Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
" Religious Method"
" Religious Method"
But the religious method doesn't use verified, testable facts, or even reason. It just makes assertions based on nothing and discourages any questioning or investigation. It's not a method at all.
I am not talking about one God or several Gods. You have been putting these arguments of silence as evidence.
This is an embarrassment. How does my demanding an actual, cogent/real demonstration of the truth of God's existence equate to my holding "ridiculously high standards?" It is PRECISELY the same as the electrician. I am not just going to grab some shmoe off the street and ask him to perform electrical work on my house. I am going to try to find someone who can DEMONSTRATE, in some way, their proficiency/ability to do the work. WHY IN THE WORLD would I not do the same when looking for "a god" to worship? Not that I am looking... let me state that emphatically, because I know how theists like to look for "signs of weakness" so they can swoop in and try to "fill the holes" in a poor spirit's heart/soul. Your beliefs are a joke to me. One where the punchline goes over like a fart joke at a funeral... but a joke nonetheless.
It's not my job to tell you what evidence to produce. It's your job to produce it and convince me if you think your hypothesis actually holds merit. I am sure you have been told this countless times. It's like some "Bigfoot" enthusiast asking me what kind of evidence I would accept when I tell him that a crap-quality photo of a dark blur in the woods isn't good enough. Show me Bigfoot is the super-duper obvious answer there... but when I say that to you about God, you tell me "That's ridiculous" and dismiss the request out of hand. Andy why? Because you want to continue pretending that the reason God just isn't around at all, and that so many people just do not see things the way you and your buddy "God" do is because He exists "outside of space and time." How very convenient for you both. You then don't feel the need to produce ANYTHING nearing sufficient evidence, and God gets to just lounge around somewhere that no one can get to, access, measure, interface with, etc. THERE IS LIKELY A REALLY, REALLY GOOD REASON YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY GOOD EVIDENCE. I believe it is exactly the same reason I don't have any evidence of the 44-eyed, purple-ooze monster from Venus that I keep trying to tell people about.
No... not "right"... just "please."
If this part you quoted in your post:
Is a supporting tenet of "The Religious Method", then I can tell you right now that it is entirely useless. A "revealed book" is just something some people wrote and claim it is inspired by a deity. That's all it is. It, itself, is usually the ONLY THING that works as evidence for it. That's circular... and crap... and, again, useless. I'm not willing to accept that this "Religious Method" is at all legitimate unless you can show HOW IT PRODUCES RESULTS. What does it accomplish? Are there people employing this "Religious Method" who are producing things or knowledge that is useful to any human being, regardless their faith/creed/belief set?
That is why I keep asking, what type of evidence/observation you would accept…………that you wouldn’t dismiss with “God of the Gaps” or “Spaghetti monster” ………. And you keep avoiding a direct answer.
And I just got done telling you that I don't know what would constitute compelling enough evidence for me to accept the premise "God exists" outside of producing the genuine article for me to witness - i.e. actually encountering "God." That would be a start.
How about the same sort of evidence e have for cars, the moon, or relativity? Just something observable and testable?
AGAIN, the arguments typically provided by apologetics (fine tuining, kalam, resurrection, etc.) are good enough for me………….my question is what kind of evidence would you personally accept as “good evidence”?.
And what evidence do you have for cars moon or relativity? Any argument that you provide for say the existence of the moon can be easily dismissed with “it´s a moon of the gaps argument, just because we don’t know what causes the light in the night, that doesn’t mean that “moon did it”
It's going to have to be some kind of demonstration that links God to our reality in such a way that to deny it becomes an act of irrationality, which itself can also be demonstrated to be such to any impartial party. An easy example of something that meets this burden is evidence of gravity. If we had a courtroom within which was being presented gravity as a force of attraction between masses then the evidence that got weighed in for such would be of such a great degree of cogency, with nearly exhaustive predictive and explanatory power (for our day-to-day lives at least) that it would be deemed entirely irrational (and such could definitely be demonstrated by comparing the theory to reality, and demonstrating how closely reality can be modeled, such that it leaves no room for quibble) to reject - UNLESS you could present evidence that AN EVEN BETTER MODEL exists that takes explanation and prediction of "gravity" to an even greater level of fidelity in comparison with real-world activities.
One is talking of the requirement of a Science/Scientific Method not of Religion/Religious Method. Right, please?
" One can use ridiculous atheist logic to dismiss any claim"