Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[nonbeliever_92]

No evidence for god has been presented in this thread, the title is misleading.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

No evidence for god has been presented in this thread, the title is misleading.

Hey, it's your fault that you're not willing to be flexibile enough with the definition of "evidence" so that it includes anything anyone decides is evidence.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Hey, it's your fault that you're not willing to be flexibile enough with the definition of "evidence" so that it includes anything anyone decides is evidence.

What! It's my fault. :'( lol

 

[nonbeliever_92]

congrats on those nine pages though PureX, even if you haven't actually said anything...

 

[themadhair]

I fail to see how this differs greatly from the example of evolution in science, with the exception that science deals only with objective evidence, while theology deals more with subjective evidence.

Because you still completely misrepresenting what predictive power is in science in terms of evidence. Is that intentional?

Let me give an another example. One of the earliest objections to evolution, which was presented when Darwin was still alive, was that inheritable traits would become diluted and thus preventative of evolution. For the theory to be viable such traits would have to be resistant to such dilutions. Think about the prediction being made here. Think about why it is non-trivial, why it flies in the face of the common wisdom of the time and why it is falsifiable. Think about why genetics is a startling confirmation of a prediction that follows directly from the theory.

Now think about why your prediction was not non-trivial (for example I experienced increased moral standards and self-worth by recognising the falsity of religious ideas). Think about why your prediction is unfalsifiable (or rather has been falsified since religious folks carrying out your instructions have suffered depression and a reduction in self-worth (me formally being one of those)). Think about why your prediction does not follow from your god concept.

 

[Commoner]

1. The idea of God works for most people most of the time. Ideas that work for us on a regular basis tend to be taken as accurate.

1. The idea of superstition works for most people most of the time. We do not take any of it as "accurate". Or should I start avoiding black cats crossing the street?

2. It doesn't work for most people most of the time. You use the same word, but you're not describing the same thing. Your "god" is not the same thing as somebody else's "god".

2. The ordered nature of existence forces us to consider the reality of a "God". Existence is not random. How do we explain this? What is responsible for the order? And why? The answers to these questions are a mystery, and we have named this mystery "God".

You're assigning significance to it, that's all. Just as you assign significance to being dealt a hand of 13 cards of the same suit out of a 52 card deck. It's almost impossible! 1: 3954242643911239679999

The possibility of getting any specific random hand of cards, with no special significance, is exactly the same - 1: 3954242643911239679999

But you don't go jumping up and down each time you get dealt a hand.

BTW, I don't care if this has been said a gazillion times before.

 

[PureX]

Because you still completely misrepresenting what predictive power is in science in terms of evidence. Is that intentional?

Let me give an another example. One of the earliest objections to evolution, which was presented when Darwin was still alive, was that inheritable traits would become diluted and thus preventative of evolution. For the theory to be viable such traits would have to be resistant to such dilutions. Think about the prediction being made here. Think about why it is non-trivial, why it flies in the face of the common wisdom of the time and why it is falsifiable. Think about why genetics is a startling confirmation of a prediction that follows directly from the theory.

Now think about why your prediction was not non-trivial (for example I experienced increased moral standards and self-worth by recognising the falsity of religious ideas). Think about why your prediction is unfalsifiable (or rather has been falsified since religious folks carrying out your instructions have suffered depression and a reduction in self-worth (me formally being one of those)). Think about why your prediction does not follow from your god concept.

Once again, I have to remind you that theology (the ideal of "God") is not a scientific experiment. You keep insisting on applying the strictest scientific definitions of what is trivial and falsifiable to a category of human thought in which it is almost impossible to apply. Even scientists have not fully embraced such a strict interpretation, because part of the scientific process involves speculation.

"Theories whose "predictive power" presupposes technologies that are not currently possible constitute something of a grey area. For example, certain aspects of string theory have been labeled as predictive, but only through the use of machines that have not yet been built and in some cases may never be possible. Whether or not this sort of theory can or should be considered truly predictive is a matter of scientific and philosophical debate.

Obviously, theories that come from the discipline of theology are not going to fit so easily into such a strict interpretation of scientific practice. But then neither do a lot of advanced theories in physics. You're setting the gauntlet so narrow that only what you want to get through, can.

 

[PureX]

1. The idea of superstition works for most people most of the time. We do not take any of it as "accurate". Or should I start avoiding black cats crossing the street?

Please explain how superstitions "work" for people. My impression is that people are superstitious in spite of themselves, and in spite of the fact that they "know better".

2. It doesn't work for most people most of the time. You use the same word, but you're not describing the same thing. Your "god" is not the same thing as somebody else's "god".

I don't see how this matters. A person chooses to believe is some concept of "God", they live by that concept, and they find that it "works" (makes their lives better) for them. This happens all the time. What part of this are you disagreeing with?

You're assigning significance to it, that's all. Just as you assign significance to being dealt a hand of 13 cards of the same suit out of a 52 card deck. It's almost impossible! 1: 3954242643911239679999

The possibility of getting any specific random hand of cards, with no special significance, is exactly the same - 1: 3954242643911239679999

But you don't go jumping up and down each time you get dealt a hand.

BTW, I don't care if this has been said a gazillion times before.

But THIS hand of cards created the universe. The other 3954242643911239679998 didn't. That's why it's significant.

 

[Commoner]

Please explain how superstitions "work" for people. My impression is that people are superstitious in spite of themselves, and in spite of the fact that they "know better".

Most people do the same with religion - they "know better", but can't help it. Rationalizing religious texts, dismissing the obvious paradoxes and logical flaws, jumping from one definition of "god" to another.

I don't see how this matters. A person chooses to believe is some concept of "God", they live by that concept, and they find that it "works" (makes their lives better) for them. This happens all the time. What part of this are you disagreeing with?

But the concepts don't point to the same thing. It's apples and oranges. If you wan't to generalize it like that, then you can include dragons and pixies. If you can't agree on what god is, you can't say it works for most people because people use the same label to describe sometimes completely different things. When you try to define god even in the most simple aspects, you'll find your field of "god works for most people" significantly reduced.

But THIS hand of cards created the universe. The other 3954242643911239679998 didn't. That's why it's significant.

It is equally insignificant and just as unlikely as any other version of the universe. There's nothing special about this hand of cards, even though you might think there is, because it's yours. Stop jumping up and down!

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Well, it makes sense to me anyways.

Thanks!

I'm hoping someone will tear it apart, actually. It does have some major logical problems, but I was hoping to use that to go somewhere else.

Specifically working off a generalized but meaningful concept of God that can be evidenced simply by our own conscious experience.

 

[Copernicus]

Copernicus, you have good reason to believe what you do and I can accept that. It makes sense for you, for your life's experiences led you to come to that conclusion. However, do you not think it is possible for someone else to have different experiences?

Of course. Why would you ever doubt this? Because I might disagree with the conclusions that others come to? The reason we have these debates is that we disagree over how to interpret experiences.

There are things that I have personally experienced with my own eyes and senses that defy all (scientific) logic and reasoning...

How could you possibly know that? Have you discussed these experiences with scientists? They have a pretty good track record in coming up with natural explanations for puzzling experiences.

...All I can do is to try and make some sense of them as best I can. In fact, there are many hundreds upon thousands upon millions of people just like me who have had personal life-changing experiences that tell us this....the spirit world is real and exists.

Argumentum ad populum. You ought to know better than that.

Sure, there are those out there that may be just crazy or hallucinating or whatever, probably some scientists too no doubt, but not all of them...

How could you know that? It seems that people have a lot of contradictory beliefs about the nature of the so-called "spirit world". What method can you use to verify any such claims?

It is my opinion that someday science will be open to a whole new realm of thought and reasoning, one that includes a much different realization of the world around us.

It is really hard to imagine what you have in mind. Science is an open-ended methodology.

...It must be admitted though, that science, as much as it does know about the universe and our brains, does not know everything. There are things that even science does not understand. Even Albert Einstein, Marx Planck, and others could attest to that fact.

Not only that, but there would be no point to science if we had an explanation for everything. Science is a methodology for learning what causes things to happen in nature. It is not a static body of knowledge.

 

[PureX]

Most people do the same with religion - they "know better", but can't help it. Rationalizing religious texts, dismissing the obvious paradoxes and logical flaws, jumping from one definition of "god" to another.

Yes, it's fun being human. And I like the fact that we can hold more than one idea in our heads at a time, and even that they might contradict each other. We are multi-dimensional beings, and multi-dimensional thinkers. Also, look into most any paradox and you will find the truth. The truth is very often paradoxical. "God" is just an idea, it's good that we change up the idea whenever it suits us.

But the concepts don't point to the same thing. It's apples and oranges. If you wan't to generalize it like that, then you can include dragons and pixies. If you can't agree on what god is, you can't say it works for most people because people use the same label to describe sometimes completely different things. When you try to define god even in the most simple aspects, you'll find your field of "god works for most people" significantly reduced.

The god-concept among most people is generally pretty similar. And even when they differ, it still works for people, which in itself should be considered positive evidence.

 

[Perfect Circle]

So, I'm confused here... Weren't you the one who actually started this line of reasoning? When your point #1 is criticized you revert to using an accepted scientific theory as an example to make your point with the following post...

In science, we have a theory of evolution. We don't know if the theory is true, but we know it "works" most of the time, in that it answers most of the questions of it reasonably and experientially. Because it works, we take it as "true" until it either ceases to work or we find that another theory works better.

Then you say, in that very same post, the following...

It's in this same way that people find that the god-concept works for them.

Then, at least to me, it looks like you backtrack on your line of reasoning by telling themadhair that he can't hold you to the same standards because theology is inherently unable to be studied by science.

Once again, I have to remind you that theology (the ideal of "God") is not a scientific experiment. You keep insisting on applying the strictest scientific definitions of what is trivial and falsifiable to a category of human thought in which it is almost impossible to apply. Even scientists have not fully embraced such a strict interpretation, because part of the scientific process involves speculation.

Why would you use the ToE as an analogy if this is the case?

 

[Copernicus]

Sorry for the delayed post. Themadhair and others have made some excellent replies already.

It's in this same way that people find that the god-concept works for them. For example, most people these days include in their god-concept the idea that God has a divine desire or will for them. And they believe that will involves self-improvement of some kind. Because they believe this, they seek out a religious path that involves spiritual self-improvement, and they practice it, because this is what they believe God wants of them. Naturally, in time, such a course of action will likely bring them some positive benefits. And this is what I mean by their god-concept "working" for them.

Placebos "work for" people, but they are not scientific cures. Science "works for" us in that it explains what really causes observed cures. Religion does not "work for" people in the same way. It does not provide a method for separating true explanation from false explanation.

What people choose to believe about "God", and how they choose to act on those beliefs, usually bring them the results they desired. The concept works for them, which is why so many people over the centuries have chosen to hold and practice some kind of god-concept.

Your term "works for" continues to be too vague and ambiguous to sustain your argument. I do not deny that religion "works for" some people, just that it "works for" them in the same way that science does. Religion offers no methodology for distinguishing true from false explanation, which is why science has actually delivered bona fide miracles in the form of modern technology. Religion's miracles are still unverifiable. You have produced an argument for religion that is essentially "the end justifies the means". If you achieve the result you want, then it doesn't matter if you know why the result was achieved. Science is about why the result was achieved. That makes it easier to get the same results consistently.

This does not prove that God exists apart from the idea, but as with the theory of evolution, it is strong evidence of the idea's accuracy.

Absolutely not. "Goddidit" is not as strong as a scientific claim insofar as it remains untestable. In cases where the claims have been testable (e.g. William Miller's famous failed claim that Jesus would appear in 1843), they fail. Supernatural explanations are notoriously unreliable.

You can name the mystery anything you want, as long as you do not attribute consciousness, intelligent behavior, emotions, moods, infinite knowledge, infinite power, and other properties to it.

Why not? This mystery source has set the conditions out from which has sprung all of existence. This is not proof of intelligence, personality, or omnipotence, but it sure isn't proof of the lack of these, either. I see nothing at all unreasonable about someone attributing the properties that you mentioned to the mystery source and sustenance of all existence. Can you please explain why you think these cannot apply?

First of all, the "mystery source" is a mystery because we know absolutely nothing about your hypothetical cause of everything. Your argument fails because there is no hint of a connection between the traits of a humanlike personal god and, say, the cause of the Big Bang. God explains no mystery that does not, in fact, render God himself an unexplained mystery. For example, if everything must have a cause, then how could an uncaused being exist to set everything in motion? If something can be uncaused, why not physical reality itself? So God is a very unnecessary hypothesis, even if everything just sprang into existence out of nothing.

I wouldn't say that this "God as mystery source" has nothing to do with the God of Hebrew or Christian religious texts. Clearly their idea of God included his being the source and sustenance of all existence. Clearly they saw their God's mind as the genesis of all creation, so in this sense we are talking about the same god-concept. The ancients anthropomorphized their gods to a much greater degree than I would be comfortable with, but they didn't have the benefits of science to help them separate superstition and psychological projection from their reasoning process.

Again, you have established no connection between a general cause of everything and the anthropomorphized gods of antiquity. All human societies give rise to belief in supernatural forces, but those beliefs have, as you point out, been checked by the rise of scientific methodology. You seem to be in the position of one who believes that God explains everything we don't know until science tells us the real explanation (aka "God of Gaps"). That seriously weakens your case for religious belief as a source of explanation.

The repetition of a thought in the brain reinforces a complex set of neuro-pathways, while the lack of repetition of a thought lets those pathways disintegrate, and become parts of other, more used, pathway complexes. What we think structurally changes our brains. In this way, consciousness does effect reality, and the evidence of it can be felt by anyone who has tried to give of a "habit" or an addiction.

You've got your explanation fatally reversed. We know that physical changes to the brain changes thought. It affects every aspect of thinking, as a matter of fact, and we have proven this through controlled experiments and simple observation. For example, drinking alcoholic beverages produces changes in personality, judgment, memory, and a host of other thought-based activities. The "repetition of thought" is not what does this. Thanks to science, we know quite a bit about how the brain works at the level of neurons. The brain drives thought, not the other way around.

If a conscious thought can physically effect the machinery of it's own happening, how are we to claim that the material world is not a manifestation of idea or consciousness, even though the physical processes that have created the universe have also resulted in consciousness?

We observe lots of emergent processes in nature, and there is no reason to believe that consciousness could not evolve in animals in the same way that teeth have--through a gradual, incremental process of evolution. Consciousness serves a purpose in complex self-replicating beings that need to survive long enough to replicate themselves. Self-awareness and awareness of one's surroundings is vital to beings such as ourselves.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I just can't get around the fact that existence has order.

And so we get to the crux of the problem. You are arguing from personal incredulity. We have perfectly reasonable (and well-evidenced) naturalistic mechanisms to explain how order and complexity can arise from chaos. With respect to life in particular, abiogenesis and evolution explain it perfectly. Abiogenesis doesn't have as much evidence behind it as evolution, but it still has a lot of evidence backing it. Compared to no (or comparatively very little) evidence for God.

 

[Perfect Circle]

Perhaps you feel a need to believe that consciousness can survive brain death. That has been an obsession of the human race before recorded history, so you are in good company.

Ever heard of Pam Reynolds? If so, what do you think of her situation?

 

[themadhair]

Edited to add - Perfect Circle already made the following point.

Once again, I have to remind you that theology (the ideal of "God") is not a scientific experiment.

Then stop the comparison. If your comparison doesn’t hold because your example doesn’t satisfy standard scientific rigor then it is pretty pointless for you to attempt using it while pointing out your example doesn’t satisfy it.

You keep insisting on applying the strictest scientific definitions of what is trivial and falsifiable to a category of human thought in which it is almost impossible to apply.

Baloney. I have cited two specific examples of predictive power within evolutionary theory. I could name you many more. The non-triviality and falsifiablity criteria of those predictions made them powerful pieces of evidence when they were verified. To claim that these criteria, essentially the bedrock of why predictive power is such powerful evidence in science, are impossible to apply, despite their application on a regular basis and a wealth of examples of such verified predictions, is nonsensical. If you want to make a comparison with a scientific topic then adhering to the same standards would seem to be highly relevant to substantiating that comparison.

Obviously, theories that come from the discipline of theology are not going to fit so easily into such a strict interpretation of scientific practice.

If this were so obvious then why did you try to make such a faulty comparison? Given that it was obvious that your theology doesn’t stand up to such rigor?

But then neither do a lot of advanced theories in physics. You're setting the gauntlet so narrow that only what you want to get through, can.

Actually you will find that such theories are considered speculative until such predictions are verified. Except that you don’t seem to consider you theology speculative while trying to make your comparison.

 

[Copernicus]

Ever heard of Pam Reynolds? If so, what do you think of her situation?

First of all, Pam Reynolds did not die. She had what is called an "out-of-body experience" (OBE). My remark was about surviving real death in some form (usually in a kind of "spirit world" or "netherworld").

Generally speaking, OBEs tend to be based on purely anecdotal accounts that don't hold up when scrutinized objectively. What makes them particularly unbelievable is the fact that subjects invariably recall experiences that only make sense in a physical body--directional vision, as if the spirit mind had eyes with rods and cones registering light signals, and hearing, as if the spirit mind had ears that registered air pressure changes in the form of speech. They remember things as if they had real bodies situated in time and space, when, in fact, they are supposed to be immaterial beings. I'm not saying that we cannot imagine such a thing, but it isn't really what you would expect if you thought through what it would actually be like to leave a physical body behind.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Placebos "work for" people, but they are not scientific cures. Science "works for" us in that it explains what really causes observed cures. Religion does not "work for" people in the same way. It does not provide a method for separating true explanation from false explanation.

Why aren't placebos scientific cures, since we can study and model the processes that allow for a placebo to work?

I think it is irrelevant that religion does not provide a methodology for explanation; its truth is personally validated by the experience of the person. If a Catholic communion does not provide an adequate spiritual experience, perhaps a Wiccan offering will. [/quote]

You've got your explanation fatally reversed. We know that physical changes to the brain changes thought. It affects every aspect of thinking, as a matter of fact, and we have proven this through controlled experiments and simple observation. For example, drinking alcoholic beverages produces changes in personality, judgment, memory, and a host of other thought-based activities. The "repetition of thought" is not what does this. Thanks to science, we know quite a bit about how the brain works at the level of neurons. The brain drives thought, not the other way around.

We observe lots of emergent processes in nature, and there is no reason to believe that consciousness could not evolve in animals in the same way that teeth have--through a gradual, incremental process of evolution. Consciousness serves a purpose in complex self-replicating beings that need to survive long enough to replicate themselves. Self-awareness and awareness of one's surroundings is vital to beings such as ourselves.

I think it is wise to remember that all scientific models are man-made. While they mimic our repeated observations of phenomena, they are not the phenomena themselves. They can't be.

Thus, our scientific models are a result of our consciousness. They're existence are inextricably linked to it. The atom as we model it would not be without our consciousness.

Our thoughts would not be an emergent process of evolution if we did not first think up the model of evolution, neurology, and "consciousness" (quoted to emphasize it as a labeled thing) first.

And that brings me to God. God--breaking the concept down into a basic experience--appears to refer to the relationship of human consciousness to the perceived universe (no wonder we anthropomorphize!).

Since our relationship to the universe exists through our ability to observe it (the same modeling I discussed earlier with science), the only evidence we need for God is that we are conscious, and we are inextricably a part of the universe.

So, even if we are to define God as the conscious universe (which many do), we at least know that we are a conscious part of the universe and have traditionally seen ourselves as (or put our own reflection into) the gods themselves.

(I apologize for seeming overly-mystical to the folks here speaking in the language of science, like Copernicus who I quoted, but it is my unique point-of-view and I think the philosophy behind it is sound enough to at least be given thought.)

 

[PureX]

Placebos "work for" people, but they are not scientific cures. Science "works for" us in that it explains what really causes observed cures. Religion does not "work for" people in the same way. It does not provide a method for separating true explanation from false explanation.

The placebo effect is minimal, and usually temporary. It's mostly an illusion of change. But the effect of following the religious prescription I gave as an example is very often life-changing, and is usually permanent.

Your term "works for" continues to be too vague and ambiguous to sustain your argument. I do not deny that religion "works for" some people, just that it "works for" them in the same way that science does. Religion offers no methodology for distinguishing true from false explanation, which is why science has actually delivered bona fide miracles in the form of modern technology. Religion's miracles are still unverifiable. You have produced an argument for religion that is essentially "the end justifies the means". If you achieve the result you want, then it doesn't matter if you know why the result was achieved. Science is about why the result was achieved. That makes it easier to get the same results consistently.

No one has suggested that science and religion are the same things, or that they work in the same way. All I suggested is that religion works for a lot of people, in that it says that it can heal people spiritually, and improve their lives dramatically, and it does that. It is predictable. It is reliable. It's so predictable and reliable that people all over the world have used to heal themselves mentally and emotionally, and to improve themselves spiritually and morally. And regardless of their specific religions, they tend to use many of the same processes, derived from similarities in their idea of "God".

"God" works for people. It's not a trick, and it's not an illusion. Holding an idea of God, and then living by it, works for people.

"Goddidit" tis not as strong as a scientific claim insofar as it remains untestable. In cases where the claims have been testable (e.g. William Miller's famous failed claim that Jesus would appear in 1843), they fail. Supernatural explanations are notoriously unreliable.

I have made no supernatural claims.