Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[Commoner]

I quite smoking 'cold turkey' after 25 years. It was very hard, but that has nothing to do with an addiction to drugs or alcohol. They aren't the same pathologies.

Also, by your own examples, here, you are showing yourself to be missing the point. By your own examples and statements, you are not going to turn to a god you do not believe in as long as you have ANY other course of possible action. This is exactly what I was pointing out. No one can experience the reality of God until they turn in earnest to that possibility. But if you don't believe in God's reality, then you aren't likely to turn to that god in earnest, are you?

Of course not.

And the only scenario that could break that dilemma would be a scenario in which you were completely trapped and hopeless BARRING the miraculous. And even then, you would only turn to God because you had no other option, not because you believe that doing so would work. Yet millions of other people have found, in exactly that moment of hopelessness and doubt, that God worked or them. And THAT'S WHY THEY BELIEVE, now.

This moment can't happen for a 'non-believer' until their non-belief is broken. That's what I was trying to explain.

Thanks for proving my point!

This is getting beyond annoying, PureX!

 

[Commoner]

But the idea of God is testable, and the effects are observable. And reality includes plenty phenomena that is not quantifiable or objective. I did not claim that God is undemonstrable.

Then, for the love of god, demonstrate it! That's what we've all been waiting for! For the last gazillion pages!

Everything exists to us as a concept. Existence is itself a concept.

Did you intend to actually address my objections?

A stoved toe is not the ultimate test of existence.

Yep, it is. I kicked something - that something, whatever we decide to call it, was there, is still there and has my blood on it. It is the ultimate test of existence. If you can kick it, it's there.

God is no less a concept.
Well, ideas like art, love, justice, and God, are not such that they can be discussed or shared purely objectively. You can adopt the "three monkey" strategy regarding these if you wish, but none of them are going to go away simply because you refuse to discuss them. Nor will they become less "real".

That we do not address something purely on objective grounds, does not mean it could not be addressed as such. As we've been asking you to do, provide the part of god that can be discerned objectively. Show us the evidence, don't make us wait. I do not want to repeat myself, if you do not understand how ideas like love and justice are different from the idea of a god, then I don't think I can make you understand. You're intentionally disregarding my objections to your arguments.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

I'm tired of this, cut the crap Purex and present the evidence you say you have.

 

[Runewolf1973]

This thread is STILL going?

 

[nonbeliever_92]

This thread is STILL going?

You see, I wouldn't of had any problem with this thread unless something was actually accomplished, but nothing has, no evidence has been presented.

 

[Vile Atheist]

You see, I wouldn't of had any problem with this thread unless something was actually accomplished, but nothing has, no evidence has been presented.

Though I agree no evidence was presented, I disagree nothing was accomplished. We finally kinda know what PureX means when he talks about "God". Small victory as that may be, I think it's useful.

 

[PureX]

I have come to the conclusion that the definition of "evidence" is so biased at this point that there is no point in trying to present any. I fact, I believe I have been presenting evidence on this thread from the beginning, but that for the most part, those who don't want to see it simply will not accept it, and those that are willing to see it didn't need it, anyway.

That's why I finally just decided to present my own experiences and ideas and leave it at that.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

I have come to the conclusion that the definition of "evidence" is so biased at this point that there is no point in trying to present any. I fact, I believe I have been presenting evidence on this thread from the beginning, but that for the most part, those who don't want to see it simply will not accept it, and those that are willing to see it didn't need it, anyway.

That's why I finally just decided to present my own experiences and ideas and leave it at that.

FACEPALM!!!!!!!!

 

[PureX]

You (this is a generic "you") think the only definition of evidence is objective evidence. Thus, you exclude automatically any and all subjective evidence. In the same way, you define existence in objective terms, so that any and all subjective phenomena that exists is automatically excluded. This bias is so outrageous and one-sided that it makes the sharing of evidence impossible, and nearly kills all discussion, completely.

All that's left is a conversation in which I can try to explain why I stand where I do on these things. And so far, I don't think that's been made very clear, either. But that's probably my own fault. These are difficult concepts to explain. And although it doesn't stop me from trying, I admit that I have a hard time with it. Questions of existence and cognition quickly fall into philosophical conundrums that have been bandied about for eons.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

You (this is a generic "you") think the only definition of evidence is objective evidence. Thus, you exclude automatically any and all subjective evidence.

This is incorrect. Who completely outrules subjective evidence. Subjective evidence is fine but only when it's coupled with objective evidence to support it.

In the same way, you define existence in objective terms, so that any and all subjective phenomena that exists is automatically excluded.

No again. Objective and subjective things exist, this is obvious. But there are things that exist as only the subjective, such as emotion and mental concepts. These SUBJECTS are only non-physical and are not OBJECTS. If you cannot grasp this then you might not want to be on the debate forums on this site where the distinction is quite important.

This bias is so outrageous and one-sided that it makes the sharing of evidence impossible, and nearly kills all discussion, completely.

FACEPALM DEJA VU!!!!! It's not a bias, it's logic and reason. Again, if you cannot grasp this, you should leave the debate forums.

All that's left is a conversation in which I can try to explain why I stand where I do on these things. And so far, I don't think that's been made very clear, either. But that's probably my own fault. These are difficult concepts to explain. And although it doesn't stop me from trying, I admit that I have a hard time with it. Questions of existence and cognition quickly fall into philosophical conundrums that have been bandied about for eons.

Yes, this is exactly what you've been doing throughout the whole discussion, you haven't presented any evidence at all. You've simply said your preferences on a matter or your views, but you haven't provided any evidence for god what-so-ever.


Easy question, besides faith, what reason do you have to believe in god?

 

[PureX]

It's not a bias, it's logic and reason. Again, if you cannot grasp this, you should leave the debate forums.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that you have been appointed by some unnamed omnipotent overseer to decide what defines logic and reason for all mankind, and that it's hopelessly tied to some form of objectivism. I don't accept this, and you apparently are not intellectually flexible enough to grasp or discuss any other point of view.

This last post of yours just proves my point.

... besides faith, what reason do you have to believe in god?

As I have stated many times, now, the reason is because doing so, works. It's the same reason that I believe in the idea of a chair, or an automobile, but not in the idea of fairies or ghosts. You don't seem to grasp that to recognize something means to cognate it. That means that we first must have some idea in our minds that reality is presuming to correspond with. In the case of a chair, the idea is simple and the physical correspondence is obvious and objective. But many ideas are not so simple, nor are they so obvious or objective in their physical correspondence.

The idea of love, for example, has a very complex and subjective correspondence with reality. As does the idea of God. You claim that it's still entirely physiological, and therefor objective, but it's so complex that no one among us can explain this physiological process. Including you. So apparently you take this physiological correspondence on faith. Yet for some reason you will not do so regarding the idea of "God". And each time I try to point out the similarities, you just dismiss them out of hand. I say that God is as real as love is, but you can only reply that these are not objects, so they're not "real", and any evidence pertaining to them is subjective, and therefor not "real" evidence.

So where does this leave us?

 

[Commoner]

The idea of love, for example, has a very complex and subjective correspondence with reality. As does the idea of God. You claim that it's still entirely physiological, and therefor objective, but it's so complex that no one among us can explain this physiological process. Including you. So apparently you take this physiological correspondence on faith. Yet for some reason you will not do so regarding the idea of "God". And each time I try to point out the similarities, you just dismiss them out of hand. I say that God is as real as love is, but you can only reply that these are not objects, so they're not "real", and any evidence pertaining to them is subjective, and therefor not "real" evidence.

So where does this leave us?

Chemical basis


Simplified overview of the chemical basis of love.

Biological models of sex tend to view love as a mammalian drive, much like hunger or thirst.[8] Helen Fisher, a leading expert in the topic of love, divides the experience of love into three partly overlapping stages: lust, attraction, and attachment. Lust exposes people to others; romantic attraction encourages people to focus their energy on mating; and attachment involves tolerating the spouse (or indeed the child) long enough to rear a child into infancy.
Lust is the initial passionate sexual desire that promotes mating, and involves the increased release of chemicals such as testosterone and estrogen. These effects rarely last more than a few weeks or months. Attraction is the more individualized and romantic desire for a specific candidate for mating, which develops out of lust as commitment to an individual mate forms. Recent studies in neuroscience have indicated that as people fall in love, the brain consistently releases a certain set of chemicals, including pheromones, dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin, which act in a manner similar to amphetamines, stimulating the brain's pleasure center and leading to side effects such as increased heart rate, loss of appetite and sleep, and an intense feeling of excitement. Research has indicated that this stage generally lasts from one and a half to three years.[9]
Since the lust and attraction stages are both considered temporary, a third stage is needed to account for long-term relationships. Attachment is the bonding that promotes relationships lasting for many years and even decades. Attachment is generally based on commitments such as marriage and children, or on mutual friendship based on things like shared interests. It has been linked to higher levels of the chemicals oxytocin and vasopressin to a greater degree than short-term relationships have.[9]
Enzo Emanuele and coworkers reported the protein molecule known as the nerve growth factor (NGF) has high levels when people first fall in love, but these return to previous levels after one year. [10]

Is this the "love" you're refering to when comparing the concept to "god"? And if you are, are you being serious? If not, what specifically are you talking about when you say "love"? And let's try and minimize the bs level, please.

 

[Vile Atheist]

As I have stated many times, now, the reason is because doing so, works. It's the same reason that I believe in the idea of a chair, or an automobile, but not in the idea of fairies or ghosts

While I understand you were answering nonbeliever's question about what reason you have to believe in God (as you define it), "It works." is unfortunately not evidence for the matter. Evidence should show causality between A and B. As in, for example.

"A depends on B because in the absense of B, there is no A."

or

"A is independent of B because with or without B, A shows no difference in behaviour."

or

"B is a factor of A. Without B, A decreases. With B, A increases."

The idea "It works" does not do any such thing. As you can see from the above three statements, they are objective. They don't depend on the person viewing them to determine their truth.

The idea "It works" may "work" for you, but not for us or millions of other atheists/agnostics. Thus, it is a subjective idea. The statements are more like:

"A is true because the veracity of A is dependent on B and B is known to be true to me"

or, with A and B filled in:

"The idea of God is true because veracity the idea of God is dependent on it working and the idea works for me."

The main problem is subjectivity. We know scientific ideas are true - if not, very close to the truth - because we can predict and manipulate those ideas to our own advantage. This is how we get modern medicine. We know the interactions of molecules. We know the effects they have on the body. We know that when molecules react, their wavefunctions combine and the resultant wavefunction has properties of all its component wavefunctions.

And we can manipulate the chemistry and biology to come up with a medicine that will have a very high success rate. The chemistry and biology "working" is not dependent on anyone holding it to be true or not. Whether or not to a scientist an idea "works", it can still be applied whether or not he/she accepts it.

This idea of God - while I have no doubts it works for you - is unfortunately not evidence.

 

[Willamena]

Anyone who claims a chemical basis for love as the explanation for love has never been in love.

 

[Quagmire]

Anyone who claims a chemical basis for love as the explanation for love has never been in love.

Or never experimented with chemicals.

 

[Willamena]

Or never experimented with chemicals.

Just so.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

Chemical basis


Simplified overview of the chemical basis of love.

Biological models of sex tend to view love as a mammalian drive, much like hunger or thirst.[8] Helen Fisher, a leading expert in the topic of love, divides the experience of love into three partly overlapping stages: lust, attraction, and attachment. Lust exposes people to others; romantic attraction encourages people to focus their energy on mating; and attachment involves tolerating the spouse (or indeed the child) long enough to rear a child into infancy.
Lust is the initial passionate sexual desire that promotes mating, and involves the increased release of chemicals such as testosterone and estrogen. These effects rarely last more than a few weeks or months. Attraction is the more individualized and romantic desire for a specific candidate for mating, which develops out of lust as commitment to an individual mate forms. Recent studies in neuroscience have indicated that as people fall in love, the brain consistently releases a certain set of chemicals, including pheromones, dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin, which act in a manner similar to amphetamines, stimulating the brain's pleasure center and leading to side effects such as increased heart rate, loss of appetite and sleep, and an intense feeling of excitement. Research has indicated that this stage generally lasts from one and a half to three years.[9]
Since the lust and attraction stages are both considered temporary, a third stage is needed to account for long-term relationships. Attachment is the bonding that promotes relationships lasting for many years and even decades. Attachment is generally based on commitments such as marriage and children, or on mutual friendship based on things like shared interests. It has been linked to higher levels of the chemicals oxytocin and vasopressin to a greater degree than short-term relationships have.[9]
Enzo Emanuele and coworkers reported the protein molecule known as the nerve growth factor (NGF) has high levels when people first fall in love, but these return to previous levels after one year. [10]

Is this the "love" you're refering to when comparing the concept to "god"? And if you are, are you being serious? If not, what specifically are you talking about when you say "love"? And let's try and minimize the bs level, please.

O.K. Spock, live long and prosper.

 

[Commoner]

Anyone who claims a chemical basis for love as the explanation for love has never been in love.

What a little cheap shot.

That you don't like the idea, doesn't make it false. Nor does your claim to hold some greater knowledge of love impress me very much, when all you can do is make such petty remarks. I'll just return the ball to you and say: anyone who claims our thoughts do not have a physiological basis has never had a cogent thought.

 

[PureX]

While I understand you were answering nonbeliever's question about what reason you have to believe in God (as you define it), "It works." is unfortunately not evidence for the matter. Evidence should show causality between A and B. As in, for example.

"A depends on B because in the absense of B, there is no A."

or

"A is independent of B because with or without B, A shows no difference in behaviour."

or

"B is a factor of A. Without B, A decreases. With B, A increases."

The idea "It works" does not do any such thing. As you can see from the above three statements, they are objective. They don't depend on the person viewing them to determine their truth.

The idea "It works" may "work" for you, but not for us or millions of other atheists/agnostics. Thus, it is a subjective idea. The statements are more like:

"A is true because the veracity of A is dependent on B and B is known to be true to me"

or, with A and B filled in:

"The idea of God is true because veracity the idea of God is dependent on it working and the idea works for me."

The main problem is subjectivity. We know scientific ideas are true - if not, very close to the truth - because we can predict and manipulate those ideas to our own advantage. This is how we get modern medicine. We know the interactions of molecules. We know the effects they have on the body. We know that when molecules react, their wavefunctions combine and the resultant wavefunction has properties of all its component wavefunctions.

And we can manipulate the chemistry and biology to come up with a medicine that will have a very high success rate. The chemistry and biology "working" is not dependent on anyone holding it to be true or not. Whether or not to a scientist an idea "works", it can still be applied whether or not he/she accepts it.

This idea of God - while I have no doubts it works for you - is unfortunately not evidence.

What is interesting, here, is how easily and automatically you presume that you have been charged with defining the rules of evidence according to your own nature - a clearly subjective action, while you simaltaneously claim objectivism to be a sacred and unassailable characteristic of logic, reason, and reality.

But let's play along ...

Evidence should show causality between A and B. As in, for example.

"A depends on B because in the absense of B, there is no A."

I was hopelessly addicted to alcohol until I surrendered the addiction to "God", at which time I was immediately relieved of the overwhelming desire to drink. My sobriety depends on the idea of God 'working' in my life.

The idea "It works" does not do any such thing. As you can see from the above three statements, they are objective. They don't depend on the person viewing them to determine their truth.

Neither does my statement. Anyone who knew me at the time will attest to the fact that I was hopelessly addicted to drinking alcohol before going to AA and surrendering my addiction to their "higher power" and that I stopped drinking that very day and have not had a drink, since. And frankly, I resent the implication that I need witnesses, as though I am to be considered self-deluded until proven otherwise simply because YOU have not experienced this reality of God.

The idea "It works" may "work" for you, but not for us or millions of other atheists/agnostics. Thus, it is a subjective idea. The statements are more like:

"A is true because the veracity of A is dependent on B and B is known to be true to me"

At this point, many millions of human beings have been healed and saved by their surrender to this God ideal. And only a small minority of human beings are making the claim that this is self-delusion. YOU are in the minority, here. Yet you presume that all those many millions of other people are deluding themselves, while your small minority of atheists are the unbiased ones. When it's very clear to me and anyone who can read these posts that you are certainly biased against subjectivism, as well as religion.

 

[Commoner]

What is interesting, here, is how easily and automatically you presume that you have been charged with defining the rules of evidence according to your own nature - a clearly subjective action, while you simaltaneously claim objectivism to be a sacred and unassailable characteristic of logic, reason, and reality.

To be fair, PureX, near the beginning of this thread I asked you several times to provide a methodology which you will be using to present your case. You had every opportunity to offer your own suggestions and you refused to do it. So please don't now start crying about how selfish it is of us to use the scientific method in order to establish the validity of your claims.

Also, your objection to objectivism is a bit...ahem...objectionable. We are, after all, trying to determine whether or not your abstration fits with objective reality - a reality independent of the mind. Your confusion regarding objectivity and objectivism, which are not the same by far, is also not very encouraging. So to clear up the confusion (I hope), here is what we expect of you, when we refer to objectivity:

"[A]n objective account is one which attempts to capture the nature of the object studied in a way that does not depend on any features of the particular subject who studies it. An objective account is, in this sense, impartial, one which could ideally be accepted by any subject, because it does not draw on any assumptions, prejudices, or values of particular subjects. This feature of objective accounts means that disputes can be contained to the object studied." (Gaukroger, 2001, p. 10785).

Anyway, sorry for butting in, CM.