Why do people deny or have various doubts about God?

[Sonofason]

That which convinces someone of something.

Okay, that's great. So then, I can infer from this definition the following to be true: That which is perceived as evidence for one person is not necessarily evidence for every person.

 

[Iti oj]

How do I read and believe, if I don't believe? And also you assume I haven't already.

Hmm??

 

[Sonofason]

Your double standards as to when evidence is evidence.

When seriously lacking evidence supports something you already believe, you accept it.
When solid evidence supports something you dislike, you dismiss it out of hand.


Your denial is most comical given you have already demonstrated the above in this very thread.

If what you call evidence is not convincing to me, then I am most justified in denying that which you call evidence as being evidence for me.

I believe it is wrong to suggest that a piece of evidence is evidence for all. It is not.

Evidence is subjective. That which is evidence for one person is not necessarily evidence for every person.

Please note, I have not suggested that evolution is not true. What I have done is asked for evidence. When I ask for evidence, I am looking for that which I consider evidence. In other words, I want something that convinces me. Of course, all you can do is provide that which has convinced you, and hope that it convinces me. But as I've said, evidence is subjective.

 

[Sonofason]

How do I read and believe, if I don't believe? And also you assume I haven't already.

I believe that faith begins with hope. You may not believe in God now, but surely you can hope in God.
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Hebrews 11:1)

 

[Iti oj]

I believe that faith begins with hope. You may not believe in God now, but surely you can hope in God.
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Hebrews 11:1)

I'm not even convinced your god is good. and what do you mean I can surely hope in god? Again assuming I haven't.

 

[Sonofason]

I grant you that if you believe that something exists with all your heart and mind, you can pick anything you wish, you will experience the certainty of its existence.

This is why so many different religious people have religious experiences that confirm/ratify their faith. This procedure is inherently flawed.

It could be, but I hope it isn't.

 

[Looncall]

My experience is verified by nearly everyone who have followed this procedure. If my experience is a delusion, then there are millions of people having the very same delusion. I highly doubt that is the case. So there is of course an element of faith. My faith is in me. I believe I am not delusional. I know God exists because I believe in me.

You and other people belong to the same species. One would expect that common mental gymnastics would produce a common result. Your arguement does not hold water.

The fact that you, or many, believe something is not evidence for its truth.

Can't you bring something tastier to the table?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I believe that faith begins with hope. You may not believe in God now, but surely you can hope in God.
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Hebrews 11:1)

This is very true. But it does not make your faith true. In fact it is evidence against it. This is pretyt impressive for the psychological analysis of how "faith" is created. One must first "want" it to be true. And then eventually we fool ourselves into believing it.

also you never responded to my post #448.

 

[Sonofason]

You and other people belong to the same species. One would expect that common mental gymnastics would produce a common result. Your arguement does not hold water.

The fact that you, or many, believe something is not evidence for its truth.

Can't you bring something tastier to the table?

I am not here to please you palate.

 

[Sonofason]

This is very true. But it does not make your faith true. In fact it is evidence against it. This is pretyt impressive for the psychological analysis of how "faith" is created. One must first "want" it to be true. And then eventually we fool ourselves into believing it.

also you never responded to my post #448.

Yeah, it's like a person who's had a stoke and can't initially move their legs. They have to want to move their legs, before they are going to have any sort of recovery. Without hope, such a person will remain in a wheel chair for the rest of their life.

 

[LuisDantas]

If what you call evidence is not convincing to me, then I am most justified in denying that which you call evidence as being evidence for me.

I believe it is wrong to suggest that a piece of evidence is evidence for all. It is not.

Evidence is subjective. That which is evidence for one person is not necessarily evidence for every person.

Please note, I have not suggested that evolution is not true. What I have done is asked for evidence. When I ask for evidence, I am looking for that which I consider evidence. In other words, I want something that convinces me. Of course, all you can do is provide that which has convinced you, and hope that it convinces me. But as I've said, evidence is subjective.

Evidence is subjective under certain circunstances, but that is what the scientific method avoids.

I don't see how one can reasonably find the evidence for the Theory of Evolution subjective this late on the game. It is simply not possible.

 

[Sonofason]

Evidence is subjective under certain circunstances, but that is what the scientific method avoids.

I don't see how one can reasonably find the evidence for the Theory of Evolution subjective this late on the game. It is simply not possible.

If one does not sufficiently understand the data, there is no good reason for that person to accept the data as being true.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Yeah, it's like a person who's had a stoke and can't initially move their legs. They have to want to move their legs, before they are going to have any sort of recovery. Without hope, such a person will remain in a wheel chair for the rest of their life.

Actually that has a lot more to do with the drive to get better and taking the necessary steps. "giving up" is the worst thing you can do. Also I think you are hinting at the placebo effect where if one believes one will get better you do. This also plays a role. But this, again, would be a significant argument against the existence of god.

 

[LuisDantas]

If one does not sufficiently understand the data, there is no good reason for that person to accept the data as being true.

Not really. Lack of understanding says little, nearly nothing even, about the quality of the data itself.

And even for the most ignorant of us, there are plenty of good reasons to accept the evidence for Evolution. While it is true that much of it is simply way beyond the intelectual background and capabilities of the average person, it is just as true that the indirect evidence is all but impossible for any reasonable person to deny.

One stance of indirect evidence is that it has been used for practical applications and proven reliable every time.

Another is that mutations and speciation are both amply demonstrated, among other examples by the development of nylon-eating bacteria a few years ago.

Then there is simply accademic rivality. It is simply unthinkable that so many researchers worldwide would somehow settle into a deep conspiracy of misdirection when they are hardly united on anything else of comparable complexity, and there are so many thousands of them, nearly all of them vulnerable to some degree or another to the lure of attaining fame and perhaps fortune by presenting quality evidence of a revolutionary finding.

One can also consider the lack of serious challenge to the Theory of Evolution. There has simply been no actual alternate explanation proposed, nothing that could explain observable facts better than the ToE. Nor has there been anything among the many and constant uses and tests of it that even hints that it is flawed or even really incomplete. Sad as it is to say, what passes for challenges to the ToE are actually a sorry mix of misinformation, ignorance, wishful thinking and plain old dishonesty. It is simply not capable of going anywhere near the actual disputation of the validity of Evolution as science, nor as truth. That an anti-Evolution movement exists at all says a lot about the situation of our education, and very little indeed about the situation of the Theory of Evolution.

Ultimately, we have no more reason to hold suspicion about the ToE than about, say, the current understanding that nutrients are mainly carbohydrates, fats and proteins. I can hardly claim to have "witnessed that in person", but I have plenty of indirect yet reliable evidence that it is so at least in the general sense.

 

[Looncall]

If what you call evidence is not convincing to me, then I am most justified in denying that which you call evidence as being evidence for me.

I believe it is wrong to suggest that a piece of evidence is evidence for all. It is not.

Evidence is subjective. That which is evidence for one person is not necessarily evidence for every person.

Please note, I have not suggested that evolution is not true. What I have done is asked for evidence. When I ask for evidence, I am looking for that which I consider evidence. In other words, I want something that convinces me. Of course, all you can do is provide that which has convinced you, and hope that it convinces me. But as I've said, evidence is subjective.

I do not agree. For example, diamond is harder than chalk. Anyone who checks must reach the same conclusion. To honestly reject evidence, one must refute it, not merely apply superstitious denial.

 

[Sonofason]

Not really. Lack of understanding says little, nearly nothing even, about the quality of the data itself.

And even for the most ignorant of us, there are plenty of good reasons to accept the evidence for Evolution. While it is true that much of it is simply way beyond the intelectual background and capabilities of the average person, it is just as true that the indirect evidence is all but impossible for any reasonable person to deny.

One stance of indirect evidence is that it has been used for practical applications and proven reliable every time.

Another is that mutations and speciation are both amply demonstrated, among other examples by the development of nylon-eating bacteria a few years ago.

Then there is simply accademic rivality. It is simply unthinkable that so many researchers worldwide would somehow settle into a deep conspiracy of misdirection when they are hardly united on anything else of comparable complexity, and there are so many thousands of them, nearly all of them vulnerable to some degree or another to the lure of attaining fame and perhaps fortune by presenting quality evidence of a revolutionary finding.

One can also consider the lack of serious challenge to the Theory of Evolution. There has simply been no actual alternate explanation proposed, nothing that could explain observable facts better than the ToE. Nor has there been anything among the many and constant uses and tests of it that even hints that it is flawed or even really incomplete. Sad as it is to say, what passes for challenges to the ToE are actually a sorry mix of misinformation, ignorance, wishful thinking and plain old dishonesty. It is simply not capable of going anywhere near the actual disputation of the validity of Evolution as science, nor as truth. That an anti-Evolution movement exists at all says a lot about the situation of our education, and very little indeed about the situation of the Theory of Evolution.

Ultimately, we have no more reason to hold suspicion about the ToE than about, say, the current understanding that nutrients are mainly carbohydrates, fats and proteins. I can hardly claim to have "witnessed that in person", but I have plenty of indirect yet reliable evidence that it is so at least in the general sense.

Let me present a theory that is much older than your ToE.

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
(Genesis 1:11-12)

"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
(Genesis 1:20-21)

Do you not notice that the birds were brought forth from "the waters" of the earth? How do you suppose that happened? Could it be that God is hinting at evolution?

Did you see what it said? It said, "Let the waters bring forth"
Who brought forth? The waters brought forth.
Why? Because God declared it to them.

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind"
(Genesis 1:24-25)

Let the earth bring forth, God commanded.
Each living creature being created "after his kind".

The idea that a species can evolve into a new creature, is by no means a modern concept. It's been around for thousands of years. Even cavemen and goat herders hinted at such things.

 

[Sonofason]

Actually that has a lot more to do with the drive to get better and taking the necessary steps. "giving up" is the worst thing you can do. Also I think you are hinting at the placebo effect where if one believes one will get better you do. This also plays a role. But this, again, would be a significant argument against the existence of god.

Why exactly, do you believe that having hope in something is an argument against that which is hoped for?

 

[Sonofason]

I do not agree. For example, diamond is harder than chalk. Anyone who checks must reach the same conclusion. To honestly reject evidence, one must refute it, not merely apply superstitious denial.

Whether or not it is a fact that a diamond is harder than chalk, there is no reason to believe that it is unless you have verified the fact to be true. Yes, anyone who checks will likely reach the same conclusion, and a person seeing chalk crumble under a diamond will likely walk away with evidence that the claim was true. But a person who has not checked the evidence has no evidence. Chalk crumbling under a diamond is only evidence that diamonds are harder than chalk for those who see it happen. If you have not seen it, it is not evidence. That which is unseen is rarely considered evidence by those who haven't seen it.

evidence - that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

You happen to be a person who has seen the evidence. It is likely that everyone who has seen how easily chalk crumbles and how difficultly diamonds crumble, will agree that such evidence "tends to prove" the claim that diamonds are harder than chalk. However, a person who has not seen any such evidence will not agree that such observations and claims "tend to prove" that diamonds are harder than chalk, until they have seen it for themselves. At which point that person will call such an observation evidence. Evidence is only evidence if you believe it is evidence.

 

[LuisDantas]

Let me present a theory that is much older than your ToE.

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
(Genesis 1:11-12)

"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
(Genesis 1:20-21)

Do you not notice that the birds were brought forth from "the waters" of the earth? How do you suppose that happened? Could it be that God is hinting at evolution?

Did you see what it said? It said, "Let the waters bring forth"
Who brought forth? The waters brought forth.
Why? Because God declared it to them.

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind"
(Genesis 1:24-25)

Let the earth bring forth, God commanded.
Each living creature being created "after his kind".

The idea that a species can evolve into a new creature, is by no means a modern concept. It's been around for thousands of years. Even cavemen and goat herders hinted at such things.

That is not a theory, not in the sense that science uses the word.

You would need to devise practical tests for the validity of that idea (in the jargon, it would have to be falsifiable) and it would have to pass them before it could be promoted to a theory.

 

[dust1n]

high school - Honors Biology, Honors Chemistry, Honors Physics

college - Chem 1, Chem 2, Physics 1, Physics 2, Physical Geography, Evolution, Soil Science, Hydrology, Ecology
GPA 3.65 BS

No astronomy or astrophysics, hmm?