Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[PureX]

Then stop the comparison...

This is ridiculous. A car is similar to a pick-up truck in many ways, but it's not a pick-up truck and can't be expected to act like a pick-up truck to the minute detail.

The process of following a religious prescription is similar to following the scientific process in that predictions can be made, a process is followed, and then the predictions are achieved (or not) in the end. And for most people, this is taken as evidence for or against verification.

On the other hand, following a religious prescription is not a scientific process, and can't reasonably be expected to mirror the scientific process in every detail. Nor should it be held to the exact same standards as one would a scientific experiment.

I know some of you think you found some telling contradiction, here, but it's just foolish nit-picking because you have nothing else as a rebuttal. This has become obvious to me and so I'm not going to bother responding to any more of this nonsense.

So far, none of you has managed to reasonably rebut my assertion that religion works for people and that the reliability and predictability of it working for people stands as evidence in support of the actuality of "God".

You all are welcome to keep trying but this line of rebuttal is now closed.

 

[PureX]

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.

That's not the order I'm referring to. The order I'm referring to didn't "arise from chaos" after eons of time. It was inherent at the first moment of the big bang. It is the limitations built into the nature and character of energy itself.

Keep in mind that we have no idea what energy is. Maybe it's oscillating loops, or strings. Maybe it's something else. But made of what? We can't say because it's not "substance", yet how can it exist if it's not substance? It's phenomena, but it's not random phenomena. It has "rules" in the form of limitations that dictate how that energy can and can't express itself. These limitations are the "first cause" in that they become the blueprint through which the big bang goes bang. What explodes into being is not random and chaotic, anymore, because of these inherent limitation built into the nature of energy itself.

But where did all this energy come from? Where did the limitations that govern it come from?

A lot of people use the idea of "God" as a conceptual overlay, to help them grasp and live with this profound mystery. The "energy" becomes "God's will", and the limitations that govern that energy becomes "God's plan". And the universe that results becomes "God's creation" expressing itself. We HAD to view it this way until fairly recently, because we didn't have science. But there are still plenty of people who prefer to view this mystery through religious images and terminology, rather than science because they feel it works better for them. It gives them some answers, and some sense of control, and even though these are likely illusions, for a lot of people they're better than nothing. Which is what they see science offering them.


Some of you atheists keep shouting; "but what about the truth, the truth!" But we don't have any truth, in this area. Scientists are as mystified as anyone else.

 

[Commoner]

That's not the order I'm referring to. The order I'm referring to didn't "arise from chaos" after eons of time. It was inherent at the first moment of the big bang. It is the limitations built into the nature and character of energy itself.

Keep in mind that we have no idea what energy is. Maybe it's oscillating loops, or strings. Maybe it's something else. But made of what? We can't say because it's not "substance", yet how can it exist if it's not substance? It's phenomena, but it's not random phenomena. It has "rules" in the form of limitations that dictate how that energy can and can't express itself. These limitations are the "first cause" in that they become the blueprint through which the big bang goes bang. What explodes into being is not random and chaotic, anymore, because of these inherent limitation built into the nature of energy itself.

But where did all this energy come from? Where did the limitations that govern it come from?

A lot of people use the idea of "God" as a conceptual overlay, to help them grasp and live with this profound mystery. The "energy" becomes "God's will", and the limitations that govern that energy becomes "God's plan". And the universe that results becomes "God's creation" expressing itself. We HAD to view it this way until fairly recently, because we didn't have science. But there are still plenty of people who prefer to view this mystery through religious images and terminology, rather than science because they feel it works better for them. It gives them some answers, and some sense of control, and even though these are likely illusions, for a lot of people they're better than nothing. Which is what they see science offering them.


Some of you atheists keep shouting; "but what about the truth, the truth!" But we don't have any truth, in this area. Scientists are as mystified as anyone else.

You could just have said that you were going to make one giant argument from ignorance and save everybody a lot of time.

 

[Commoner]

This is ridiculous. A car is similar to a pick-up truck in many ways, but it's not a pick-up truck and can't be expected to act like a pick-up truck to the minute detail.

More like comparing a car to a unicycle with a square tire. :areyoucra

 

[themadhair]

I know some of you think you found some telling contradiction, here,

Yes we have. In fact you yourself elucidated that contradiction before trying to handwave it away: The process of following a religious prescription is similar to following the scientific process in that predictions can be made, a process is followed, and then the predictions are achieved (or not) in the end. And for most people, this is taken as evidence for or against verification.

On the other hand, following a religious prescription is not a scientific process, and can't reasonably be expected to mirror the scientific process in every detail. Nor should it be held to the exact same standards as one would a scientific experiment.

So far, none of you has managed to reasonably rebut my assertion that religion works for people and that the reliability and predictability of it working for people stands as evidence in support of the actuality of "God".

Are you following the same thread I am? You attempted to make a comparison with a scientific theory as a basis for why religion is workable – except that the comparison didn’t hold up since you had to ignore the rigor from which science derives its workability. You are so far off the wall on the role of predictive power as evidence in science that I don’t see the point in reiterating it for you.
And I offered myself as evidence against your contention. That I experienced the same benefits you espouse by recognising the falsity of religion shows that religion is not a requirement for those benefits. This shows the blatant appeal to consequences in your argument.

[/quote]You all are welcome to keep trying but this line of rebuttal is now closed.[/quote]
Cute way to sidestep substantial points that you have done multiple times.

 

[PureX]

You could just have said that you were going to make one giant argument from ignorance and save everybody a lot of time.

Ignorance is our truth. There is no human argument that is not to some degree an argument from ignorance.

Also, these questions persist. It's the questions themselves that lead us to speculate about the possibility/probability of intelligence, or "spirit" of some kind behind the mystery. It's because we keep having to face this mystery that we NEED "God".

And what does atheism offer? Nothing. You have no answers. You have no hope. And you have no real argument to pose against believing in "God" except that such beliefs can be abused. Well guess what, your own beliefs can be abused, too. Belief of any kind can be abused. You claim the believer doesn't have "proof", well you don't even have a proposal, let alone proof. You have nothing . At least the theists can offer SOME evidence and a positive course of action. You can't even do that.

 

[PureX]

Yes we have ...

see post 101

 

[Commoner]

Ignorance is our truth. There is no human argument that is not to some degree an argument from ignorance.

Also, these questions persist. It's the questions themselves that lead us to speculate about the possibility/probability of intelligence, or "spirit" of some kind behind the mystery. It's because we keep having to face this mystery that we NEED "God".

And what does atheism offer? Nothing. You have no answers. You have no hope. And you have no real argument to pose against believing in "God" except that such beliefs can be abused. Well guess what, your own beliefs can be abused, too. Belief of any kind can be abused. You claim the believer doesn't have "proof", well you don't even have a proposal, let alone proof. You have nothing . At least the theists can offer SOME evidence and a positive course of action. You can't even do that.

No, not all arguments are arguments from ignorance. It is a specific logical fallacy. It is not a little false, it is not "we can't know the absolute truth" false, it is completely false.

All question persist until they are answered. Should we have called lightning god when we had no idea what it was? Should we have called rain god's tears?

Atheism doesn't offer anything, it's not a philosophy, it does not have a dogma, it is a position on a single issue.

However, there are many philosophies "with answers" that do not include god. But that's a personal choice and there is no "one" philosophy that you can attribut to people who do not believe in god. Nor should you put all theistic philosophies in the same basket.

I can offer you the same things you find to be "sufficient evidence" to claim anything. Pick your topic, I'll provide you with "evidence". Don't believe in pixies? I can show you the "evidence". Aliens? No problem. What do you wan't me to "prove"?

 

[Perfect Circle]

The process of following a religious prescription is similar to following the scientific process in that predictions can be made, a process is followed, and then the predictions are achieved (or not) in the end. And for most people, this is taken as evidence for or against verification.

I'm following you here...

On the other hand, following a religious prescription is not a scientific process, and can't reasonably be expected to mirror the scientific process in every detail. Nor should it be held to the exact same standards as one would a scientific experiment.

...but not here. I understand that you don't think a religious prescription can't be held up to the exact same standards as a scientific one, but I don't understand why you would make the comparison in the first place if that is the case.

I know some of you think you found some telling contradiction, here, but it's just foolish nit-picking because you have nothing else as a rebuttal. This has become obvious to me and so I'm not going to bother responding to any more of this nonsense.

So far, none of you has managed to reasonably rebut my assertion that religion works for people and that the reliability and predictability of it working for people stands as evidence in support of the actuality of "God".

You all are welcome to keep trying but this line of rebuttal is now closed.

That's the problem though. You are saying that since there happen to be positive effects tied in with belief in a god, that must stand as some kind of evidence that said god exists. This is simply false.

If I believe I'm superman, and I run into a burning building and save a baby because of this belief, then something positive has happened as a result of a fallacious idea I have about myself. But when I try to fly off the top of a building, I'll probably fall, because I'm obviously not superman.

 

[Perfect Circle]

And what does atheism offer? Nothing. You have no answers. You have no hope. And you have no real argument to pose against believing in "God" except that such beliefs can be abused. Well guess what, your own beliefs can be abused, too. Belief of any kind can be abused. You claim the believer doesn't have "proof", well you don't even have a proposal, let alone proof. You have nothing . At least the theists can offer SOME evidence and a positive course of action. You can't even do that.

I know for a fact that there is an invisible man that sits on my shoulder and helps me make decisions about my life. I've made it as far as I have listening to him, and I feel as though I'm doing well. Do you believe that there is an invisible man sitting on my shoulder?

If not, I don't understand why. I've clearly presented evidence in favor of it.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

still no evidence

 

[PureX]

No, not all arguments are arguments from ignorance. It is a specific logical fallacy. It is not a little false, it is not "we can't know the absolute truth" false, it is completely false.

I know you think that, but you don't know it's false any more than the theists knows it's true. When faced with a question, a fundamental question like why existence exists, religion offers some possible answers, AND a course of action that may help us evaluate the answers. Atheism just stands there befuddled, with no proposals, no course of action, and no hope of finding an answer. All it can do is point at everyone else's proposals, and shout about how it's been proposed in ignorance. Atheism is just useless and pointless negativity.

All question persist until they are answered. Should we have called lightning god when we had no idea what it was? Should we have called rain god's tears?

Some people did call the lightening a "god". It worked for us better than ******* and whining and doing nothing. If nothing else it helped us discover what lightening wasn't.

Atheism doesn't offer anything, it's not a philosophy, it does not have a dogma, it is a position on a single issue.

Yes ... useless as tits on a bull.

However, there are many philosophies "with answers" that do not include god. But that's a personal choice and there is no "one" philosophy that you can attribut to people who do not believe in god. Nor should you put all theistic philosophies in the same basket.

The test regarding all these philosophies is DO THEY WORK for those who hold them. To find out, one needs to adopt them and live through them for a while. Same with theology. And in the end, a lot of people find that religion works for them. That's why the majority of human beings are religious. The concept of "God" works for people just like the concept of evolution works for science. And that's "evidence". That's real, practical, in your face, evidence.

I can offer you the same things you find to be "sufficient evidence" to claim anything. Pick your topic, I'll provide you with "evidence". Don't believe in pixies? I can show you the "evidence". Aliens? No problem. What do you wan't me to "prove"?[/QUOTE]None of us can "prove" anything. Like science, philosophy isn't about proving things. It's about compiling a reasoned argument to support or eliminate a proposal.

 

[PureX]

I'm following you here...



...but not here. I understand that you don't think a religious prescription can't be held up to the exact same standards as a scientific one, but I don't understand why you would make the comparison in the first place if that is the case.

Because they are similar, but not the same. What's so hard to grasp about that?

You are saying that since there happen to be positive effects tied in with belief in a god, that must stand as some kind of evidence that said god exists.

It's more than just positive effects. It's deliberate and predictable positive effects. In other words, the positive effects are the direct result of acting on a specific concept of "God". And those effects are predicted by that concept of "God". That's what ties the effects to the idea, and that's why the effects give the idea credibility.

When someone's idea of "God" tells them that if they do this, this, this, and this, the result will be THIS. And when they do this, this, this and this, the result is THIS, than the process and the result stands as evidence for the validity of that idea of "God".

If I believe I'm superman, and I run into a burning building and save a baby because of this belief, then something positive has happened as a result of a fallacious idea I have about myself. But when I try to fly off the top of a building, I'll probably fall, because I'm obviously not superman.

But this is a false analogy, because it's not obvious at all that "God" isn't actual.

 

[Commoner]

I know you think that, but you don't know it's false any more than the theists knows it's true. When faced with a question, a fundamental question like why existence exists, religion offers some possible answers, AND a course of action that may help us evaluate the answers. Atheism just stands there befuddled, with no proposals, no course of action, and no hope of finding an answer. All it can do is point at everyone else's proposals, and shout about how it's been proposed in ignorance. Atheism is just useless and pointless negativity.

No, no, you misunderstood. I'm not calling you ignorant, nor am I calling your conclusions untrue. However, your arguement is false, because the logic of your argument is false. The mistake you made is a logical fallacy called "an argument from ignorance". For instance: "I don't know what causes lightning, therefore it must be electricity". One does not logically follow from the other - it is a logical mistake, yet it also says nothing about the conclusions being true or false.

Capitalism or liberalism also provide you with no answers to these questions, it's not their job to answer such questions. Atheists simply answer "no" when asked "do you believe in god?". That is "it's only job". Are you purposefully misunderstanding this?

Some people did call the lightening a "god". It worked for us better than ******* and whining and doing nothing. If nothing else it helped us discover what lightening wasn't.

No, actually it did the opposite. It halted progress, since it allowed for no alternative explanations. "God did it" was the law, more or less.

The test regarding all these philosophies is DO THEY WORK for those who hold them. To find out, one needs to adopt them and live through them for a while. Same with theology. And in the end, a lot of people find that religion works for them. That's why the majority of human beings are religious. The concept of "God" works for people just like the concept of evolution works for science. And that's "evidence". That's real, practical, in your face, evidence.

I really, really don't understand what the point here is. Are we now trying to establish which philosophy makes people the happiest? What is this "work for" you are constantly jumping back to. I really don't understand it.

None of us can "prove" anything. Like science, philosophy isn't about proving things. It's about compiling a reasoned argument to support or eliminate a proposal.

That was not the point, absolute truth is not the question here. As much as we can prove anything, if you lower your standards to what you consider as evidence, then anything can be proven - to the same degree you can "prove" (or whatever word you want to use) god.

 

[Copernicus]

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

Placebos are scientifically proven to work, but they themselves do not produce the cure. The cure is produced by the body's immune system, which is stimulated by false confidence in the placebo. My argument is that belief in God may have very positive benefits that have nothing whatsoever to do with whether God really exists anywhere but in the imagination.

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.

Or producing rain by making sacrifices and dancing for a god. The relevance of explanation is that it ensures dependable results. That's why modern scientists and engineers can consistently produce effects that ancient authors of biblical passages would have considered true miracles.

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.

I think it wise to remember that all religious models are man-made. The scientific ones produce reliable results. The religious ones do not.

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.

That is true. Scientific and religious models are useless to entities that cannot think and have no use for them.

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.

You are hopelessly confusing the perception of a phenomenon with the phenomenon itself. Things happen even when nobody is paying attention to them.

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!).

Yes, God is part of the way some humans model the universe. The question here is whether that part of the model actually reflects the thing being modeled.

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.

I agree that our relationship to the universe exists through our ability to observe it. However, we require more than consciousness to validate the existence of God. We need observation.

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.

Lots of people make lots of contradictory claims. Merely asserting a claim does not make the claim true. You seem to have worked yourself around to the belief that it does. You seem to think that gods exist merely because people imagine them to exist.

(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.)

I have given it thought and made my replies.

 

[Copernicus]

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.

Nonsense. Placebo effects can be quite dramatic and quite permanent. The immune system actually can cure serious ailments, although no placebo can cause someone to regenerate a limb. That is, placebos are not magical in the same way that gods are. And I disagree that your religious prescription leads to permanent changes, since loss of faith seems to be a fairly common event in human minds. Devout Christians have become atheists, and vice versa.

No one has suggested that science and religion are the same things, or that they work in the same way...

You said:

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.

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

You do seem to have said that science and religion worked 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".

I believe that we've covered this territory. Religion can work in the same way that a placebo can. The fact that a belief has a beneficial effect does not mean that the belief is likely to be true.

"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.

In claiming that God is likely to exist, you are making a supernatural claim. God is a being that can contravene the laws of nature, i.e. produce bona fide supernatural miracles.

 

[Perfect Circle]

It's more than just positive effects. It's deliberate and predictable positive effects. In other words, the positive effects are the direct result of acting on a specific concept of "God". And those effects are predicted by that concept of "God". That's what ties the effects to the idea, and that's why the effects give the idea credibility.

When someone's idea of "God" tells them that if they do this, this, this, and this, the result will be THIS. And when they do this, this, this and this, the result is THIS, than the process and the result stands as evidence for the validity of that idea of "God".

So you're claiming that acting on one's personal concept of god can, and often does, lead to positive effects on said person's life. And you hold this as evidence for this concept of god. What happens if I follow this, this, this, and this... and there is no positive outcome. Do I just change my concept of god? Change one of the steps I followed? Or do I abandon the concept of that god?

 

[PureX]

No, no, you misunderstood. I'm not calling you ignorant, nor am I calling your conclusions untrue. However, your arguement is false, because the logic of your argument is false. The mistake you made is a logical fallacy called "an argument from ignorance". For instance: "I don't know what causes lightning, therefore it must be electricity". One does not logically follow from the other - it is a logical mistake, yet it also says nothing about the conclusions being true or false.

I know what an argument from ignorance is. But if we are truly ignorant, then any proposal we make will be an argument from ignorance. But to make SOME proposal, and then follow it through, will at least tell us what works, or appears to work, and what doesn't. That's better than proposing nothing. And doing nothing. My point is that in this case an argument from ignorance is all we have.

Capitalism or liberalism also provide you with no answers to these questions, it's not their job to answer such questions. Atheists simply answer "no" when asked "do you believe in god?". That is "it's only job". Are you purposefully misunderstanding this?

But what a ridiculous "job". The atheist's statement: "I'm just gonna stand here and throw stones at anyone who imagines that any kind of deity is the answer to a question that I don't know the answer to, myself." Does that appear logical to you? Does that appear like a course of action that would gain anyone respect or friendship among his piers? Yet this seems to be very near the atheist's position.

No, actually it did the opposite. It halted progress, since it allowed for no alternative explanations. "God did it" was the law, more or less.

That's the abuse of theology. Any philosophy or intellectual paradigm can be abused, has been abused, and will likely be abused in the future. This has nothing to do with the validity of the philosophy itself, however.

I really, really don't understand what the point here is. Are we now trying to establish which philosophy makes people the happiest? What is this "work for" you are constantly jumping back to. I really don't understand it.

Well, I really don't understand why people would rail against the existence of God when they have no idea if God exists or not, and when following the idea that God exists gives other people a positive course of action. I really don't get it.

 

[PureX]

In claiming that God is likely to exist, you are making a supernatural claim. God is a being that can contravene the laws of nature, i.e. produce bona fide supernatural miracles.

This is not true. There are many god-concepts that do not include god acting on a "supernatural" level.

 

[PureX]

So you're claiming that acting on one's personal concept of god can, and often does, lead to positive effects on said person's life. And you hold this as evidence for this concept of god. What happens if I follow this, this, this, and this... and there is no positive outcome. Do I just change my concept of god? Change one of the steps I followed? Or do I abandon the concept of that god?

Any one of those possibilities would be reasonable. If the original idea didn't work, it's likely to be flawed in some way. So we change the idea and try again. It's SIMILAR to a scientific experiment in that it involves some of the same 'trial and error' steps as the scientific process. It's different in that the outcomes are judged subjectively, and are not likely to be quantifiable.