There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[Sheldon]

There is no need for an answer from the God, but knowing that you have Him always with you. That is also a bless.

Most "answered" prayers are selection bias, where people record the successes, and ignore the failures, "god is mysterious" etc. They also often involve a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, this is especially true when the person using the fallacy perceives the outcome as extremely unlikely. We also know that intercessory prayer has been tested, using double blind clinical trials involving the recovery of post op heart patients, the results demonstrated unequivocally that the prayers had no discernible effect. Of course most believers are not interested in such facts, and this is dismissed with handwaving, "god can't be tested" etc, yet how many ties have we seen apologists try to claim science evidences a deity. It's hard to ignore such bias, if one wants reasoning as objectively as possible.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
Mostly you make unevidenced claims, then dodge the responses with non-sequitur's like this.

Go figure... and I though that is what you did.

Quality, you did intend that as hilarious irony I assume? Cutting out the quote, ignoring my post in it's entirety, and offering the irrelevant non sequitur "nuh uh, you do" response to the accusation you ignore post content, and respond with irrelevant non sequiturs. Brilliant, priceless irony.

 

[Sheldon]

Why isn't reality the absolute standard for truth? Is that a bus? BAM! Yes.

Well in this case I'd say it's a the way some people rationalise beliefs that sometimes don't reflect, or are even contradicted by reality.

A kind of selection bias, if reality reflects what I believe fine, if it doesn't appeal to mystery, which is of course what miracles are, and what people are doing when they claim a prayer had been answered.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well in this case I'd say it's a the way some people rationalise beliefs that sometimes don't reflect, or are even contradicted by reality.

A kind of selection bias, if reality reflects what I believe fine, if it doesn't appeal to mystery, which is of course what miracles are, and what people are doing when they claim a prayer had been answered.

But if I believe in God, that is not contradicted by how the world works, because it is a fact, that I can believe in God.

 

[Sheldon]

I was responding to someone who claimed it's insane to claim to hear from God. That would make the vast majority of humans insane.
It's not just what I believe, it's what most theists believe on some level.

One can hold a belief that is insane, without actually being insane. I'm pretty sure @Polymath257 was using the word insane to describe the belief, not the person holding it. So it was meant in it's rhetorical sense, not as a clinical diagnosis of the person making the claim.

Everyone imagines they "hear" voices in their head, it's "insane" to believe they are not derived from your own physical brain, since this belief deviates from physical reality. This does not make the person themselves clinically insane.

FYI the number of people who hold a belief, tells us nothing about it's validity, this is called an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How about some of these?

Pareidolia:

Pareidolia - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's called pareidolia.

Everything in the universe is going to look like something else in the universe.

Oh rats. I was too late.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oh rats. I was too late.

Well, never mind that.
Another one that seems to pop up, is this one:
Is–ought problem - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

But if I believe in God, that is not contradicted by how the world works, because it is a fact, that I can believe in God.

A simple belief in God may not be contradicted by the way that the world works, but a belief in specific Gods can be contradicted by the way that the world exists.

I have pointed out that I can refute specific versions of God, but I cannot refute all versions of God. The problem is that some beliefs in failed versions of God think that there version of God is the only version of God. They will claim that others refuting their version of God would be people refuting God. That is not necessarily so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, never mind that.
Another one that seems to pop up, is this one:
Is–ought problem - Wikipedia

That can get into a much deeper conversation and it is well past my bedtime. I would need a few more active brain cells to discuss that cogently right now.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A simple belief in God may not be contradicted by the way that the world works, but a belief in specific Gods can be contradicted by the way that the world exists.

I have pointed out that I can refute specific versions of God, but I cannot refute all versions of God. The problem is that some beliefs in failed versions of God think that there version of God is the only version of God. They will claim that others refuting their version of God would be people refuting God. That is not necessarily so.

Another aspect is how someone understands a contradiction and how that is viewed in a normative sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Another aspect is how someone understands a contradiction and how that is viewed in a normative sense.

Holy crap! It is 3:30 in the morning. Speak 'Murican.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Holy crap! It is 3:30 in the morning. Speak 'Murican.

Just go to bed. Return back if you feel like it and we can continue. Or even make a new thread.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just go to bed. Return back if you feel like it and we can continue. Or even make a new thread.

I should. Good night.

 

[Sheldon]

What is reality? These forums show us that everyone has a different reality.

Nope, only that some people rationalise or deny reality in line with their beliefs, rather than the other way around. Occam's razor suggests the more unevidenced assumptions we add to known facts the less likely the conclusion is to be true. None of us can hope to be entirely objective all the time, but we can decided how hard we try to be objective, by being willing to relinquishing any belief, if the objective evidence demands it.

 

[Sheldon]

How is a person, or even a consciousness, a 'standard of truth'?

Again, what does that even mean?

And why does truth *need* a standard? isn't being true enough? What else is required?

Not only is this correct, but one would also have to point out that it is an objective fact that we can't know what Jesus said or did, all we have is second or third hand hearsay, compiled largely anonymously, and many decades after the alleged events. To draw a correlation between that and truth would be pretty absurd, but to imply it represents absolute truth is preposterous bias.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is reality? These forums show us that everyone has a different reality.

Not that I agree with you on a lot and this is not about being right or wrong.
But for reality these 2 definitions are in fact contradictory in a sense:
1. the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
2. the state or quality of having existence or substance.

The first one is external/objective. The second one is phenomenological as for quality and can include for all of a better word the subjective.

 

[Sheldon]

But Einstein was fond of Jesus (as represented in the Gospels) and he believed he was an actual historical figure. He said he is "enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene" and that his sayings are beautiful.

I find that claim pretty dubious tbh, as he was extremely disparaging about the bible. Also this has nothing to do with the original claim, from a theist, who asserted only theists have wisdom. A claim that is demonstrably false.

I also don't care what Einstein's personal beliefs were. Sir Isaac Newton believed in the hokum superstition of alchemy and astrology, all this shows is that we should not assume a genius is infallible, as that is when we start using appeals to authority fallacies.

 

[Kenny]

Quality, you did intend that as hilarious irony I assume? Cutting out the quote, ignoring my post in it's entirety, and offering the irrelevant non sequitur "nuh uh, you do" response to the accusation you ignore post content, and respond with irrelevant non sequiturs. Brilliant, priceless irony.

I ignore your posts, on purpose

They aren't a discussion, IMV there are many statements that are irrelevant, many are misapplied and no fruit will ever come of it.

When, and if, I see you say something worthwhile, I will be honored to answer it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I ignore your posts, on purpose

They aren't a discussion, IMV there are many that are irrelevant, many are misapplied and no fruit will ever come of it.

When, and if, I see you say something worthwhile, I will be honored to answer it.

I will try to bridge the gap using a version of religion from my life in Denmark. Most Danes are Christians in some sense. but their religion is secular in the following sense. Some of them don't judge an abortion to be right or wrong for all other humans based on their beliefs. They leave the choice to the woman.

Now if you want it in theological terms. What you chose to believe in, is between you and God and not my problem even in religious terms. And so in the other direct. God is not public, God is private.
There is of course more, but that is a part of it.