Rehash god/proof debate

[Unveiled Artist]

I'd accept it as proof if it was something that could be verified by other people.

As it is, every single religious experience that I've seen people describe is uncheckable.

Can it not be verified for yourself?

That's what experiential evidence is.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

A world that is consistent with the existence of a god.

How would you define it if not the OP to determine its consistency?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Since believers in god X, and believers in god Y, with X not equal Y, both claim their God to have changed their lives profoundly, then it follows that this sort of claims prove nothing.

They are at the same standard of proof as saying: the Blue Fairy saved me from cheating, lying, and drinking, therefore this is evidence that the Blue Fairy is true.

Ciao

- viole

Why would the nature of profound experience depend on how other christians think?

Standard of proof isn't from others.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How does that compare to god?

That's thr thing: it doesn't need to compare. The process is the same regardless.

When confronted with any claim that something exists, we can ask the same questions:

• What are the characteristics of the thing?
• Based on those characteristics:
  • If the thing were to exist, what signs of its existence would I see?
    • And importantly, what other things could explain these signs? Hiw do I rule out those other explanations?
  • If the thing were not to exist, what signs of its non-existence would I see?
• When I look, which signs do I see?
  • If I see signs consistent with its existence, have I ruled out other explanations?
  • Have I found enough evidence to support a firm conclusion?

You can apply this to God, Santa, unicorns, your pet cat, whatever. It works equally well for anything.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can it not be verified for yourself?

That's what experiential evidence is.

But here's the thing about experiential evidence: it's a multi-step process, and all but one of those steps can be evaluated by anybody.

It goes like this:

1. I had some set of experiences.
2. I'm sure these experiences reflect external reality and aren't just in my own head.
3. I can infer (set of inferences) from my set of experiences.
4. Based on those inferences, I can conclude that (thing) is real.

If the reasoning is valid, then absolutely anyone should be able to take the set of experiences as a given, work through the steps, and get to the same result.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I think it's more that if you can't explain your belief to someone else in a way that makes sense, then this is a big red flag that your belief probably doesn't make sense (barring things like language issues, of course).

it could be that the person are still seeking, and have not yet a full answer to his/her belief

 

[Spirit of Light]

Then it's not objective, it's subjective, and no different to opinion.

difference in spiritual understanding is a better word

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why wouldn't proof be how it chances a person's life and not something explained objectively?

Because the question is "does a god exist?". Not "can a belief have a profound impact on people's lives?".

If something changed your life profoundly, would you use logic to verify your experiences, or?

Depends on the experience.
But in general, yes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How do you know what god is to compare it to unicorns?

Something that can be claimed to exist and for which no evidence is offered.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It seems to be non believers who are the ones demanding proofs for God and the reason seems to be so that they can debunk them.

Isn't that literally what scrutinizing ideas and evidence is all about?

You should always try to falsify or debunk claims and the evidence proposed for it.
It's when you are unable to do so, that there is something there....


You know, when a scientist designs an experiment to test a certain idea... did you know that the experiment isn't actually designed to try and prove the idea correct? It's the exact opposite. The scientist conducting the experiment is going to try to prove it wrong instead.

And when that fails, then it's a success for the idea that is being tested.
This is why scientific ideas must make testable predictions "if a and b, then according this theory C should occur".

So you design an experiment that has A and B and you try to make anything but C occur.
But if C occurs every time..........................


You see?
On the other hand, suppose you would do your best to design your experiment to make C occur.
You see the problem?

You should always scrutinize ideas and evidence and do your best to try and poke holes in it.
It's when you fail to do so, that you can accept said ideas and evidence.


So yes, whenever I ask you to bring evidence for your claims, you may fully expect me to try and tear that evidence a new one.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

One canon compare God to unicorns,

One can and one does. And it is easily justified.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There are many experiences which could be called religious in the Near Death Experience context which are verified by other people and imo show the existence of spirit.

Or it shows the tendency of the biological brain to produce such experiences in times of great stress and which people through popular culture "interpret" in religious ways.


Very similarly to how the human brain is rather prone to cognition errors leading directly to superstitious beliefs. As is the case in most animals, actually.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So a personal belief in God is a belief that must be proven to the non believers (or others) to be a valid belief?

Any belief, especially extra-ordinary beliefs, must be independently verifiable to some degree in order to be rationally justified to hold.

So if by "valid" you mean "rationally justified", then I'ld say that yes... for to be rationally justified, one must be able to meet the burden of proof.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not all NDEs have naturalistic explanations. Some people have verified memories of what happened in other rooms for example, when they were supposed to be unconscious.

"not having explanations" and "supposed to be" and not understanding how it can be so...

None of these are valid reasons to suggest supernatural shenannigans as "the explanation".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

it could be that the person are still seeking, and have not yet a full answer to his/her belief

So then their belief doesn't make sense - as I said - but they hold out hope that someday it will make sense?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Because the question is "does a god exist?". Not "can a belief have a profound impact on people's lives?".

That's how God exists by a profound belief that impacts their lives. What other proof could their be for anything outside their personal experiences?

Depends on the experience.
But in general, yes

Why so?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Something that can be claimed to exist and for which no evidence is offered.

God is just a label. I can claim Zenophone exists but can't provide evidence unless the other has some idea of what he wants evidence for.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God is just a label. I can claim Zenophone exists but can't provide evidence unless the other has some idea of what he wants evidence for.

This is why I find it useful when someone starts talking about God to ask "what do you mean by 'God'?"

 

[Spirit of Light]

Any belief, especially extra-ordinary beliefs, must be independently verifiable to some degree in order to be rationally justified to hold.

So if by "valid" you mean "rationally justified", then I'ld say that yes... for to be rationally justified, one must be able to meet the burden of proof.

Why? It is a personal belief, does not harm anyone

 

[Spirit of Light]

So then their belief doesn't make sense - as I said - but they hold out hope that someday it will make sense?

Of course