biological accident, I am eternally accountable for what I do, and everything including that person and my actions will not end a futile heat death with the rest of the universe.

That doesn't resonate either. You seem to suggesting that the lack of an ultimate end is a key determinant in morals. I don't see that. Let me put it this way...if we never died, but there was neither God, nor afterlife, would you think we had purpose, or that morals were meaningful? I suspect not. I think it's solely your belief in objective morals provided by God that makes any of this meaningful, and that eternity, etc, are sidenotes.

Lets say I am a guard at a concentration camp in 1941 Germany. If the Jews are not God's people, if they are not just as loved and valued by God as I am, if they actually have no objective rights or significance then why risk my life to free them or disobey orders. With God this life is not all I have, without him I would be a fool to risk the miniscule time I have rotting in prison or dead by choosing to act morally.

You see morals as a judgement of risk versus reward? And I get accursed of being a materialist...??

Apply those same analogies to every decision and every relationship we have over our lives and I hope the difference is obvious.

Not really, to be honest. It still seems to me that morals are about what you know you should do, versus what the cost of taking the moral action holds (ie. it's easy to be moral when there is no cost).

You seem to be suggesting that by heavily weighting the cost in favour of morality (increased rewards of eternal life), we become more moral. Is that your position?



Well sincerity is a start I guess.[/QUOTE]

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm sure that all true theists agree with 1robin's moral opinions, down to the most subtle of details.

Obviously if they don't, then they're not real theists.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

My data sets were world wide. I am aware they vary by region but if I must guess at them the only (though many times it would be off quite a bit) basis I have is a general statistic. I went with whatever numbers I was given by the poster but that was the best guess I could make until they were. I agree with you but my very inadequate efforts at approximation were made out of necessity and lack of time.

ok

I think so.

If I said 1% of the earths population believes that Bigfoot exists (or even claims to have experienced him). Since we can almost be certain that bigfoot does not exist then that means that the 30% of humans who have ever lived that believe powered flight was possible must also be wrong. MY point was that the incorrectness of a small fringe populations beliefs cannot indicted the beliefs of a vastly larger populations beliefs by association or equality.

I hope this explained it better. I did not see any contradictions per se'. I assumed you just did not understand what I was trying to say. To be fair the person who I thought claimed this has said he was not attempting to do that but I explained my claims made in the understanding that he had done so.

The points seem to be
"No percentage of people believing in something makes it true" and then you went around to basically say "because such and such percentage of people believe in Christianity then it gives us reason to believe its true".

The first statment is true. The second is based on the fallacy that popular ideas with humans are "correct".

 

[1robin]

Well, I think it's clear too. It's an appeal to numbers. It has some validity from your viewpoint, since you would see the Holy Spirit working in the conversion of the masses, I suspect, but if the same judgement was performed in the first century AD, what would an appeal to masses suggest about the 'Truth' in your opinion?

Of course it was an appeal to numbers, the same as all the stats that insurance companies and disease control centers, and census takers use to establish all types of conclusions. It is only a fallacy to say x is true because a bunch of people believe it. It is not a fallacy to suggest that a bunch of people believing X indicates the evidence for X is substantial. This is an overused and very misunderstood fallacy. Numbers are considered valid in every realm of academia but they never prove anything to a certainty, nor have I used them that way. I was also not using numbers concerning an abstract thing. I was using numbers concerning an experiential event in peoples lives. The same way courts use witness testimony as the best source to establish what probably occurred. On when data sizes are relatively small is there any problems with using statistics.

Sort of. I'm not using my experience there to draw my conclusions, but as an illustrative example of my conclusions in action. But I agree about the radical subset. Conditions there are unusual and unique in many ways.

In most places you would not find a large number of Christians that also hold claims to non-biblical supernatural experiences. PNG is unique or is among a few unique demographics and would not be a representative data set of the whole. You may have additional realms of experience you draw from but generally you have only submitted PNG data.

Nah. I'm a self-employed business consultant in the ERP industry. Big business systems. Currently fulfilling a role of Program Manager for a major install (2 years, $10 million, 4 countries...fun, fun...)

How did you go from psychology to business?

Melbourne, Australia, center of the known universe. Spend a bit of time travelling, mostly to Sydney at the moment. Have lived for extended periods in PNG and Auckland (NZ).

That entire region would have populations that are far more susceptible to superstition than most. Besides the Caribbean, probably more so that any other region.

If you're working via an appeal to numbers, which it seems like you are, then I'd concede that you don't need to hold a theoretical pre-supposition of truth.

I have been using numbers because that is the context you began the discussion in. I can and do use all manner or deductions and lines of evidence for God, normally numbers are not my main topic. You derived something from numbers so I used numbers to contend with it.

I'll generalise a little here, but perhaps it will help explain my position.
There are a wide number of supernatural claims made in the world. Astrology, Witchcraft, animism, polytheism, monotheism, with each having various flavours, and each being contradictory to some degree. I think (based on other posts I've seen of yours) you would agree with the premise that whilst one or more of these may hold some truth, or even be the complete truth, it's not possible for them all to be true.

That is certainly true. Truth is exclusive. It normally rules out way more things that it includes. If a God existed it is far more likely he would supply one true revelation and that man in their efforts to answer life's questions would compose all manner of competing "religions' that may contain some truth but were not revealed by God. If the God of the Bible exists I would expect to find exactly what I actually see in reality.

This leads me to conclude that people commonly believe in things which are not true. Further, they will commonly offer personal or anecdotal 'proof' of their personal 'Truth'. Therefore, personal or anecdotal proof of supernatural experience is not compelling evidence to me.

That is also certainly true but it is not valid to suggest that since people believe in untruths then everything people believe is untrue. It is also a mistake to suggest that if anyone's claims to supernatural experience turns out to be false then anyone's claim to it is false. I would expect to see exactly what I do see. A huge proportion of people who have consistent and Biblical claims to experience and a whole range of far smaller groups that claim to have conflicting and inconsistent claims to supernatural truth. Scientists are wrong more than they are right. We should not assume all science is wrong or that a theory which has a huge proportion that believes it is not true just because there are also fringe groups than believe in unjustifiable scientific claims. Your premise has truth in it but your conclusion does not fallow from it.

It's not a means of proving anything untrue. So I can't say 'Personal or anecdotal evidence is not compelling to me, therefore Christianity is untrue' for example. Only that I don't believe in Christianity due to a lack of evidence (in my view) and that personal and anecdotal evidence is not going to cut the mustard.

You really think that 2 billion people or one out of every 3 persons claims to supernatural experience is not compelling? Far fewer people claim to having been to the north pole or having seen Saturn, yet we take all of their claims as certainties.

A couple of things about evidence.

1. In what way is there a lack of evidence for the Bible? It has 25,000 historical corroborations and over 2000 prophecies accurate in every detail (350 about a single person) just to start with.
2. The only conditions where an absence of evidence is evidence of absence is when if the proposition was true we should have far more evidence. Why would you expect to have more evidence than exists if God existed?

 

[Sees]

How do you figure that 2 billion claim supernatural experience?

You like to make as if all Christians have felt they experience God and/or Jesus....I would give an arbitrary ratio of 1/200 at best for Christians who truly think and feel like this. Vast majority are only lip-service religious or spiritual in any sense - it only comes out for special occasions or religious social times. Aside from that their specific religion or non-religion doesn't make a hoot of difference in their day to day life or experiences.

Superficial religion and philosophy isn't unique to Christians and they are most definitely not immune to it. If your community or church has Christians who all actually live and breathe God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost more power to you guys. I haven't seen that in real life and never knew anybody else who has said it exists either.

Of course it was an appeal to numbers, the same as all the stats that insurance companies and disease control centers, and census takers use to establish all types of conclusions. It is only a fallacy to say x is true because a bunch of people believe it. It is not a fallacy to suggest that a bunch of people believing X indicates the evidence for X is substantial. This is an overused and very misunderstood fallacy. Numbers are considered valid in every realm of academia but they never prove anything to a certainty, nor have I used them that way. I was also not using numbers concerning an abstract thing. I was using numbers concerning an experiential event in peoples lives. The same way courts use witness testimony as the best source to establish what probably occurred. On when data sizes are relatively small is there any problems with using statistics.






In most places you would not find a large number of Christians that also hold claims to non-biblical supernatural experiences. PNG is unique or is among a few unique demographics and would not be a representative data set of the whole. You may have additional realms of experience you draw from but generally you have only submitted PNG data.


How did you go from psychology to business?



That entire region would have populations that are far more susceptible to superstition than most. Besides the Caribbean, probably more so that any other region.


I have been using numbers because that is the context you began the discussion in. I can and do use all manner or deductions and lines of evidence for God, normally numbers are not my main topic. You derived something from numbers so I used numbers to contend with it.



That is certainly true. Truth is exclusive. It normally rules out way more things that it includes. If a God existed it is far more likely he would supply one true revelation and that man in their efforts to answer life's questions would compose all manner of competing "religions' that may contain some truth but were not revealed by God. If the God of the Bible exists I would expect to find exactly what I actually see in reality.


That is also certainly true but it is not valid to suggest that since people believe in untruths then everything people believe is untrue. It is also a mistake to suggest that if anyone's claims to supernatural experience turns out to be false then anyone's claim to it is false. I would expect to see exactly what I do see. A huge proportion of people who have consistent and Biblical claims to experience and a whole range of far smaller groups that claim to have conflicting and inconsistent claims to supernatural truth. Scientists are wrong more than they are right. We should not assume all science is wrong or that a theory which has a huge proportion that believes it is not true just because there are also fringe groups than believe in unjustifiable scientific claims. Your premise has truth in it but your conclusion does not fallow from it.



You really think that 2 billion people or one out of every 3 persons claims to supernatural experience is not compelling? Far fewer people claim to having been to the north pole or having seen Saturn, yet we take all of their claims as certainties.

A couple of things about evidence.

1. In what way is there a lack of evidence for the Bible? It has 25,000 historical corroborations and over 2000 prophecies accurate in every detail (350 about a single person) just to start with.
2. The only conditions where an absence of evidence is evidence of absence is when if the proposition was true we should have far more evidence. Why would you expect to have more evidence than exists if God existed?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

How do you figure that 2 billion claim supernatural experience?

Yep. A nonsense claim if I've ever heard one.

But what bugs me is: Who is responsible for keeping the list of the "25,000 historical corroborations" in the Bible?

And what are the odds that it would work out to an even 25,000 rather than 23,867 or 26,126?

 

[1robin]

Okay. My take is that you are reading more into my conclusions that I am trying to 'prove'. My argument is really limited to the fact that people will have personal 'proof' of contradictory beliefs, leading me to a conclusion that I don't find personal proof compelling.

That would be like saying that I find car mechanics wrong maybe 10%of the time. Then concluding that means there is no such thing as competent mechanics. It is also like saying that two mechanics have conflicting ideas on how to resolve a particular issue with a car, therefor cars do not exist. You, me, and everyone think that doctors are good because there are far more good ones than bad ones, we believe stars we have never seen exist because many of the scientists who should know claim they do. Your conclusion does not follow from your data set or premise so I conclude the conclusion has another motivation.

Buggered if I know. Certainly not what I wrote, since I agree with you. Ummm...I'm going to guess it should be proceeded by something like 'Even if'. My meaning was that even if it were possible for the whole damn country to tell me...it still would represent a radical set of data (in your words).

Very well.

What do you think my motivations are, if I might ask? Your call on whether to answer, of course, but it would be interesting to me.

It is very easy to see that if conclusions do not follow directly from evidence and data then they have another motivation. It is almost impossible to know what that motivation is. However after years of study, counseling, and debate the most likely motivations are, spiritual impairment (the Bible says we look but do not see because the other side blinds us), some emotional desire for their not to be any ultimate accountability, resentment over something that happened to you (this one was my biggest impediment to faith), or some cultural or personal reason why you feel that faith in the biblical God was wrong (like a Muslim or Judaism follower would). I have no access to your motivation and so have not made any certain claims about it. The one thing I do know is your conclusion is not justified by your premise. BTW all of those motivations can be present without our even being aware of them.

Yeah. I've read enough of your stuff to understand your position on these two points. I am a regular lurker, far apart from when we post directly. Too much time in airports and hotel rooms...lol

I have been there. I used to wake up in hotel rooms and could not remember which city I was in. I may think Boise and see a desert out the window.

Pretty much, that's my position. I would adjust it slightly though. I don't claim to KNOW all supernatural beliefs are false. I suspect it, and live my life with the presumption that they are false.

It is kind of refreshing to see a new theory. Would you like to discuss it exclusively? Let me suggest something to you. I hate Pascal's wager as it is but modified slightly it makes perfect sense. I cannot see any advantage in taking a claim for example that had a 50/50 chance of making God more likely and assuming that it is untrue. You have for no gain at all eliminated any eternal hope, meaning, and purpose for life not to mention a final setting to right all injustices. If a vaccine had a 50/50 chance of preventing cancer everyone would be lining up to take it. People choose the best conclusion in every other issue they face, why would anyone choose the worst concerning God. You will never acquire born again or saving faith this way but choosing the opposite eliminates your ability to acquire it and there exists no gain to compensate what ever. So if I was to discuss the cosmological argument or the testimonial reliability for the Gospels people on both sides would claim that more than enough evidence exists to accept it or reject them. Why reject them? What is it you gain? Like I said this will never save you but choosing the opposite may doom you if the Bible is right after all.

If you're appealing to numbers, it makes sense without presupposing Christianity is true.

Very well.

ROFL. C'mon, now. Apart from any discussion on the merits or otherwise of his argument, there is the small matter of me being able to connect to the author. For example, I don't agree with some of Craig's arguments that I have heard, but I have consistently found him interesting, and his arguments worth considering. Different strokes for different folks. If it helps you picture what I mean, I don't find Richard Dawkins particularly impressive on matters of theology either.

No one need contact Einstein to see the merit in relativity or E=mc^2. I can't talk to Newton but I have done more calculus than anyone would wish to. I gave you a link to his masterful legal conclusion on the Gospels, why would you need to talk to him to evaluate it? You opinions are very reasonable but I do not see how they advance anything here. You asked me for resources. I supplied them.

I'll check out the link. In terms of the topic at hand, I'd be interested in anything which separates Christian belief from other belief, I think. My assumption would be that this explores evidentiary differences, but I'm open to anything on that topic, rather than a direct 'My God is true and atheism is a lie' type stuff. That's interesting too, of course, but I'm much more familiar with that topic/material.

Ok, I will list one among many because it is appropriate to our context. The Christian religion is different at least from every other major faith in that it not only offers but also demands that every single believer have a spiritual experience with God as the entrance point to faith. Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, nor Buddhism make any type of similar claims. At best they reserve that experience to some Guru living a tree or cave, or some rare Imam that may or may not be alive at the moment. Christianity mandates and offers it to every single person who has faith. The reasons this is meaningful are as follows.

1. No one who makes up a lie and intends to spread it offers proof of it upfront.
2. Islam and the rest rely only on an intellectual consent to a proposition. Now this is the kind of thing I would use if I was lying to make up a faith. You have no idea if you are wrong or right until it is to late to change your mind. Christianity promises you will know the moment you believe or you should abandon the faith all together.
3. This has been used to submit that all other faiths appear to be consistent with man's attempts to reach God by special incantations, ceremony, acts of faith, or obedience. Christianity is unique in that it is God's attempt to reach man. Nothing the human can do will make any difference. God has done it all and you either accept it or not. If you do God will show up and forgive your sins and make you born again. When I was saved I had never heard the term born again but those are the exact words I used to describe it to myself. I felt brand new. Like a 27 year old new born.

I can add pages of details and conclusions to this but am short on space here. If you find this what you were asking for, I can elaborate quite a bit.

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

You see timespan as a determinant of moral value? Interesting. I'm not discounting that out of hand, but on face value that doesn't resonate. I'll think on it though.

Timespan certainly changes the impact and meaningfulness of moral issues. We all think this. When you change the very slight sentence for murder into the death penalty the numbers of murders drops. Change it to eternity and it has far more meaning. Let me use my example again because I think you missed something.

Murder:
1. If no God exists it is at best a social convention chosen either by popular opinion or by might. That make murder as only acting unfashionable, it can never make murder actually wrong.
2. With God it is an absolute moral wrong. In no place at no time would it be right. No one will not be held accountable for it even if our justice system misses the act al together.
3. Killing a human without God is to destroy a biological anomaly with only relative worth (no actual or objective worth), life has no intrinsic sanctity, and the man had no actual (only contrived) rights.
4. Killing a human with God in existence deprives the master of the universe of his creation, the man has actual value, life has actual sanctity, and the man had actual rights he was deprived of.

Can you prove that there is actually anything more that is actually wrong in killing a human than in killing the bugs on the way to work tomorrow? Our morality without God is based on speciesm which would be just as wrong as racism if God does not exist.

Take the very limited things I said about morality and apply them to everything and you should see the significance of concepts dramatically changes with God and without him.

That doesn't resonate either. You seem to suggesting that the lack of an ultimate end is a key determinant in morals. I don't see that. Let me put it this way...if we never died, but there was neither God, nor afterlife, would you think we had purpose, or that morals were meaningful? I suspect not. I think it's solely your belief in objective morals provided by God that makes any of this meaningful, and that eternity, etc, are sidenotes.

You asked me to contrast things given God or subtracting God. I did not say morality is more true based on time frames. I said it's truth is more significant of a concept given God. I do not think our morality without God is true. It is a contrived preference usually based on favoring ourselves over anyone and our best guesses at what makes a society civil. It never rises above an opinion.

You see morals as a judgement of risk versus reward? And I get accursed of being a materialist...??

No I do not. I did not say that one guy was right or the other wrong depending on time frames. I said one guy had justification for acting moral and the other did not. That would make the world a drastically different place and there exists nothing so significant as the differences in moral outcomes given God or excluding him. As Dostoevsky said "if God is not all things are permissible". Nietzsche said that since man killed God in the 19th century the 20th would be the bloodiest in history and a general madness would prevail. Not only has the 20th century seen more violence than all other centuries combined but Nietzsche himself went insane. He was an atheist but knew what the stakes were. Morality has been uncoupled from it's objective source and it's tether can now be placed where ever is convenient. I never related morality to time span. I related it to God's existence and showed it by using time span and many other factors. You have really distorted my moral claims. Let me settle this:

1. If God exists my claim that murder is objectively wrong is absolutely true.
2. Without God claiming murder is wrong is an unjustifiable guess that is probably not true but even if it was you would ever know.

Not really, to be honest. It still seems to me that morals are about what you know you should do, versus what the cost of taking the moral action holds (ie. it's easy to be moral when there is no cost).

There is no natural law and no molecule that they govern that could ever indicate what should be done. Materialism only tells us what is. What should be is not a question anything natural can answer. We can determine what we want to do, what we do not like, what we do not wish was done. We cannot ever say what should be done unless God exists.

You seem to be suggesting that by heavily weighting the cost in favour of morality (increased rewards of eternal life), we become more moral. Is that your position?

No, but it would certainly be a valid claim (the most generous demographic on earth is conservative Christian). I was saying that with God we have a justifiable moral foundation for claiming X is right or wrong (I attempted to show the increased effects it would have given God only to show it was true). A bunch of best guesses at ethics is not fractionally as significant or meaningful. Again you have drastically missed what I attempted to say.

Morality is true given God.
It is an arbitrary system of ethics that is probably not true but definitely not known to be true without God.

I do not see how much more of a difference in meaning is possible.

 

[1robin]

Obviously if they don't, then they're not real theists.

What is up with this obligatory sarcasm for no apparent purpose. This one is not even true. Theists can disagree with me by huge margins and still be theists by definition. Christians can even disagree with me and be Christians. I hope that their disagreements about doctrine would mean they are wrong but Christ may save a person with a mistaken doctrine about the trinity as anyone else. What was the purpose of this post?

 

[1robin]

ok


The points seem to be
"No percentage of people believing in something makes it true" and then you went around to basically say "because such and such percentage of people believe in Christianity then it gives us reason to believe its true".

The first statment is true. The second is based on the fallacy that popular ideas with humans are "correct".

Let me make this point a little more technical. The most widely used definition for evidence in these contexts is data who's inclusion makes the proposition more likely by it's inclusion. If a huge proportion of those that have seriously investigated a proposition and it's evidence choose to adopt it as true then that is an indication that the quality of evidence justifies belief. Whenever you say that some basically said X. You are really saying you are going to rephrase their statement in a way that improves the chance you can contend with it. The fact that so many people who have investigated the evidence conclude the gospels are indicates the evidence justifies that conclusion. Just as it does in almost every field of academics it reinforces the probability of it being true. Now please use those statements and not a version of them. Numbers are used constantly to indicate truth but they are not valid to use to determine truth. That is the difference and where the misuse of a fallacy employed as a crutch comes in.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What is up with this obligatory sarcasm for no apparent purpose. This one is not even true. Theists can disagree with me by huge margins and still be theists by definition. Christians can even disagree with me and be Christians. I hope that their disagreements about doctrine would mean they are wrong but Christ may save a person with a mistaken doctrine about the trinity as anyone else. What was the purpose of this post?

No kidding.

I'm glad you actually acknowledged it though.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Many atheists do not understand the single most major fallacy there is to atheism. Atheists often imply there is no god but the only way they can say this for sure is if they are absolutely certain and can provide evidence that a god does not exist. No evidence exists which is the big issue. Atheists will fit god into a bubble and usually in a Christian context then state that this god does not exist. I may agree with this statement in regards to many religion but Atheists never rule out all plausibility and even then certain definitive forms of god cannot be ruled out no matter what.

 

[Sees]

Many atheists do not understand the single most major fallacy there is to atheism. Atheists often imply there is no god but the only way they can say this for sure is if they are absolutely certain and can provide evidence that a god does not exist. No evidence exists which is the big issue. Atheists will fit god into a bubble and usually in a Christian context then state that this god does not exist. I may agree with this statement in regards to many religion but Atheists never rule out all plausibility and even then certain definitive forms of god cannot be ruled out no matter what.

This was my argument for only weak atheism being accepted as logical in a different thread. Strong atheism is not really possible even if stated as most possible implication.

 

[Sha'irullah]

This was my argument for only weak atheism being accepted as logical in a different thread. Strong atheism is not really possible even if stated as most possible implication.

Something I do not understand is how newer atheists blur the lines of agnosticism and atheism.
Matt Dilahunty is a perfect example of this. As he promotes the idea that Atheism is the standpoint that no evidence for god has been prevented to consider it's existence. The fallacy of this is that this is agnosticism minus the opposing argument.

This just seems to blur the lines for atheism and agnosticism which does neither side any good.