What evidence for God

[Oneatatime]

Wombat,

Scripture is easily refuted on the grounds that as evidence for God its a circular arguement. Scripture proves God exists and scripture is correct because God guided the hand of the author. This is clearly an unnaceptable line of reasoning regardless of how many people think its acceptable. What is also unnacceptable is the arguement that religious scripture is somehow different from other kind of fiction because that wasn't the intended purpose. Presumably then the events depicted in films like The Fourth Kind are to be believed because despite being clearly fictional in nature the way its filmed is to give the impression that it is a documentary.

Personal experience again is easily refuted because its not suprising that religiously inclined people interpret events and feelings within the context of God. Its just an interpretation and there is no real basis for beieving that a God was involved, just that the person thought God was. This behaviour has been observed under controlled conditions as the part of the brain which is active during communication with others is also active during prayer. To claim that this is evidence for communication with God would mean that you would also have to accept that a person suffering from mental health problems and delusions is really talking to someone in the room who nobody else can see.

You seem to be unhappy with the conditions which evidence has to comform to in order to be accepted as scientific evidence. This is not an unusual approach by those whose evidence falls short of the required standard and who therefore seek to lower the standard in order to legitimise their view or belief.

 

[Wombat]

Wombat,
Scripture is easily refuted on the grounds that as evidence for God its a circular arguement. Scripture proves God exists and scripture is correct because God guided the hand of the author. This is clearly an unnaceptable line of reasoning regardless of how many people think its acceptable..

Thank you for taking the time and consideration to refute an arguement that I have not put forward.

What is also unnacceptable is the arguement that religious scripture is somehow different from other kind of fiction because that wasn't the intended purpose. Presumably then the events depicted in films like The Fourth Kind are to be believed because despite being clearly fictional in nature the way its filmed is to give the impression that it is a documentary...

Thank you for taking the time and consideration to refute an arguement that I have put forward by presenting an alternative scenario in which "presumption" is the key feature leading to Straw Man

Personal experience again is easily refuted because its not suprising that religiously inclined people interpret events and feelings within the context of God. Its just an interpretation and there is no real basis for beieving that a God was involved, just that the person thought God was....

Thank you for taking the time and consideration to once again refute an arguement that I have not put forward.

I provided three posibilities for the consideration of "Personal experience" and at not stage claimed "basis for beieving that a God was involved, just that the person thought God was"

To claim that this is evidence for communication with God would mean that you would also have to accept that a person suffering from mental health problems and delusions is really talking to someone in the room who nobody else can see.....

Having made no such "claim"....once more-

Thank you for taking the time and consideration to once again refute an arguement that I have not put forward.

You seem to be unhappy with the conditions which evidence has to comform to in order to be accepted as scientific evidence..

Thank you for taking the time and consideration to present your presumed insight into my feelings on a matter of which I have expressed no opinion "scientific evidence"... other than it "scientific" has been introduced to the original propisition- "no evidence".

This is not an unusual approach by those whose evidence falls short of the required standard and who therefore seek to lower the standard in order to legitimise their view or belief.

Thank you for taking the time and consideration to take the original propisition- blanket "no evedence" for God and engage in the ongoing disingenuous extrapolation to “scientific evidence”.

It's nice to know you guys get to set the "required standard" and shift the goal posts as you go.

Tell me.....What's the "required standard" for actually responding to what the other actually said.....or do you all argue against your own presumptions,
extrapolations,misrepresentations and straw men?

 

[PolyHedral]

No. At various discreet and sequential points in history people have laid claim to having an experience of God, claiming God spoke/revealed a message to them.

Rational options-
1/ They are deluded/mentally ill.
2/ They are trying to palm off imagination, fiction or scam as fact for influence, profit or gain (possibly in combination with 1/)
3/ They did have such an experience and are conveying revelation from God.
History and scripture provide >evidence< by which these posibilities can be rationaly examined and considered and millions have done so concluding 3/ to be worthy (on the evidence) of investing faith/belief therein.

You missed the fourth option: they had an experience but they are mis-attributing its source. "I had this experiance!" and "I had this experiance, it must be a revelation from God!" are distinct statements, and the latter requires different support from the former. There are many many sensations that might appear to be God to people who do not understand where they are coming from.

 

[Wombat]

You missed the fourth option: they had an experience but they are mis-attributing its source..

See 1/. If they are " mis-attributing" the experience then they are 'Deluded'

"I had this experiance!" and "I had this experiance, it must be a revelation from God!" are distinct statements, and the latter requires different support from the former. There are many many sensations that might appear to be God to people who do not understand where they are coming from.

Yes...Which is why I presented Deluded/Mentally ill as posibility number 1/.

And each respondent in tirn is assuming, projecting and refuting an arguement that is >not< being made. I have not said/am not saying that any claim to 'experiance, sensation' holds any merrit in and of itself.

But if an individual claims an experience/revelation then there are all manner of aspects to that claim that may be subject to rational investigation and considered as evidence- i.e Was there any aspect of the claimed revelation that would constitute an anomaly, improbability or go against the odds/chance to provoke reasonable suspicion and warrant further investigation. Was the content/subject matter of the revelation of such a nature that it could be investigated and viewed as evidence...

The list of potential 'evedence' considerations goes on...but I see little/no evedence that the discussions (general) will move beyond presumption, projection and refutation of arguements not being put.

 

[PolyHedral]

Then no prophecy can be verified as having come from God.

 

[Willamena]

You missed the fourth option: they had an experience but they are mis-attributing its source. "I had this experiance!" and "I had this experiance, it must be a revelation from God!" are distinct statements, and the latter requires different support from the former. There are many many sensations that might appear to be God to people who do not understand where they are coming from.

You missed the fifth option. They had an experience and have assigned it source, either inadvertantly or poetically. "I had this experience!" where being "a part of the world" merges with "the world being". With the realization that you are the world, how can sensation that exists in the world not come from the world? With the realization that you are the world, how can "where they are coming from" not be you?

That sort of thing.

 

[Wombat]

Then no prophecy can be verified as having come from God.

And now we take the leap from the non consideration of 'evidence' to absolutist statements re what "can be verified"/proven...which completes the circle back to #714-

“Once more and yet again the ongoing confusion between "evidence" and 'proof'.

While it is true to say there is no 'proof' of God...it is not true to say "there's no evidence to support a god".”
................
And in completing this circle not once did they pause to consider that there might be/could be ‘evidence’ they have not considered.

“There is no evidence. Period”....”no prophecy can be verified...”.......Ahhhh the arrogance of certainty...you would have to find a fundamentalist Christian to meet its match

 

[Wombat]

You missed the fifth option. .

Well unless someone can explain how "mis-attributing its source" is in any way different to 1/- Deluded....we are still at three options....

and considering a fourth-

They had an experience and have assigned it source, either inadvertantly or poetically. "I had this experience!" where being "a part of the world" merges with "the world being". With the realization that you are the world, how can sensation that exists in the world not come from the world? With the realization that you are the world, how can "where they are coming from" not be you? That sort of thing.

For this to constitute a fourth option would require that there was some message or meaning that they sought to subsequently convey to others that would qualify as revelation/prophecy. i.e.- "I had this experience!" where being "a part of the world" merges with "the world being" and the 'world being' is called Gia and says..." or "and this experience means..."

That sort of thing...and it still leaves options 1, 2 and 3(with variation) and the consideration of- What is the evidence supporting the experience.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Nice sleight of hand criteria shift...we go from “no evidence” to no “objective empirical evidence”...What’s next? No “objective empirical physical forensic evidence such as one would find on CSI”?
No thanks.
I am opposing the proposition (frequently erroneously put by atheists) that there is “no evidence” for the God proposition.

Sleight of hand? No, simply clarification.
There is objective empirical evidence that cannot be reasonably denied.
And there is subjective evidence that is highly prone to each individuals interpretation.
It is hardly a fallacy for someone to say there is no evidence for God. There isn't.
The fallacy is to lower the standards of evidence to subjectivity.

 

[McBell]

The hell with context, right?

If you say so.
However the question "is there evidence of god?" does not offer the context you would try to claim exists.

Nice try though.

 

[McBell]

Sleight of hand? No, simply clarification.
There is objective empirical evidence that cannot be reasonably denied.
And there is subjective evidence that is highly prone to each individuals interpretation.
It is hardly a fallacy for someone to say there is no evidence for God. There isn't.
The fallacy is to lower the standards of evidence to subjectivity.

Seems to em that the problem is more one of clarification.
To be more specific, lack of clarification on the the part of the one declaring that there is no evidence for god.

 

[Orias]

true

they are not connected at all

creationist will try and use the big bang as a starting point for having a gods hand in things though.

Which utterly confuses me. Such a concept only contradicts the teachings of the bible and misfortunes of the Church.

Much of the "evidence" that has been pushed forward has always been easily shot down, due to the one dimensional thinking of many theists.

If they wish to propagate their system they have to go through a purgery, just to even allow any room for a rational application. Of course such a movement would only contradict the entire purpose of their existence.

It has been observed that which has been formally progressing into knowledge is less feared than what we don't know. So when you have people that fear less, you have religions that make less sense.

Human psychology is a redundant thing.

 

[Oneatatime]

Wombat,

I read your post http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2405189-post733.html and was responding to it on the various issues you covered such as the arguement that scripture and personal experience counts as evidence but did not say that you yourself hold these positions. I also addressed your view that deliberate fiction and unintentional fiction are not comparable when evidently they are in relation to their value as evidence.

No. At various discreet and sequential points in history people have laid claim to having an experience of God, claiming God spoke/revealed a message to them.

Rational options-
1/ They are deluded/mentally ill.
2/ They are trying to palm off imagination, fiction or scam as fact for influence, profit or gain (possibly in combination with 1/)
3/ They did have such an experience and are conveying revelation from God.

History and scripture provide >evidence< by which these posibilities can be rationaly examined and considered and millions have done so concluding 3/ to be worthy (on the evidence) of investing faith/belief therein.

---

o. Sorry. Lame and unworthy of consideration.Harry Potter is openly presented as a fiction and a product of imagination. The Major Living Faith traditions are not and therefore there is no comparison. If you wish to argue that these faith traditions are the product of imagination as a product of madness or a tool of scam then go for it...

As for your comments about evidence while it was not explcitely stated in the original post that they were seeking scientific evidence this it the most reliable type of evidence available and therefore ideally the form it should take. If instead we use the definition of evidence as anything which we believe supports our position regardless of its credibility then it opens the door to things such as personal experience and scripture which wouldn't be admissable in science.

The posts weren't shifted but rather we all choose to interpret what was meant by evidence differently from the outset. Those of us who consider scientific evidence to be superior to other types naturally assumed that this was what we were dealing with.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

And now we take the leap from the non consideration of 'evidence' to absolutist statements re what "can be verified"/proven...which completes the circle back to #714-

&#8220;Once more and yet again the ongoing confusion between "evidence" and 'proof'.

While it is true to say there is no 'proof' of God...it is not true to say "there's no evidence to support a god".&#8221;
................
And in completing this circle not once did they pause to consider that there might be/could be &#8216;evidence&#8217; they have not considered.

&#8220;There is no evidence. Period&#8221;....&#8221;no prophecy can be verified...&#8221;.......Ahhhh the arrogance of certainty...you would have to find a fundamentalist Christian to meet its match

I will give you this Wombat, You do a decent job of tapdancing around the fact that there has never been a single shred of evidence. Alot of what if's and could be's doesn't change that fact.

What a single person, and what the scientific community consider evidence is way way different. You cannot use the scientific method with religion, because it is not scientific.

You speak alot of some form of evidence. What evidence do you speak of? Provide an example of what you would consider evidence that a God exists.

 

[Orias]

You speak alot of some form of evidence. What evidence do you speak of? Provide an example of what you would consider evidence that a God exists.

Everyone defines "Him". And apparently he has finger prints

 

[PolyHedral]

You missed the fifth option. They had an experience and have assigned it source, either inadvertantly or poetically. "I had this experience!" where being "a part of the world" merges with "the world being". With the realization that you are the world, how can sensation that exists in the world not come from the world? With the realization that you are the world, how can "where they are coming from" not be you?
That sort of thing.

Well, if you remove the distinction between yourself and reality, of course the source of everything will be yourself. That's not really helpful, though.

And now we take the leap from the non consideration of 'evidence' to absolutist statements re what "can be verified"/proven...which completes the circle back to #714

No prophecy can be verified as having come from God because there are an infinite array of more plausible solutions, up to and including "This person can legitimately see the future."

 

[Willamena]

Well, if you remove the distinction between yourself and reality, of course the source of everything will be yourself. That's not really helpful, though.

Helpful for what?

 

[PolyHedral]

Helpful for what?

Well, anything. It's vacuously true that if "I" is the same thing as reality, all experiences originate from "me." That doesn't tell us anything about the normal meaning of "I", though.

 

[Orias]

Well, if you remove the distinction between yourself and reality, of course the source of everything will be yourself. That's not really helpful, though.

Perhaps not helpful to other people, but then again, who actually lives for anyone besides themselves?

No prophecy can be verified as having come from God because there are an infinite array of more plausible solutions, up to and including "This person can legitimately see the future."

:clap

 

[Commoner]

If you say so.
However the question "is there evidence of god?" does not offer the context you would try to claim exists.

Nice try though.

Yes, I'm sure you had no idea what the op meant when he used the term "evidence". As far as you're concearned it could have been anything ranging from empirical evidence to a matter of personal taste.

I have no idea why you've suddenly taken this stance, you seem to have been quite clear about the context when you started out in this thread. Let me remind you:

Your "argument" in post #2 is not evidence for the existence of god.
It is a rationalization for belief that god exists.

Since you now claim that in order for something to be considered "evidence" it is sufficient that it is the basis of our belief(s) your objection is no longer valid, since what you describe as "rationalization" is what the poster you objected to presumably bases his belief in god on and is then, by definition, evidence. Whether or not what he bases his belief in god on is valid or not is not relevant to its status as "evidence" when defined as "the basis for one's belief" so why would you argue that what the poster presented was not evidence of god? Were you merely questioning his sincerity?

Please...