Is it fair to call belief in YHWH an illusion?

[Pariah]

A different way of looking at it -

Is God an illusion or a delusion insomuch as it does not affect the real world?

For example, those Christians who simply attend Church for the sake of attending accept an illusion while any other religious person who puts into play their religious ideas and morality live God as opposed to merely believing... in this sense, could God be said to be "alive" or "exist"? God exists through the people as opposed to separate from the people?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The phenomenom known as ghosts is labeled as unexplainable for one. Second, there is a consistency in this phenomenom. Also a disembodied person is not the only explanation, but it is the best one at the moment.

Okay.

Electronic Voice Phenomenom (EVP) and full bodied apparitions to start with.

I could imagine the possibility of very convincing evidence here. For example, a timestamped recording of EVP revealing a voice that says "Clark Thompson of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida will be killed by a shark tomorrow" followed by the fulfillment of the prediction. Or, if a full-bodied apparition appeared in downtown NY city and was witnessed and photographed by hundreds of people as it smashed storefront windows and caused general mayhem.

You have shown facts that these things can happen. You have not shown that facts that all theism is a result of such things or if it's even applicable to every one of them.

True. Then again, no one has been able to show that the mutual gravitational attraction of massive bodies is true for every massive body in the universe. All we can say is that, despite ample opportunity to be falsified, all the available data is consistent with a certain explanation. If there was even one example of a massive object with no gravitational field, then we could throw out the idea that Newton's laws apply to all massive bodies. The fact that not ONE contrary example has been found, despite ample opportunity, allows us to tentatively conclude that all massive bodies follow suit. As long as we are willing to reject this conclusion if and when any contrary example is found, this is perfectly reasonable.

In the same vein, if there was even one example of a god-belief that was very inconsistent with cultural delusion (e.g. the example I gave of YHWH appearing to the Aztecs and the Hebrews), then my explanation could certainly not apply to all god-beliefs. Please bring anything you feel satisfies this requirement to my attention.

I'd also like to comment on thet "other wordly, feel good" study: Sit down with a devout theist such as a Christian, and ask how many of them base their beliefs off of a "good feeling" they get. In fact, Christians preach quite the opposite: Faith in God is not about feelings.

I was raised Christian and I went to a Christian school so I think I understand the mentality. The subjects in the study didn't say they had a "good feeling", they said they felt the presence of God or a lost loved one.

I could say the fact that Atheism didn't pop up until the 6th century B.C. and that virtually all cultures had an instictive belief in a higer power is proof that belief in God is valid. That doesn't mean that Gods do "exist" per se. It just means that belief in them can be explained without having to invoke any cultural observations. We're just going in circles here.

Yes, you *could* explain belief in every pantheon of gods and spirits that has ever existed by postulating they all really did appear before their own sects of followers. That would indeed obviate the need to invoke cultural explanations for belief. But why postulate the existence of tens of thousands of supernatural beings when cultural explanations will do? To invoke Occam's Razor: why multiply entities unnecessarily? Surely you reject your own reasoning; otherwise you would believe in Zeus and Ahura Mazda as fervently as you believe in YHWH. Or is YHWH a special exception to all the other gods?

By the way, heliocentrism did not become widespread until the 16th century--long after the arrival of Atheism--but virtually all cultures had an instinctive belief in geocentrism from the beginning. So if we accept that the Earth orbits the Sun, we must reject your reasoning here.

Well that is not what was being addressed in that particular post, but ok. Once again though, I go back to my earlier argument of consistency of interaction of the Abrahamic God as opposed to Zeus.

My understanding is that scholars have demonstrated that belief in the Abrahamic God has changed a great deal over the centuries, from a polytheistic cult of a certain god (YHWH) to a monotheistic religion in which god is and has been depicted as anything from triune to singular to vengeful to loving. How is belief in Zeus less "consistent"?

I can point you towards pictures, but you will probably dismiss them as being photoshopped or a "lighting" anomoly. I can point you towards videos, but you will probably dimiss them as being fraudulent or some other "natural" explanation that you will manage to think of. I can't point you towards testimonies documenting interactions, but you will probably dismiss them as people imagining or "seeing" things. Maybe I'm wrong?

If the evidence really is conclusive, as you have claimed, then it shouldn't lend itself to being a hoax or lighting anomaly. If it could easily have been a hoax or if it is not clear that what is being shown is the spirit of a dead person, then it isn't really "conclusive", is it?

What would you accept as proof?

I don't believe in "proof", but I would accept as very very very VERY compelling evidence the same things that most people accept as compelling evidence. If tornadoes exist, I expect to see things that are best explained by a tornadoe, like a 3-mile path of destruction, cars upside down and 100's of yards from where they were parked, etc.; I expect simultaneous eyewitness testimony from seperate, disinterested parties providing confirming details of other testimony and what is shown in photos and videos.

As far as "ghosts", I guess you'd have to define what a "ghost" is, first. If a ghost is a disembodied spirit that spends most of its time causing splotches of light to appear on film that are indistinguishable from unfocused dust particles or lens artifacts, then I don't think it is even possible to gather "evidence" for such things. In any case, how could you distinguish ghosts from demons, faries, or highly advanced extra terrestrials?

On the other hand, if "ghosts" are disembodied spirits that are a little more active than that, then I could imagine all sorts of compelling evidence. A chair flying around in the air outdoors in front of dozens of eyewitnesses and captured on high resolution video, accompanied by a disembodied voice that could communicate with people and reveal intimate, verifiable details of its former life--that would do it. It would be even better if the chair flew into a tree or a house or something and caused some damage, and if the event occurred day after day in front of scientists, news media--everyone--and great attempts to uncover fraud were unsuccessful.

If ghosts really exist I don't see why this shouldn't be commonplace.

The problem is the "official" scientific community, sets the rules and limits for what is considered "evidence." It's like asking someone who supports evolution to prove his theory, but he can only use the Bible to do so.

What are some of the "limits" set by the "official" scientific community that you feel are too stringent?

If a person thinks that someone is not legit, they're not going to believe any evidence that is presented by them. That's a given.

True. But if a person has conclusive evidence for something, then the evidence should be reproducible by independent parties and the data should speak for itself without anyone having to assume anything about the person's legitimacy.

One has to be open minded enough that what is being shown has the possibility of being legit. That is what I was getting at.

I would be thrilled if ghosts existed. I'm just not holding by breath, based on the reading that I've done on the subject and on my experience. But I am open to the possibility.

So because some people in a group are dellusional or commit fraud, does that mean that all people in that group are guilty of the same thing? That seems like the picture you are trying to paint.

I'm trying to discuss claims and evidence, not "groups of people". This doesn't have to be personal.

And such a thing is not limited to advocates for God and the supernatural. It applies to all groups of people......even "scientists."

Absolutely. I agree.

And you would post these examples in contrast to what exactly? I also wasn't aware that there was a way to factually prove that an individual was superstitious, inexpereinced, etc. Again this is proven in contrast to what? Is there a graph or percentages of people who are proven to be these things and people who are not?

It's in contrast to lots of things. It's in contrast to events where planes are struck by lightning in air, and the plane glows or even hums. We often have testimony of these events from professional pilots who have a lot of experience in the sky and in foul weather.

I can tell you will see evidence and of what type until I'm blue in the face. Wheter or not you accept them as such is a different story. Once again we are delving into the realm of subjectivity.

I see. I guess when I originally said "conclusive evidence" I was thinking more along the lines of evidence that is firmly outside the realm of subjectivity, like the evidence for heliocentrism or the evidence for germ theory.

 

[Mister_T]

I could imagine the possibility of very convincing evidence here. For example, a timestamped recording of EVP revealing a voice that says "Clark Thompson of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida will be killed by a shark tomorrow" followed by the fulfillment of the prediction. Or, if a full-bodied apparition appeared in downtown NY city and was witnessed and photographed by hundreds of people as it smashed storefront windows and caused general mayhem.

I have actually heard of a simliar story like the one you would find convincing. And there has been documentation of ghosts attacking people and also of them throwing objects around, I see what you're getting at though.

The fact that not ONE contrary example has been found, despite ample opportunity, allows us to tentatively conclude that all massive bodies follow suit. As long as we are willing to reject this conclusion if and when any contrary example is found, this is perfectly reasonable.

In the same vein, if there was even one example of a god-belief that was very inconsistent with cultural delusion (e.g. the example I gave of YHWH appearing to the Aztecs and the Hebrews), then my explanation could certainly not apply to all god-beliefs. Please bring anything you feel satisfies this requirement to my attention.

Something similiar to your Aztec evidence: Documents such as the Bible is composed of 66 books, composed by numerous authors that spanned 3 continents (Europe, Asia and Africa). Where as the Illiad and the Odyssey were written by Homer in Greece.

Or how about the fact the Rome dumped their Greek inspired gods in favor of the god of Abraham? These could be used as evidence against your argument.

I was raised Christian and I went to a Christian school so I think I understand the mentality. The subjects in the study didn't say they had a "good feeling", they said they felt the presence of God or a lost loved one.

Then you would know that faith has little to do with what you feel. And feeling "God's presence" is a feeling, good feeling according to testimony.

To invoke Occam's Razor: why multiply entities unnecessarily? Surely you reject your own reasoning; otherwise you would believe in Zeus and Ahura Mazda as fervently as you believe in YHWH. Or is YHWH a special exception to all the other gods?

Maybe what people see as "multiple entities" is really different expressions?

But I think we're losing focus here. They argument is whether or not one is more credible than the other....not whether or not one is real and one isn't.

By the way, heliocentrism did not become widespread until the 16th century--long after the arrival of Atheism--but virtually all cultures had an instinctive belief in geocentrism from the beginning. So if we accept that the Earth orbits the Sun, we must reject your reasoning here.

And virtually all cultures had the instinctive belief that the moon orbits around the Earth......once again we're going in circles.

My understanding is that scholars have demonstrated that belief in the Abrahamic God has changed a great deal over the centuries, from a polytheistic cult of a certain god (YHWH) to a monotheistic religion in which god is and has been depicted as anything from triune to singular to vengeful to loving. How is belief in Zeus less "consistent"?

Scholars have also demonstrated that belief in the God of Abraham has been predominantly montheistic and has remained consistently so to this day And my argument has been about consistency of testimony and evidence.....not chracter. Let's not muddy this any further.

If the evidence really is conclusive, as you have claimed, then it shouldn't lend itself to being a hoax or lighting anomaly. If it could easily have been a hoax or if it is not clear that what is being shown is the spirit of a dead person, then it isn't really "conclusive", is it?

One would have to be open minded enough to consider the possibility of spirits before they could consider something such as the picture of a person ghost, evidence. Otherwise it's a wasted effort.

As far as "ghosts", I guess you'd have to define what a "ghost" is, first. If a ghost is a disembodied spirit that spends most of its time causing splotches of light to appear on film that are indistinguishable from unfocused dust particles or lens artifacts, then I don't think it is even possible to gather "evidence" for such things. In any case, how could you distinguish ghosts from demons, faries, or highly advanced extra terrestrials?

Well I for one, take pictures/video/testimonies of "orbs" and "mists" with a grain of salt as do most people who study ghosts. Most of those type of pictures could be easily debunked. Ghosts are supposedly the spirits of deceased people which is why those who study ghosts take EVP's and full-figured apparitions as support for that theory.

On the other hand, if "ghosts" are disembodied spirits that are a little more active than that, then I could imagine all sorts of compelling evidence. A chair flying around in the air outdoors in front of dozens of eyewitnesses and captured on high resolution video,

There is video evidence for these things that the people at TAPS have caught on film.

accompanied by a disembodied voice that could communicate with people and reveal intimate, verifiable details of its former life--

There is documentation of that too.

What are some of the "limits" set by the "official" scientific community that you feel are too stringent?.

Similiar to what you mentioned here:

It would be even better if the chair flew into a tree or a house or something and caused some damage, and if the event occurred day after day in front of scientists, news media--everyone--and great attempts to uncover fraud were unsuccessful.

Scientists against phenomenon such as this are dictating a criteria of how they believe it should work. It's the same thing as creationists dictating how they believe evolution works to support their ideals. What if things don't work that way?

I would be thrilled if ghosts existed. I'm just not holding by breath, based on the reading that I've done on the subject and on my experience. But I am open to the possibility.

I appreciate a skeptic mind. I have one as well. Maybe that show I reffered you to will provide something compelling for you. For the record, I'm also open to the possibility that ghosts are not what they are claimed to be.

I'm trying to discuss claims and evidence, not "groups of people". This doesn't have to be personal.

I'm not trying to make this personal. I'm just trying to get an better understanding of your position towards those groups. My apologies if I made it seem differently.

It's in contrast to lots of things. It's in contrast to events where planes are struck by lightning in air, and the plane glows or even hums. We often have testimony of these events from professional pilots who have a lot of experience in the sky and in foul weather.

I'm not following you. We're talking about gauging a persons superstition and inexperience, drawing a line and calling that it a fact. These things are not measurable. How do you prove a person being superstitious a fact? Again, is there some type of graph I missed out on?

I see. I guess when I originally said "conclusive evidence" I was thinking more along the lines of evidence that is firmly outside the realm of subjectivity, like the evidence for heliocentrism or the evidence for germ theory.

Have you ever been to outer space and witnessed heliocentism for yourself? Have you seen a germ with your own very eyes? If not, how can you say it's conclusive evidence using your reasoning? Those things still lie in the realm of subjectivity.

 

[Mister_T]

Spinkles, I am having deja' vu' of our last thread.

 

[Hope]

What about belief in Zeus, Ahura Mazda, Attahualpa, or all the other gods? Is it fair to compare belief in YHWH to belief in Zeus?

The difference between YHWH and Zeus is that one answers prayers, the other doesn't. The cool thing about God is that He actually invites people to seek Him. If you truly, truly want to find out if He's real, just ask Him to show you. And don't place silly limitations on Him by saying things like, Ok, I'm only gonna believe you if you do such and such, like topple that tree over there. Come to Him with an open heart and open mind, and wait and see what happens. You'll be surprised.

He's definitely not imaginary or an illusion.

 

[MaddLlama]

The difference between YHWH and Zeus is that one answers prayers, the other doesn't.

Really? I know plenty of people who've prayed to Zeus and Athena and gotten answers. The outcome seems to be no different for the Christians I know.

Have you ever asked Zeus for anything? If not, how can you know if he answers prayers?

 

[Hope]

Really? I know plenty of people who've prayed to Zeus and Athena and gotten answers. The outcome seems to be no different for the Christians I know.

Have you ever asked Zeus for anything? If not, how can you know if he answers prayers?

Well, that's where you get into the difference between God and Satan. I certainly believe in other supernatural beings, but a lot of them are demonic.

I'll bet, though, that whoever masquerades as "Zeus" or "Athena" doesn't answer prayers the same way God does.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hope,

Thanks for your response. I appreciate your candor.

I second MaddLlama's comments.

Also I would add that, the way you have framed the problem, you are suggesting that if I pray for something and it doesn't come true, then I have somehow failed. My heart or mind wasn't open enough, or what I was praying for was "too much". So-called psychic readers use a similar technique: if they have several misses in a row, they'll ask things like "is it possible that you have met this person and forgotten?" or "do you understand what I'm telling you?"

Framing things this way makes it impossible for the psychic's (or YHWH's) powers to ever fail. When the psychic gets it right, it's due to her powers, and when she gets it wrong, it's because you don't understand. When a prayer to YHWH comes true, it's because there really is a YHWH, and when it doesn't, it's because you weren't being sincere or you were asking too much.

For example, it would be "too much" to ask YHWH to violate well-established physical laws, like making something levitate or making an amputated limb grow back....those things have zero chance of happening without divine intervention, and you can only ask YHWH to do something that has some tiny chance of happening on its own. Convenient, no?

 

[MaddLlama]

Well, that's where you get into the difference between God and Satan. I certainly believe in other supernatural beings, but a lot of them are demonic.

I'll agree with you there. I believe your God exists too (though his reach is probably not as over-arching as his followers believe), and he's pretty demonic.

I'll bet, though, that whoever masquerades as "Zeus" or "Athena" doesn't answer prayers the same way God does.

I'll bet, though, that you'd never be willing to try and find out.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Something similiar to your Aztec evidence: Documents such as the Bible is composed of 66 books, composed by numerous authors that spanned 3 continents (Europe, Asia and Africa). Where as the Illiad and the Odyssey were written by Homer in Greece.

And despite the vastly different timeperiods and cultures, all those 66 books fit seamlessly into one another, with no hint of different ideas, histories, cosmologies, or metaphysics due to differing timeperiods and cultures.... :no:

The facts you've given are not incompatible with a cultural evolution explanation of the Bible.

Or how about the fact the Rome dumped their Greek inspired gods in favor of the god of Abraham? These could be used as evidence against your argument.

My argument (er, one of them) is essentially that god-beliefs come from culture. Cultures change. So this example wouldn't be evidence against my argument....but I will still concede that it does cry out for explanation. I would offer the following for your consideration:

• The Christianization of Rome was a process that took hundreds of years
• Paganism was systematically outlawed
• Christianity favored aggressivesly converting / conquering non-Christians
• Paganism wasn't dumped but adapted and incorporated into Christianity

Then you would know that faith has little to do with what you feel.

I know that not everyone's faith is the same. For some, faith has a lot to do with an experience in which the person felt the presence of God or a lost loved one. The neuroscience experiment I cited demonstrates that there need not necessarily be a God for these experiences to arise. This does not prove my argument, but it is one piece of the puzzle, i.m.o.

Maybe what people see as "multiple entities" is really different expressions?

I can accept that as possible, but I would invite you to consider *all* the possibilties. Maybe the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are really just different expressions of Zeus, Hera, and Hercules. Or, maybe they are all just different expressions of a single, universal human psychological need. And so on.

But I think we're losing focus here. They argument is whether or not one is more credible than the other....not whether or not one is real and one isn't.

I was simply trying to show that the rebuttal you offered:

I could say the fact that Atheism didn't pop up until the 6th century B.C. and that virtually all cultures had an instictive belief in a higer power is proof that belief in God is valid.
​

Does not affect the argument I had made:

To take an example, if belief in the Abrahamic god had NOT spread by missionaries and conquerors; if instead YHWH had appeared to BOTH the Aztecs and the Hebrews and given them each identical lists of the Ten Commandments before peoples from Eurasia and the Americas ever made contact; then that would be pretty good evidence AGAINST the idea that belief in YHWH is product of culture. Of course, that's not what happened.
​

And virtually all cultures had the instinctive belief that the moon orbits around the Earth......once again we're going in circles.

No, we're not, because once again that doesn't affect the rebuttal I was making to your argument. You argued: "I could say the fact that Atheism didn't pop up until the 6th century B.C. ... is proof that belief in God is valid." This is a non-sequitur. The fact that this line of reasoning will get you to the correct conclusion when applied to certain examples (like the Moon orbiting the Earth) does not make it logically sound.

Scholars have also demonstrated that belief in the God of Abraham has been predominantly montheistic and has remained consistently so to this day And my argument has been about consistency of testimony and evidence.....not chracter. Let's not muddy this any further.

Belief in Zeus has been predominantly polytheistic. Belief in Buddha has been predominantly atheistic and remains so to this day....

Consistency of testimony is only compelling in certain circumstances--namely, when the parties involved are not aware of the testimonies of others. Bigfoot sightings, alien abduction stories, and Native American encounters with the prankster god Coyote all have a consistency of testimony that one might expect, from a cultural delusion standpoint, when people have already heard lots of previous testimonies, so they can copy them or interpret events to fit them.

On the other hand, consistency of testimony would be compelling in my "Aztec example", since the ancient Aztecs and Hebrews did not have any contact with one another.

One would have to be open minded enough to consider the possibility of spirits before they could consider something such as the picture of a person ghost, evidence. Otherwise it's a wasted effort.

Fair enough, but that doesn't answer the issue I was raising: If the evidence really is conclusive, as you have claimed, then it shouldn't lend itself to being a hoax or lighting anomaly. If it could easily have been a hoax or if it is not clear that what is being shown is the spirit of a dead person, then it isn't really "conclusive", is it?

Well I for one, take pictures/video/testimonies of "orbs" and "mists" with a grain of salt as do most people who study ghosts. Most of those type of pictures could be easily debunked. Ghosts are supposedly the spirits of deceased people which is why those who study ghosts take EVP's and full-figured apparitions as support for that theory.

Here's a definition of EVP I found on http://www.aaevp.com/faq/faq_evpitc.html#What_is_EVP/ITC :

Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP) is the term traditionally used to describe unexpected sounds or voices sometimes found on recording media.
​

How do we go from unexpected sounds or voices to the disembodied voice of a dead person? A priori, it might as well be cross-chatter from interdimensional aliens on cell phones, or anything else one could imagine, natural or otherwise.

There is video evidence for these things that the people at TAPS have caught on film.

There is documentation of that too.

Where?

Scientists against phenomenon such as this are dictating a criteria of how they believe it should work. It's the same thing as creationists dictating how they believe evolution works to support their ideals. What if things don't work that way?

That's fine, but if ghosts ONLY appear in such a way as to never provide conclusive evidence, then we are justified in considering them with the same seriousness that we consider leprechauns, faries, and indeed gods that only appear in such a way as to never provide conclusive evidence.

I appreciate a skeptic mind. I have one as well. Maybe that show I reffered you to will provide something compelling for you. For the record, I'm also open to the possibility that ghosts are not what they are claimed to be.

Fair enough.

I'm not following you. We're talking about gauging a persons superstition and inexperience, drawing a line and calling that it a fact. These things are not measurable. How do you prove a person being superstitious a fact? Again, is there some type of graph I missed out on?

I guess I assumed that, wherever you and I draw the line, we both draw it to one side of many of the parties involved in ghost stories. For example, in the classic Amityville case:

Still, the Lutzes stuck to their story, reaping tens of thousands of dollars from the book and film rights.
The truth behind The Amityville Horror was finally revealed when Butch DeFeo's lawyer, William Weber, admitted that he, along with the Lutzes, "created this horror story over many bottles of wine." The house was never really haunted; the horrific experiences they had claimed were simply made up. While the Lutzes profited handsomely from their story, Weber had planned to use the haunting to gain a new trial for his client.
( http://www.csicop.org/sb/2005-03/ghosts.html )

​

The Lutzes were clearly an interested party. Can I "prove" that they were, as a "fact"? In some deeply technical philosophical sense, no. I'll give you that. But I think you and I and most people can agree that these people were an interested party.

Have you ever been to outer space and witnessed heliocentism for yourself? Have you seen a germ with your own very eyes? If not, how can you say it's conclusive evidence using your reasoning? Those things still lie in the realm of subjectivity.

No, they don't. The phases on Venus that can be seen through a telescope can be seen and independently confirmed by anyone. The positions of the planets predicted by the heliocentric model can be confirmed using instruments as well. The fact that the germs you see under a microscope isn't a "subjective" experience can be established with controlled experiments: for example, make slides of different-looking cells; if people can identify the cells by looking at them under the microscope and without knowing beforehand which slide they are to look at, and if they get it right more often than you would expect by random guessing, then clearly this is an objective way of looking at something.

 

[Hope]

I'll bet, though, that you'd never be willing to try and find out.

You bet I won't!:cover:

When you're a Christian you don't mess around with stuff like that. It's dangerous.

 

[MaddLlama]

You bet I won't!:cover:

When you're a Christian you don't mess around with stuff like that. It's dangerous.

I believe you've missed my point. If you're not willing to find out, then how can you say you know the "reality" of the Gods I worship with such complete certainty? My personal experience with them has shown the opposite of your supposition.

Why does your personal experience outweigh mine, but mine can't outweigh yours when talking about my own religion?

 

[Mister_T]

The facts you've given are not incompatible with a cultural evolution explanation of the Bible.

Nor are they incompatible with the theory of Christianity not being the result of culture.

My argument (er, one of them) is essentially that god-beliefs come from culture. Cultures change. So this example wouldn't be evidence against my argument....but I will still concede that it does cry out for explanation. I would offer the following for your consideration:

It could be argued that the Romans switched to Christianity because they found it to be more a more trustworthy (credible) belief than the the beliefs they adopted from the Greeks. For the record, I don't rule out that god-beliefs come from culture. I don't even really disagree with it. I have considered those four options (although I don't agree with the third one).

I know that not everyone's faith is the same. For some, faith has a lot to do with an experience in which the person felt the presence of God or a lost loved one. The neuroscience experiment I cited demonstrates that there need not necessarily be a God for these experiences to arise. This does not prove my argument, but it is one piece of the puzzle, i.m.o.

But the idea that faith in God does not equal feelings, is part of the Christian doctrine. Followers are constantly told that feelings are deceiving/unreliable and not to put your trust in them.

And as for your neuroscience experiement, I'm not seeing it the as a piece to the "God is in your head" puzzle. A neuroscientist can reproduce feelings of being full or feeling sad....these things are known to be real feelings. Just because someone can reproduce these feelings, doesn't mean they aren't real.

I can accept that as possible, but I would invite you to consider *all* the possibilties. Maybe the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are really just different expressions of Zeus, Hera, and Hercules. Or, maybe they are all just different expressions of a single, universal human psychological need. And so on.

I do consider those as possibilities. Whether I believe them or not is a different story.

I was simply trying to show that the rebuttal you offered: Does not affect the argument I had made:

Nor does it disprove mine...which is the point I was trying to make.

No, we're not, because once again that doesn't affect the rebuttal I was making to your argument. You argued: "I could say the fact that Atheism didn't pop up until the 6th century B.C. ... is proof that belief in God is valid." This is a non-sequitur. The fact that this line of reasoning will get you to the correct conclusion when applied to certain examples (like the Moon orbiting the Earth) does not make it logically sound.

You're losing me here: We were talking about belief in God being an instinct and you rebuttaled it with your geocentrism/heliocentrism analogy. If I understood you correctly, you were trying to say that the the instinctive belief in geocentrism was disproven with the discovery of heliocentrism....thus making instincts about such things, false. My rebuttal was that cultures instinctively belied that the moon orbited the earth.....thus making such instincts right. So yes, it does affect that rebuttal.

Consistency of testimony is only compelling in certain circumstances--namely, when the parties involved are not aware of the testimonies of others. Bigfoot sightings, alien abduction stories, and Native American encounters with the prankster god Coyote all have a consistency of testimony that one might expect, from a cultural delusion standpoint, when people have already heard lots of previous testimonies, so they can copy them or interpret events to fit them.

Who said that anybody was unaware of others testimony? On the contrary: People are completely aware of others testimony which is where they draw such conclusions from. The fact that the Abrahamic religions have managed to stay virtually intact after thousands of years (while Zeus has not), is a more a credible religion in my opinion.

On the other hand, consistency of testimony would be compelling in my "Aztec example", since the ancient Aztecs and Hebrews did not have any contact with one another.

I agree.

Fair enough, but that doesn't answer the issue I was raising: If the evidence really is conclusive, as you have claimed, then it shouldn't lend itself to being a hoax or lighting anomaly. If it could easily have been a hoax or if it is not clear that what is being shown is the spirit of a dead person, then it isn't really "conclusive", is it?

The point I was trying to make was that despite how compelling a piece of evidence may be, there are people who would choose to keep their heads in the sand and this applies to both side of the spectrum.

How do we go from unexpected sounds or voices to the disembodied voice of a dead person? A priori, it might as well be cross-chatter from interdimensional aliens on cell phones, or anything else one could imagine, natural or otherwise.

well one that sticks out in my mind from T.A.P.S.: There were reports from a City Hall in Rhode Island of people having encounters with the supposed ghost of a little girl who had died there. The reported encounters consisted of people hearing a little girl crying in this particular area of the City Hall. A recorder was set up in the area and when it was played back you could distinctively hear a little girl crying. The T.A.P.S. was not able to debunk it......however such experience are not just limited to T.A.P.S. These things have been going on for a while....T.A.P.S. just gets publicity.

Where?

Watch the show.

The Lutzes were clearly an interested party. Can I "prove" that they were, as a "fact"? In some deeply technical philosophical sense, no. I'll give you that. But I think you and I and most people can agree that these people were an interested party.

I agree. But we can't judge an entire group of people based off the actions of a few.

No, they don't. The phases on Venus that can be seen through a telescope can be seen and independently confirmed by anyone. The positions of the planets predicted by the heliocentric model can be confirmed using instruments as well. The fact that the germs you see under a microscope isn't a "subjective" experience can be established with controlled experiments: for example, make slides of different-looking cells; if people can identify the cells by looking at them under the microscope and without knowing beforehand which slide they are to look at, and if they get it right more often than you would expect by random guessing, then clearly this is an objective way of looking at something.

My point was though that you have not traveled to outerspace and directly witnessed heliocentrism for yourself. Nor do you know for sure what you are looking at in a microscope, is in fact a germ (assuming of course that you have actually used a microscope). You are forming an opinion based off what the testimonies of society has dictated to you.....similiar to what you pointed out to me earlier:

Bigfoot sightings, alien abduction stories, and Native American encounters with the prankster god Coyote all have a consistency from a cultural delusion standpoint, when people have already heard lots of previous testimonies, so they can copy them or interpret events to fit them.

I'm just trying to show how much subjectivity is in our culture, but doesn't get recognized.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Nor are they incompatible with the theory of Christianity not being the result of culture.

Right. We can ignore the facts that "Documents such as the Bible is composed of 66 books, composed by numerous authors that spanned 3 continents", because they don't tell us anything either way.

For the record, I don't rule out that god-beliefs come from culture. I don't even really disagree with it.

Maybe it would be best, then, if we re-examine where we disagree.

But the idea that faith in God does not equal feelings, is part of the Christian doctrine. Followers are constantly told that feelings are deceiving/unreliable and not to put your trust in them.

I didn't say faith equals feelings, I said: For some, faith has a lot to do with an experience in which the person felt the presence of God or a lost loved one.

And as for your neuroscience experiement, I'm not seeing it the as a piece to the "God is in your head" puzzle. A neuroscientist can reproduce feelings of being full or feeling sad....these things are known to be real feelings. Just because someone can reproduce these feelings, doesn't mean they aren't real.

Very true. I do not doubt the reality of spiritual experiences. The open question is how are they produced.

You're losing me here: We were talking about belief in God being an instinct and you rebuttaled it with your geocentrism/heliocentrism analogy. If I understood you correctly, you were trying to say that the the instinctive belief in geocentrism was disproven with the discovery of heliocentrism....thus making instincts about such things, false.

Ah, I see. You misunderstood me. I was NOT arguing if something is a natural instinct, then it's false. I WAS arguing that YOUR suggestion (the one about belief in gods being a natural instinct and Atheism being a more recent phenomenon) is a non-sequitur: namely, if something is a natural instinct, then it's true. Um, no.

Who said that anybody was unaware of others testimony? On the contrary: People are completely aware of others testimony which is where they draw such conclusions from.

I think you misunderstood me. My point was that people are indeed very often aware of others' testimony when it comes to supernatural experiences.

The point I was trying to make was that despite how compelling a piece of evidence may be, there are people who would choose to keep their heads in the sand and this applies to both side of the spectrum.

I agree. Do you agree that If it could easily have been a hoax or if it is not clear that what is being shown is the spirit of a dead person, then it isn't really "conclusive" ?

well one that sticks out in my mind from T.A.P.S.: There were reports from a City Hall in Rhode Island of people having encounters with the supposed ghost of a little girl who had died there. The reported encounters consisted of people hearing a little girl crying in this particular area of the City Hall. A recorder was set up in the area and when it was played back you could distinctively hear a little girl crying. The T.A.P.S. was not able to debunk it......

A flurry of questions come to mind. For starters, how did they distinguish between the sound of a little girl crying and the sound of a little boy crying? I would be a little impressed if they even thought to ask this question.

Watch the show.

I'll try to catch it between episodes of South Park.

I agree. But we can't judge an entire group of people based off the actions of a few.

Very true. I would contend, however, that this (superstition, inexperience, uninformed of various physical phenomena, interested) is not the actions of a few but a pretty reliable pattern in any ghost story that has been thoroughly investigated.

My point was though that you have not traveled to outerspace and directly witnessed heliocentrism for yourself.

This is a bad example for a number of reasons, but I see the point you are making. It's not a very good one, I'm afraid. You don't need to leave Earth in order to falsify or confirm the predictions made by heliocentrism. It could hardly be called subjective.

 

[Mister_T]

Right. We can ignore the facts that "Documents such as the Bible is composed of 66 books, composed by numerous authors that spanned 3 continents", because they don't tell us anything either way.

They do tell us that the Bible may not have been the result of culture, but feel free to ignore whatever you want.

Maybe it would be best, then, if we re-examine where we disagree.

Sounds good to me.

I didn't say faith equals feelings, I said: For some, faith has a lot to do with an experience in which the person felt the presence of God or a lost loved one.

What you put in quotes is still a feeling though.......

Ah, I see. You misunderstood me. I was NOT arguing if something is a natural instinct, then it's false. I WAS arguing that YOUR suggestion (the one about belief in gods being a natural instinct and Atheism being a more recent phenomenon) is a non-sequitur: namely, if something is a natural instinct, then it's true. Um, no.

No, I understood you just fine. I think you are misunderstanding me: I didn't say that if something is a natural instinct, that it is in fact, true. I was showing that it was a possibility in attempts to point out to you the flaws of your argument....which seems to be all we're doing at this point.

I think you misunderstood me. My point was that people are indeed very often aware of others' testimony when it comes to supernatural experiences.

Could have fooled me:

Consistency of testimony is only compelling in certain circumstances--namely, when the parties involved are not aware of the testimonies of others

:sarcastic

I agree. Do you agree that If it could easily have been a hoax or if it is not clear that what is being shown is the spirit of a dead person, then it isn't really "conclusive" ?

The problem we run into is what people will ultimately acccept as conclusive evidence. I think that evidence for such things should be taken with a grain of salt until it is investigated further and should be looked at from every possible angle before coming to any hastey conclusions.

A flurry of questions come to mind. For starters, how did they distinguish between the sound of a little girl crying and the sound of a little boy crying? I would be a little impressed if they even thought to ask this question.

I don't think they did distinguish, but such a detail minuscule compared to the fact that they actually captured something crying. I don't really see what relevance the ghost's sex plays in this.

I'll try to catch it between episodes of South Park.

I'm not sure if that's a subtle joke or not.

Very true. I would contend, however, that this (superstition, inexperience, uninformed of various physical phenomena, interested) is not the actions of a few but a pretty reliable pattern in any ghost story that has been thoroughly investigated.

So is a disliking for God and religion in the scientific community......yet you don't hear me say that all scientists are God haters and that their conclusions stem from their animosity for religion.

This is a bad example for a number of reasons, but I see the point you are making. It's not a very good one, I'm afraid. You don't need to leave Earth in order to falsify or confirm the predictions made by heliocentrism. It could hardly be called subjective.

You do need to leave earth to turn you faith in such predictions into reality. But heliocentrism is not the argument, being selective with what we choose to have conclusive evidence for, is.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

They do tell us that the Bible may not have been the result of culture ...

If a given set of facts are not incompatible with either explanation, then they don't tell us anything. You agreed in your previous post that the set of facts you offered are not incompatible with either explanation.

What you put in quotes is still a feeling though.......

Irrelevant. My point was to talk about the faith of many. Experiences of feeling God's presence have bolstered the faith of many, whether or not they have affected your personal faith and whether or not that should be the basis of faith in your personal opinion.

No, I understood you just fine. I think you are misunderstanding me: I didn't say that if something is a natural instinct, that it is in fact, true. I was showing that it was a possibility in attempts to point out to you the flaws of your argument....

Let's recap: I said (and please read carefully to avoid further confusion)

To take an example, if belief in the Abrahamic god had NOT spread by missionaries and conquerors; if instead YHWH had appeared to BOTH the Aztecs and the Hebrews and given them each identical lists of the Ten Commandments before peoples from Eurasia and the Americas ever made contact; then that would be pretty good evidence AGAINST the idea that belief in YHWH is product of culture...
​

To which you replied:

I could say the fact that Atheism didn't pop up until the 6th century B.C. and that virtually all cultures had an instictive belief in a higer power is proof that belief in God is valid. ...
​

What I'm hearing from you now is that you didn't really mean this. This was intentionally faulty logic that was somehow supposed to show that my argument, too, employed faulty logic. Forgive me, but I see no connection.

I think you misunderstood me. My point was that people are indeed very often aware of others' testimony when it comes to supernatural experiences.

Could have fooled me:

Consistency of testimony is only compelling in certain circumstances--namely, when the parties involved are not aware of the testimonies of others

Yes....and I went on to cite examples of supernatural experiences that are not compelling (as anything other than cultural delusion). They are not compelling despite consistency of testimony because, as I said, people are indeed very often aware of others' testimony when it comes to supernatural experiences.

The problem we run into is what people will ultimately acccept as conclusive evidence.

Conclusive evidence, i.m.o., should be so clear as to compel acceptance, whether or not someone is ready to accept it. Few scientists were ready to throw away classical physics and accept quantum mechanics before the 20th century....the overwhelming evidence of quantum phenomena gave them no alternative. That is what I personally mean when I refer to 'conclusive evidence'.

I think that evidence for such things should be taken with a grain of salt until it is investigated further and should be looked at from every possible angle before coming to any hastey conclusions.

Something we can agree upon.

I don't think they did distinguish, but such a detail minuscule compared to the fact that they actually captured something crying.

No, they captured something that sounds like crying. Anything that sounds like crying could be responsible for the noise they captured, and we shouldn't be hasty to rule out the possibility that something other than the ghost of a dead girl can produce a sound that seems like crying. A subjective judgement that the noise really sounds like crying is just not good enough to rule out those possibilities.

I don't really see what relevance the ghost's sex plays in this.

I'm trying to point out that you (or TAPS) are assuming that which you are trying to demonstrate. The sound, you say, is clearly the sound of the ghost of a little girl crying. But, is it really? How do you know it's not a little boy ghost? How do you know it's not an interdimensional alien? How do you know it's not a bird or drafts or creaks? How do you know it's not just a trick of the mind? Experiments have shown that our minds will very often project recognizable patterns onto random noise or visuals.....subjective judgements like "it sounds like crying" are not compelling, i.m.o.

I'm not sure if that's a subtle joke or not.

It's not. I love South Park.

So is a disliking for God and religion in the scientific community......yet you don't hear me say that all scientists are God haters and that their conclusions stem from their animosity for religion.

Okay. Do you agree or disagree with my claim that "this (superstition, inexperience, uninformed of various physical phenomena, interested) is not the actions of a few but a pretty reliable pattern in any ghost story that has been thoroughly investigated" ?

You do need to leave earth to turn you faith in such predictions into reality. But heliocentrism is not the argument, being selective with what we choose to have conclusive evidence for, is.

I am not being selective with that I choose to have conclusive evidence for. I've seen the phases of Venus myself, which is required for heliocentrism and incompatible with geocentrism. I have never seen anything that has been thoroughly investigated that is required for ghosts and incompatible with fraud, delusion, or natural phenomena. So far you've yet to offer me any examples of this.

 

[Mister_T]

If a given set of facts are not incompatible with either explanation, then they don't tell us anything.

I wouldn't say they don't tell us anything, rather they give different perspectives to look at.

Irrelevant. My point was to talk about the faith of many. Experiences of feeling God's presence have bolstered the faith of many, whether or not they have affected your personal faith and whether or not that should be the basis of faith in your personal opinion.

Completely relevant. Groups such as Christians are taught not to base their faith on feelings, so we really can't feelings as an argument. It is not my opinion, it is in their doctrine.

What I'm hearing from you now is that you didn't really mean this. This was intentionally faulty logic that was somehow supposed to show that my argument, too, employed faulty logic. Forgive me, but I see no connection.

No. I just said that my comment about natural instincts wasn't a fact (like you were accusing me of saying)....not faulty logic. And yes I did say that to show the flaws (which consisted of theories, not facts) of you argument.

Yes....and I went on to cite examples of supernatural experiences that are not compelling (as anything other than cultural delusion). They are not compelling despite consistency of testimony because, as I said, people are indeed very often aware of others' testimony when it comes to supernatural experiences.

Yes....and I went on to cite examples of supernatural experiences that are not compelling (as anything other than cultural delusion). They are not compelling despite consistency of testimony because, as I said, people are indeed very often aware of others' testimony when it comes to supernatural experiences.

The problem wasn't your examples. It was you contradicting yourself.

Consistency of testimony is only compelling in certain circumstances--namely, when the parties involved are not aware of the testimonies of others

My point was that people are indeed very often aware of others' testimony when it comes to supernatural experiences.

Conclusive evidence, i.m.o., should be so clear as to compel acceptance, whether or not someone is ready to accept it.

If someone doesn't accept what you are showing them, how do you expect them to be "compelled" by evidence?

No, they captured something that sounds like crying. Anything that sounds like crying could be responsible for the noise they captured, and we shouldn't be hasty to rule out the possibility that something other than the ghost of a dead girl can produce a sound that seems like crying. A subjective judgement that the noise really sounds like crying is just not good enough to rule out those possibilities.

They weren't hastey to rule out other possiblities though, so you can't really use that as an argument. After thorough investigation, they could not find any other cause for the sound that they were hearing and labeled what they found as unexplainable.

I'm trying to point out that you (or TAPS) are assuming that which you are trying to demonstrate. The sound, you say, is clearly the sound of the ghost of a little girl crying. But, is it really? How do you know it's not a little boy ghost? How do you know it's not an interdimensional alien? How do you know it's not a bird or drafts or creaks? How do you know it's not just a trick of the mind? Experiments have shown that our minds will very often project recognizable patterns onto random noise or visuals.....subjective judgements like "it sounds like crying" are not compelling, i.m.o.

Like I said, the site was investigated thoroughly for other possible explanations. And I'm sorry, I don't feel "you're hearing what you want to hear" to be a good or compelling counter argument. You're entitled to your subjective judgement though.

Okay. Do you agree or disagree with my claim that "this (superstition, inexperience, uninformed of various physical phenomena, interested) is not the actions of a few but a pretty reliable pattern in any ghost story that has been thoroughly investigated" ?

Disagree.

So far you've yet to offer me any examples of this.

Go watch the show

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Completely relevant. Groups such as Christians are taught not to base their faith on feelings, so we really can't feelings as an argument. It is not my opinion, it is in their doctrine.

My point about the neuroscience experiment was to address one aspect of the faith of some (but not all) people. It is silly to argue that not one Christian in the entire world--that's one billion people--bases their faith partly on an experience where they thought they felt god's presence or the presence of a loved one. I personally know people who have told me this themselves.

No. I just said that my comment about natural instincts wasn't a fact (like you were accusing me of saying)....not faulty logic.

You don'tthink it's faulty logic to say: "X is a natural instinct, therefore X is true"? :areyoucra

And yes I did say that to show the flaws (which consisted of theories, not facts) of you argument.

I don't see the connection between my argument and your non-sequitur.

The problem wasn't your examples. It was you contradicting yourself.

Consistency of testimony is only compelling in certain circumstances--namely, when the parties involved are not aware of the testimonies of others

My point was that people are indeed very often aware of others' testimony when it comes to supernatural experiences.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand why you think these two statements contradict each other. Can you please explain?

If someone doesn't accept what you are showing them, how do you expect them to be "compelled" by evidence?

The type of evidence that is conclusive is generally the type that does not require much "acceptance". For example, an experiment in a peer-reviewed journal will normally detail the methods and instrumentation used, cite sources for more information, and use formulas, equations, and numerical data to quantify the results. There's not much there that I have to "accept", and even if I don't accept it, I could repeat the experiment myself and verify their results. Ghost stories generally have none of these features.

They weren't hastey to rule out other possiblities though, so you can't really use that as an argument. After thorough investigation, they could not find any other cause for the sound that they were hearing and labeled what they found as unexplainable.

[emphasis added] Ah, I see. Initially, you cited the example (in post #113) of the crying ghost-girl in response to my query:

How do we go from unexpected sounds or voices to the disembodied voice of a dead person? A priori, it might as well be cross-chatter from interdimensional aliens on cell phones, or anything else one could imagine, natural or otherwise.
​

Naturally, I thought you were suggesting that this was an example of something more than unexplained sounds or voices. I stand corrected.

Please bring to my attention any cases where it was conclusively shown that something was in fact the disembodied voice of an expired human, rather than cases where something was simply found to be unexplainable.

Like I said, the site was investigated thoroughly for other possible explanations. And I'm sorry, I don't feel "you're hearing what you want to hear" to be a good or compelling counter argument. You're entitled to your subjective judgement though.

Of course that's not a good or compelling counter-argument, because it's a strawman, and not what I actually wrote.

Disagree.

Okay...I cited the Amityville case. Can you cite a counter-example that you believe was thoroughly investigated, and in which the parties involved were not interested, unexperienced, superstitious, etc?

Go watch the show

Okay. In the meantime, if you happen to find any compelling evidence accessible via the web, please feel free to post it.

 

[Mister_T]

My point about the neuroscience experiment was to address one aspect of the faith of some (but not all) people. It is silly to argue that not one Christian in the entire world--that's one billion people--bases their faith partly on an experience where they thought they felt god's presence or the presence of a loved one. I personally know people who have told me this themselves.

My point is that they are warned in their own doctrine, not to.

You don'tthink it's faulty logic to say: "X is a natural instinct, therefore X is true"? :areyoucra

There you go again.....I never said "it" was true, I said it was possible.

I don't see the connection between my argument and your non-sequitur.

Well then, I guess nothing I say will help you see the flaws of that particular argument.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand why you think these two statements contradict each other. Can you please explain?

If you can't see your own contradictions, I'm not sure what else to tell you.

Please bring to my attention any cases where it was conclusively shown that something was in fact the disembodied voice of an expired human, rather than cases where something was simply found to be unexplainable.

It is evidence for the theory of a disembodied spirit......which does not make it a fact. The people involved wouldn't arrogantly declare such a thing.

Of course that's not a good or compelling counter-argument, because it's a strawman, and not what I actually wrote.

How do you know it's not just a trick of the mind? Experiments have shown that our minds will very often project recognizable patterns onto random noise or visuals.....subjective judgements like "it sounds like crying" are not compelling, i.m.o.

Sorry if I took that the wrong way. It sure sounded as though that's what you were getting at.

Okay...I cited the Amityville case. Can you cite a counter-example that you believe was thoroughly investigated, and in which the parties involved were not interested, unexperienced, superstitious, etc?

Okay....I cited the people at T.A.P.S.

Okay. In the meantime, if you happen to find any compelling evidence accessible via the web, please feel free to post it.

Tell me what you would consider "evidence" so I can see what I can what I can bring to the table. If it's your "ghost in times square" evidence, I'm afraid I couldn't produce anything like that.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

My point is that they are warned in their own doctrine, not to.

Okay, but that doesn't change the fact that many people (including Christians) still do regard an experience of god as part of the basis of their faith. The argument I made with regards to the neuroscience experiment applies to those people.

There you go again.....I never said "it" was true, I said it was possible.

You said...

I could say the fact that Atheism didn't pop up until the 6th century B.C. and that virtually all cultures had an instictive belief in a higer power is proof that belief in God is valid. ...

​

Logically, the fact that Atheism didn't pop up until the 6th century B.C. and that virtually all cultures had an instinctive belief in a higher power is not proof that belief in God is valid. Don't you agree?

If you can't see your own contradictions, I'm not sure what else to tell you.

lol, I guess we'll have to let our dedicated readers decide.

It is evidence for the theory of a disembodied spirit......which does not make it a fact. The people involved wouldn't arrogantly declare such a thing.

I guess it could be said to be evidence of a disembodied spirit....but then it is also evidence for aliens and hidden baby monitors and fraud and natural phenomena and anything else we can possibly imagine that would produce a noise that sounds like crying.

Sorry if I took that the wrong way. It sure sounded as though that's what you were getting at.

There is a difference between tricks of the mind and hearing what we want to hear. When our minds play tricks on us, we don't necessarily hear or see what we want, but our minds may alter confusing patterns to fit recognizable patterns, as has been well demonstrated. Furthermore, my argument in full was:

The sound, you say, is clearly the sound of the ghost of a little girl crying. But, is it really? How do you know it's not a little boy ghost? How do you know it's not an interdimensional alien? How do you know it's not a bird or drafts or creaks? How do you know it's not just a trick of the mind? Experiments have shown that our minds will very often project recognizable patterns onto random noise or visuals.....subjective judgements like "it sounds like crying" are not compelling, i.m.o.
​

"You're hearing what you want to hear" is a strawman that mischaracterizes this part and conveniently ignores this stuff.

Okay....I cited the people at T.A.P.S.

I was looking for cases--as in, ghost-stories or other paranormal claims--that have been thoroughly investigated and did not rely on parties that were interested, unexperienced, superstitious, etc.

Tell me what you would consider "evidence" so I can see what I can what I can bring to the table.

I already have, numerous times throughout this thread. I'll go back and quote the relevant parts of my previous posts, if you like.

If it's your "ghost in times square" evidence, I'm afraid I couldn't produce anything like that.

I wonder why. Are ghosts afraid of crowds?