Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[nonbeliever_92]

You're confusing evidence with proof. We can find evidence both for and against the existence of God. What we can't provide is conclusive proof.
And there is evidence for theism, as well.

So we're left with a little evidence, a lot of opinion, and a choice.

Could you post some of this evidence please?

 

[OmarKhayyam]

No one is denying that hallucinations can and do occur but the dismissal of all metaphysical, spiritual or mystical experiences in NOT a science apart from the fact that it is remarkably narrow minded.

All you have to do is produce one and verify the "truth" of it.

Feel free to proceed.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Could you post some of this evidence please?

I give you high marks for patience. And perseverance.

Otherwise . . . .?

 

[ManTimeForgot]

We also don’t know that an invisible boil on my arse isn’t responsible for keeping the universe in motion by the same criteria. But, just like the god concepts that I have been presented with, I am quite happy to dismiss them for lack of evidence. Arguing that a thing is potentially possible in this way is no more an argument for the potential of god than my arse boil.

Yes, but what it should illustrate is a need for intellectual humility when approaching any argument. We argue from positions of nearly infinite limitation on available information (ignorance). All things should be

I’ve broken this comment into two sections but they are inter-related so I hope you take this comment, and the one immediately below, together. The argument from design simply doesn’t hold for the natural world because we have not observed a creation event with which to form a comparison.
We find a watch and we know it is designed because we have knowledge of watches and the human engineering that is involved therein. We find the earth and we know it was designed because….actually we do not have knowledge of earths or the engineering required to create such so the argument fails. The second point you bring ties into this and is below.

All we can ever do is attempt to generalize patterns we see in our world/level of reality and see if they stick. Noting that certain structures or associations are often the result of design is not an invalid means of inductive argument.

Simplicity and aesthetics share quite the connection. When analysing phenomena it has been the experience that the simplest hypothesis that accounts for the available evidence (and by being simplest it tends to require the fewest assumptions) tends to win out. A sort of an Occam’s razor in some ways.

Parsimony is removing extraneous exigencies, so we always stop with the "simplest" answer. The elegant hypothesis is one which synthesizes without needing to invoke complexity; that is it unifies all elements without multiple intervening steps. This is not the same thing.

This is a gross mischaracterisation. You neglected to mention that by observing the symmetry in some of the known elementary particles, and by then extrapolating this symmetry to all the currently known elementary particles, testable predictions of what we would find in high-energy particle predictions could be made. So far these predictions have been holding true as more elementary particles get discovered. To neglect this relevant piece of hypothesising, and how it produced predictions since verified, exposes the mischaracteristion you have drawn here.

Super symmetry is something different altogether. Before "exposing mis-characterization" perhaps you should make sure you are examining the same thing I am. Or perhaps you think that we have actually found an example of a photolino or neutralino or protolino somewhere?

Are you familiar with the current clashing of general relativity and quantum mechanics? If so, why do you think it unreasonable to suppose that one, or both, of those theories are in need of tweaking/replacing in order to unify them and end the current contradiction? When the relevant history of unification is presented in its proper context your mischaracterisation of it becomes clear.

As noted above, science does not argue from design. It looks for patterns that exist and then attempts to form testable predictions by extrapolating those patterns. If the predictions pan out then we acquire new knowledge and new areas of research, if they don’t we discard and start over.

My argument was never that science did argue from design. My argument has been that evidence which science recognizes is not synonymous with the only evidence which matters.

I despise this concept. It sounds so reasonable but it really isn’t. By reframing everything in terms of subjectivity the possibility of falsification is removed. This concept is found throughout Scientology for example.

All human progress is defined by the conflict between individually held beliefs about truth. If we do anything less than what is true for us, then we are hypocrites of the highest order. And as I have stated on other threads: Just because someone uses an idea stupidly or an idiot thinks something is true does NOT make the idea false.

MTF

 

[Michel07]

I did not chose to believe others. If I did I would still be wasting my life in worship of ancient mythological characters. I REASONED there was no bible god. I was an atheist before I knew what the word meant. Until my dear pastor told me I was I didn't know. And his objection was EXACTLY that I had reasoned my way to that conclusion. I had never read a word (knowingly) by any atheist and most certainly never meet one in person.

You theists are SO arrogant about your god thingy. Some of us are just NOT impressed with ANY of your myths. From Athena to LGM it is ALL the product of wishful thinking and childish faith. Both unworthy of a mature mind.

Talk about arrogant .People like you wrote the book but you are not even clever enough to recognize that yours is the only position that has a 100% guarantee of never being vindicated. All religions teach that someday we do meet God. Which is both the vindication of God and believers. But if God did not exist no one would ever know it as they lapsed into unconciousness at death. You have already lost the argument before it is even over because yours is that position which can never possibly be vindicated.It is the byproduct of your own arrogance that keeps you ignorant of God.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Talk about arrogant .People like you wrote the book but you are not even clever enough to recognize that yours is the only position that has a 100% guarantee of never being vindicated. All religions teach that someday we do meet God. Which is both the vindication of God and believers. But if God did not exist no one would ever know it as they lapsed into unconciousness at death. You have already lost the argument before it is even over because yours is that position which can never possibly be vindicated.It is the byproduct of your own arrogance that keeps you ignorant of God.

And all that jibberish answers the asseration that I believe someone else . . . how?

 

[Storm]

Is it an unreasonable one?

It's inaccurate. Also irrelevant, since OmarKhayyam limited the discussion to mystical experiences.

 

[themadhair]

Yes, but what it should illustrate is a need for intellectual humility when approaching any argument. We argue from positions of nearly infinite limitation on available information (ignorance). All things should be

This seems to be an argument for the pointlessness of argument. Imperfect information is not a reason for abandoning debate using the information we do have. We could speculate on all manner of weird and wonderful things, but without evidentiary support those things remain speculation. Humility doesn’t have any bearing on truth values.

All we can ever do is attempt to generalize patterns we see in our world/level of reality and see if they stick. Noting that certain structures or associations are often the result of design is not an invalid means of inductive argument.

Agreed with the first part but disagreed with the second. Design is almost synonymous with purpose, so to introduce design in this way is almost antithetical to the scientific approach. Spotting patterns =/= inducting design.

Parsimony is removing extraneous exigencies, so we always stop with the "simplest" answer. The elegant hypothesis is one which synthesizes without needing to invoke complexity; that is it unifies all elements without multiple intervening steps. This is not the same thing.

They are not the same thing. Science only really does the former. The latter is subjectivity which plenty of scientists are entitled to, but isn’t part of the science itself. The complexity addition you have made here seems rather odd since it would be covered by parsimony if you want to use that term.

Super symmetry is something different altogether. Before "exposing mis-characterization" perhaps you should make sure you are examining the same thing I am. Or perhaps you think that we have actually found an example of a photolino or neutralino or protolino somewhere?

Symmetry, as I understand it, is the observed pattern of symmetry in elementary particles, and super symmetry is this extrapolated to cover all known particles in the standard model. Predictions using symmetry that have been verified include anti-protons and anti-neutrons. Super symmetry is taking this idea further – but this is an idea that has a pretty good experimentally verified track record. Are we talking about the same thing?

My argument has been that evidence which science recognizes is not synonymous with the only evidence which matters.

This is true. But it doesn’t mean that such other evidence actually exists or supports the contentions some people are attempting to use it for.

And as I have stated on other threads: Just because someone uses an idea stupidly or an idiot thinks something is true does NOT make the idea false.

This is true, but the currently available evidence/argument and counterevidence/counterargument certainly allows us to make a decent determination of a given idea’s falsity.

Also - can you use a different colour or font to when you quote me or use quotes because it is hard for me to follow when it all looks the same.

 

[themadhair]

It's inaccurate. Also irrelevant, since OmarKhayyam limited the discussion to mystical experiences.

I'm curious, but if this is something you do not want to discuss then so be it.

 

[Storm]

I'm curious, but if this is something you do not want to discuss then so be it.

Ask whatever you like.

 

[darkendless]

Talk about arrogant .People like you wrote the book but you are not even clever enough to recognize that yours is the only position that has a 100% guarantee of never being vindicated. All religions teach that someday we do meet God. Which is both the vindication of God and believers. But if God did not exist no one would ever know it as they lapsed into unconciousness at death. You have already lost the argument before it is even over because yours is that position which can never possibly be vindicated.It is the byproduct of your own arrogance that keeps you ignorant of God.

Your hypocrisy is startling. Change the intended reader of this and you're talking about yourself. You soeak like what you know is truth, but its up to you to provide evidence for your god of which you cannot.

 

[themadhair]

Ask whatever you like.

Can you elaborate on why my guess above was inaccurate? If it was inaccurate are you saying that the people who have had medical contact with you of the same theology you are then?

 

[Storm]

Can you elaborate on why my guess above was inaccurate? If it was inaccurate are you saying that the people who have had medical contact with you of the same theology you are then?

Oh, you meant follow as in believe? I thought you meant understand.

No, my mental health providers do not share my theology.

 

[Commoner]

Could someone PM me when the evidence does turn up? Thanks.

Fingers crossed!

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Could someone PM me when the evidence does turn up? Thanks.

Fingers crossed!

Watch those cramps from holding your fingers like that.

 

[richardlowellt]

Let me explain a little better as to why your position is not neutral and you are exercising belief in something else.

Atheist do not believe, its a position of non-belief. You seem to know as little about atheist as you do about evolution.

I did not invent religion but have had to learn about it from other people and sources.(And I still do.) You did not invent atheism but also have had to learn of it from others.

Wrong, as has been pointed out to you, I didn't "learn" atheism from anyone, no one had to teach me that a god was unreasonable, I came to that conclusion through reason, logic, and the absents of any evidence.

You have chosen to believe those who told you God does not exist

Wrong again, no one convinced me this god thing was non-existent, I did not "learn it from others, you on the other hand did learn your belief from others and I wonder from reading your numerous posts just how much of your belief actually came from you rather than others.

while I have chosen to believe those who say God does exist. We are both exercising belief which is proactive and not neutral.

Again Atheism is a NON-BELIF system. A god is not something I think about at all, except for when I come to this site, a god is not part of my everyday life, never does such a being even enter my mind, as would make sense with something non-existent.

 

[Willamena]

Again Atheism is a NON-BELIF system.

What system do you use to non-believe? Can you elaborate on the steps?

 

[richardlowellt]

Are you saying we are just biological and subject to nothing upon death? No conciousness etc.?

We are just biological, I do know how comforting it must be for you to believe you will live forever, its a perfectly understandable, no one wants their life to end, so a religion furnishes you with a way to cheat death, I think that is why religion is so popular, "believe and you will never truly die" a very attractive offer. I do find that mindset to be extremely arrogant, that somehow in the entire cosmos you are so important that your life will continue. Given the planet we inhabit, a planet stuck in the backwaters of the galaxy we could all perish planet and all and no one would ever know and the cosmos would continue as though we and our little planet never existed, and that is the reality of the situation, you nor me, nor our planet are really not that important, I know, "God created earth and all things in it, we are the center of the universe and will never die" Sorry, I just know when your time comes you are going to be very disappointed.

 

[richardlowellt]

What system do you use to non-believe? Can you elaborate on the steps?

The same system, if you insist on calling it such, that hopefully you use when dealing with such things as Pixie dust, large pink and blue whales swimming in your pool, Superman, plasticman, Mothra, and your friendly cat sucking the breath out of infants.

 

[Willamena]

The same system, if you insist on calling it such, that hopefully you use when dealing with such things as Pixie dust, large pink and blue whales swimming in your pool, Superman, plasticman, Mothra, and your friendly cat sucking the breath out of infants.

You called it such.