Evidence?

[Rolling_Stone]

Hmmm. I'm still wondering why knowing God as a personal experience needs to be proved. The person demanding evidence is the one with the problem.

 

[Storm]

Hmmm. I'm still wondering why knowing God as a personal experience needs to be proved. The person demanding evidence is the one with the problem.

Then you need to go back and read the OP, because that's not the topic.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

It's perfectly relevant as far as I can see. It just means that IMV, "evidence" is irrelevant.

 

[Storm]

It's perfectly relevant.

Arguably, but given the purposes of this discussion, whining about it is out of bounds.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Arguably, but given the purposes of this discussion, whining about it is out of bounds.

Look, I voiced a relevant opinion in a debate forum. You're whining because, apparently, you don't like the notion that evidence, apart from personal experience, may not weigh heavily in the minds of believers.

 

[Storm]

Look, I voiced a relevant opinion in a debate forum. You're whining because, apparently, you don't like the notion that evidence, apart from personal experience, may not weigh heavily in the minds of believers.

Uhm, no. You have, not unsurprisingly, missed the point entirely. Believers have nothing to do with this thread. The topic is what non-believers would consider evidence of the existence of God. If they say they want proof that personal experience is correctly interpreted, it's a valid answer.

 

[Storm]

Bump.

 

[rojse]

Bump.

It's nice to have this topic bumped the day I return, especially since I have put some thought into this subject while I was gone. Thanks, Storm.

A person's personal experience, no matter how convincing it is to them, is not indisputable evidence of the existence of God for everyone else. It could just as easily (if not more so) be used as evidence that the brain is easily "tricked" through optical illusions, that we have over-reactive imaginations, that we tend to personify inanimate objects, and so forth. If I accidentally insult any theist, I apologise, because I have been fooled by these optical illusions myself.

While people might claim that their experience proves the existence of God, and I believe that these people genuinely believe their experiences have led them to that conclusion, whether the same experience would do so for me is another question entirely.

 

[Storm]

It's nice to have this topic bumped the day I return, especially since I have put some thought into this subject while I was gone. Thanks, Storm.

A person's personal experience, no matter how convincing it is to them, is not indisputable evidence of the existence of God for everyone else.

Oh, no! Have I ever implied that it should be taken as such?

It could just as easily (if not more so) be used as evidence that the brain is easily "tricked" through optical illusions, that we have over-reactive imaginations, that we tend to personify inanimate objects, and so forth. If I accidentally insult any theist, I apologise, because I have been fooled by these optical illusions myself.

What sort of optical illusions?

While people might claim that their experience proves the existence of God, and I believe that these people genuinely believe their experiences have led them to that conclusion, whether the same experience would do so for me is another question entirely.

Maybe, maybe not.

 

[rojse]

Oh, no! Have I ever implied that it should be taken as such?

I can read between the lines.

More seriously, although you have not, other people on this thead have, particularly RollingStone.

What sort of optical illusions?

An example of some relevance was seeing a dark shadow when walking home. I knew it was a person, with absolute conviction, and I kept on looking at it, to see what this person was going to do, and make sure he didn't try and surprise me in some way. After a few seconds, I figured out it was something natural - perhpas a shrub, I forget what it was exactly. The first thing I remember, quite clearly, was thinking: "That's a man there, watch him in case he tries to do something." The second thing was: "you're an idiot, seeing stuff that isn't there."

I hope showing you how foolish I can be at times has helped illustrate my point.

 

[Storm]

It has. You're talking about the spandrel theory.

While I do agree that it played a role in the evolution of God-concepts, I don't think it's a full explanation.

 

[fantome profane]

An example of some relevance was seeing a dark shadow when walking home. I knew it was a person, with absolute conviction, and I kept on looking at it, to see what this person was going to do, and make sure he didn't try and surprise me in some way. After a few seconds, I figured out it was something natural - perhpas a shrub, I forget what it was exactly. The first thing I remember, quite clearly, was thinking: "That's a man there, watch him in case he tries to do something." The second thing was: "you're an idiot, seeing stuff that isn't there."

What you are describing here is actually the most common form of optical illusion. Our brains are very sensitive to the image of other people. It is a very important feature, other people are the most important objects that we could find in our environment and it is important that we identify them as quickly as possible. But this sensitivity often leads to just the kind of error you describe.

It is actually my opinion that a very similar kind of error occurs when people have transcendent experiences. In not understand what they see or experience, they automatically tend to give it human features. Which is why I don’t give a lot of weight to peoples descriptions of “God”.

 

[rojse]

What you are describing here is actually the most common form of optical illusion. Our brains are very sensitive to the image of other people. It is a very important feature, other people are the most important objects that we could find in our environment and it is important that we identify them as quickly as possible. But this sensitivity often leads to just the kind of error you describe.

It is actually my opinion that a very similar kind of error occurs when people have transcendent experiences. In not understand what they see or experience, they automatically tend to give it human features. Which is why I don’t give a lot of weight to peoples descriptions of “God”.

I know what it is, but before I figured it out, I knew it was a person there. After a second or two, I figured it out. I used it to show an example of how optical illusions can seem real, even though I knew about this from my reading in science and religion.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

For me, personally, I would need to see God in the flesh, or have Him contact me.

Much as your "admittedly weak evidence", I would need an actual personal experience.

If God exists, I'm fairly certain that He has the ability to let me know - as others claim that He has done for them.

Failing that, it is simply an exercise in futility.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Uhm, no. You have, not unsurprisingly, missed the point entirely.

Color me "Surprised"!

 

[Sententia]

Something I hear frequently from non-believers is that they would believe in God if there were any evidence. I have two issues with this statement.

1) There is some - admittedly very weak - evidence: the widespread reports of personal experiences with God. Now, I can see why this is unconvincing, but it is evidence. Weak, yes, but evidence nonetheless, which is more than can be said for the argument that there is no God. With that nit picked....

2) What evidence of God's existence could there be? You say that evidence would convince you, but what would qualify?

Please note, I am asking about God's existence only, not assuming that God wants us to believe/ worship. I don't believe that God cares one way or another what we believe, so those arguments - while valid when appropriate - are not relevant to this particular conversation.

People also claim to talk to ghosts and be haunted. Some also claim everyone is after them. It is perhaps true that more people claim to personally experience god then those that say kool aid tastes like burning. I say perhaps because I dont have statistics in front of me and even if I did would likely not trust them but whatever... lets go with more claim a personal experience of god... Even if the majority of the planet claimed such an experience but could provide no other proof then their testimony... then it is an appeal to the masses and is a fallicious argument.

Its not weak evidence... by itself its nothing. Its people being people and humans being human.

As for what would convince me? If god doesnt care at all about showing himself your argument is essentially what would prove to me that Chris or other humans like Chris... say Bob, Jim Alice or Jessica really exist. If this argument was made to a dust mite with about the same intellectual capacity.

 

[logician]

At this point I know there is no evidence out there sufficient to prove there is a god, personal or general. If there was it would already be known by all.

 

[Yerda]

At this point I know there is no evidence out there sufficient to prove there is a god, personal or general. If there was it would already be known by all.

How do you know that you know this?

 

[logician]

How do you know that you know this?

Simple observation.

 

[Apex]

At this point I know there is no evidence out there sufficient to prove there is a god, personal or general. If there was it would already be known by all.

Please, enlighten the rest of us ignorant masses with your proof for this statement.