You say that there is a god...

[Mark Charles Compton]

This seems to me to be a sly way to get someone else to do your work for you.

I am lazy, I won't deny. C'mon! You know you want to search for the unfindable.

 

[ppp]

I am lazy, I won't deny. C'mon! You know you want to search for the unfindable.

I tried searching for the unfindable one. But then I found it,, and almost disappeared in a puff of logic. That really stung! Never again.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

you shouldn't be quick to dismiss others' experiences of a god just because you haven't shared in such an experience.

What do you say to somebody like me who HAS shared in that experience and dismisses the believer's interpretation of it because of what he learned then? I once would have told you that I knew God (the Holy Spirit) directly and immediately. I became a Christian (formerly self-identifying as atheist) in the service. It was a feeling that was most intense during the church services in that, my first church. It was a feeling of warmth, connectedness, and belonging, and my charismatic pastor was able to whip his congregation into a euphoric state singing, standing, clapping, shouting out amens.

It was only after discharge and my return to my home state, when I tested about a half dozen other congregations, and found them all to be dead that I came to understand what I had actually been experiencing and misunderstanding was a product of my own mind and not what I had thought. If it had been the Holy Spirit before, and if the religion were true, it would have followed me. Today, I understand all claims of experiencing gods in that light - people misunderstanding spiritual experiences and an attributing a loving, conscious agency to them.

I still have that experience - fairly regularly - but I don't interpret it in terms of gods anymore.

Because people have claimed these to be experiences of a god and I have no reason to dismiss their experience. What other explanations do you have to offer for such anomalous experiences?

Assuming that they aren't just saying what they think they are expected to say and actually sense something they are calling a god, my answer is the one I just gave. They are misinterpreting spiritual experiences. I proposed to my future wife early in my Christian walk while sitting on the barracks step when suddenly, crepuscular rays shone down through the clouds, and almost as suddenly, I understood this to be a message from God. I was predisposed to think that way.

The marriage was terrible and ended in divorce not long after our return home from the military after I had time to understand what had happened and realized that I was in a bad marriage with a frigid, eccentric woman incapable of love or affection. That's what faith also has people doing. Happy ending: I remarried, but this time based in evidence. This time, I knew her. I had lived with her and has sexual relations BEFORE marrying, and made a decision based in evidence that time. That was 33 years ago, and we are still happily married and love one another.

I see the impact personal gods have on people.

Do you mean the impact of such belief or impact due to gods themselves? Probably.

Yes, the belief has impact in many lives, sometimes for the better. We have at least three RF posters who owe their sobriety to AA and a god belief. It makes many trust in faith, read Bibles, pray, go to churches, and give them money. You can judge for yourself whether that is good for them or not. It also makes some homophobes, atheophobes, misogynists, and anti-intellectual. And you just read how such a belief impacted my life.

I am asking what the science is behind your claim that an entity exists out there namely God

You've asked several times. You probably realize that if you don't get an answer after two tries, you won't. So what to do? Keep asking? Drop it? I've chosen to just answer for them. I tell them what I believe is the correct answer and offer them a chance to correct me if they want to, which would be the answer I was seeking. Either way, the matter has come to a resolution. It's hard to believe that if one's offered answer was way off, that it wouldn't be corrected, or that if it isn't corrected, it wasn't on target.

Let's try it. Instead of a fourth or sixth round of "where is your science for a god," change that to, "You have no science. If you did, I'd probably already know it and be a theist myself, and in case I didn't, you'd have posted it already." Now, you've come to a resolution.

Fair enough - I say that there is a singular, overarching force governing every action in the universe: The utterly inescapable process of cause-and-effect.
I'm curious as to whether or not this fits the definition of a "god."

Why call that god given the baggage that word carries? As you undoubtedly know, Einstein used the word poetically ("God does not play dice") and it's still causing confusion.

With the presumption of "a creator", classical monotheism. A very specific sort of god. Kind of rare for people to believe in that god, nowadays, I think. A bit old-fashoined.

That's the god of Abraham, who has billions of adherents across a few religions including the world's two largest.

There is no reason for you to care what I or anyone else thinks of God, regardless.

He didn't ask you that. He asked why those who say they know gods exist think they know that and why they should be believed.

Actually, this is your assumption. I never tired to convince you that - there is God.

Same answer. He asked you if you say that you know gods exist, why you think you do so that he can decide whether you have a good argument to justify your claim.

I know Jesus died for me on the cross

Same thing. He's not asking you what you think you know, but why you think it's knowledge rather than a comforting, unfalsifiable claim.

So, to you, an atheist is not a person that simply has no belief of gods.

You didn't ask me, but that is my definition of an atheist - a person with no god belief.

In other words, someone raised in a home where religion isn't taught, isn't an atheist, until they are informed, of belief in God, and make an informed decision to not believe. Is that correct?

I call such a person an atheist. That's because I don't care how many people reject god claims, but rather, because I care about what fraction of the total hold them, and more specifically, what fraction believe in the Christian god (and vote accordingly) as we watch these religious self-identification surveys evolve. That interest will disappear once these religions have shrunken sufficiently that they only affect their adherents and volunteers and are pockets of theism in a secular humanist landscape with no more cultural hegemony that the Muslims and Druids, who to my knowledge have never influenced a Supreme Court decision or the outcome of a presidential election in the States, enjoy in Western democracies.

Should a small child be called an atheist? I don't care either way. It doesn't matter if you call him an atheist or not. And of course, dogs and rocks also don't hold god beliefs, but nobody cares or wants to define them in terms of god beliefs. Nevertheless, if we want to limit atheism to mean only those who have heard and rejected god claims, we can define it as the set of people who answer "No" to the question, "Do you believe in a god or gods?"

 

[TLK Valentine]

Then why did you answer, knowing that science cannot answer "philosophical" questions?

Because they weren't all philosophical... and I wasn't sure you knew (or cared) about the differences.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Why call that god given the baggage that word carries? As you undoubtedly know, Einstein used the word poetically ("God does not play dice") and it's still causing confusion.

Truth is worth any amount of baggage.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am lazy, I won't deny. C'mon! You know you want to search for the unfindable.

For a beginning, Google Search tells me this:
“Inflation tells us that the period of time before the Big Bang was extremely cold, almost at absolute zero, and it was empty of everything but empty space, and that empty space carried energy that stretched the universe out to this enormous size and into the initial state before the Big Bang."

What came before the Big Bang? UB physicist’s new popular science book explains one leading theory

The book — titled ‘An Infinity of Worlds’ — explores the weird and wondrous world of cosmic inflation.

www.buffalo.edu

What was there before the Big Bang?

We explore the theories about one of the most mind-boggling questions about the Universe.

www.skyatnightmagazine.com

Timeline of the early universe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[SalixIncendium]

What do you say to somebody like me who HAS shared in that experience and dismisses the believer's interpretation of it because of what he learned then? I once would have told you that I knew God (the Holy Spirit) directly and immediately. I became a Christian (formerly self-identifying as atheist) in the service. It was a feeling that was most intense during the church services in that, my first church. It was a feeling of warmth, connectedness, and belonging, and my charismatic pastor was able to whip his congregation into a euphoric state singing, standing, clapping, shouting out amens.

It was only after discharge and my return to my home state, when I tested about a half dozen other congregations, and found them all to be dead that I came to understand what I had actually been experiencing and misunderstanding was a product of my own mind and not what I had thought. If it had been the Holy Spirit before, and if the religion were true, it would have followed me. Today, I understand all claims of experiencing gods in that light - people misunderstanding spiritual experiences and an attributing a loving, conscious agency to them.

I still have that experience - fairly regularly - but I don't interpret it in terms of gods anymore.

I wouldn't dismiss your experiences either.

In being limited by the individual self, each will interpret such experiences based their personal understanding what reality is. You call it an experience of your mind; others will call it an experience of God. You said it yourself. Your interpretation of these experiences are based upon what you learned. Each individual's interpretation is a product of their experiences. I see neither as being more or less correct than the other. The experience is what's important, not what one calls it.

Do you mean the impact of such belief or impact due to gods themselves? Probably.

Yes, the belief has impact in many lives, sometimes for the better. We have at least three RF posters who owe their sobriety to AA and a god belief. It makes many trust in faith, read Bibles, pray, go to churches, and give them money. You can judge for yourself whether that is good for them or not. It also makes some homophobes, atheophobes, misogynists, and anti-intellectual.

Would you say that the homophobes, atheophobes, misogynists, and anti-intellectuals are the mainstream or the fringe? There will always be those that can share the same or similar experiences with other and take them in a completely different direction.

And I'm sorry that you had a negative experience in your life based such an experience, but one thing I've learned is that it's not only the positive experiences that shape one's worldview and what a person becomes, but the negative ones as well. Would you say you would be the same person today if that terrible marriage experience had not happened?

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

I wouldn't dismiss your experiences either.

In being limited by the individual self, each will interpret such experiences based their personal understanding what reality is. You call it an experience of your mind; others will call it an experience of God. You said it yourself. Your interpretation of these experiences are based upon what you learned. Each individual's interpretation is a product of their experiences. I see neither as being more or less correct than the other. The experience is what's important, not what one calls it.

I agree.

I would also suggest that these can only be considered subjective realities unless they agree with the perception that we can all unanimously agree on as objective reality.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

What do you say to somebody like me who HAS shared in that experience and dismisses the believer's interpretation of it because of what he learned then?

I would say the problem is the church, organized religion. I think the best way to worship is in solitude. I say avoid the monoliths of old, even Jesus despised what he witnessed in the temple, no? Practice in private.

 

[PureX]

He didn't ask you that. He asked why those who say they know gods exist think they know that and why they should be believed.

The answer is ego, the same as when the scientism cult believes that science is the only legitimate tool for determining the truth.

Belief is just the ego masquerading as knowledge. "The inerrant Bible shows us the truth" or "the evidence of science shows us the truth", it's all the same self-delusion that we humans have gained some magical access to knowing the truth. But we didn't. Because we won't, because we don't have the capacity to recogize and understand it even as we are all living in it. We are too limited in this form.

 

[chinu]

Silly Billy. Then obviously, I wasn't talking to you.

try sometime..

 

[nPeace]

You have no science to support your claim because there is no evidence, if there was evidence I would know about it and I would be a theist, and if I didn't know you would have explained it to me.

If you believe there is no evidence outside science or what scientists consider, and you are not willing to be corrected in that view, why would anyone think that you sincerely want anything explained to you?
Are you not sending the message... "I worship scientists, and scientism is my religion. So nothing else matters."?

 

[chinu]

Same answer. He asked you if you say that you know gods exist, why you think you do so that he can decide whether you have a good argument to justify your claim.

What made think I can justify ?

 

[nPeace]

Is there any evidence to deny? Don't blame us for not believing in what does not have evidence.

Please define evidence.

 

[nPeace]

Because they weren't all philosophical... and I wasn't sure you knew (or cared) about the differences.

The point would be missed, if you focused on other things.
I was simply showing that science does not and cannot give an answer to many real and very fundamental things in life.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Would you say that the homophobes, atheophobes, misogynists, and anti-intellectuals are the mainstream or the fringe?

That would be hard to ascertain without consulting surveys, which I'm sure have been done. I would say that virtually all aversion to LGBTQ people and their concerns and desires derives originally from the Old Testament and is sustained by the church.

one thing I've learned is that it's not only the positive experiences that shape one's worldview and what a person becomes, but the negative ones as well. Would you say you would be the same person today if that terrible marriage experience had not happened?

I agree. I consider my military-Christianity years valuable teachers. In Christianity, I learned the power of critical thought and the value of living together before marrying, and the folly of belief by faith. In the military, where I was a computer programmer, I learned that I didn't want to work alone in a cubicle for middle managers. Both of those informed future decisions that set me on a path to a happy marriage and satisfying career.

If you believe there is no evidence outside science or what scientists consider, and you are not willing to be corrected in that view, why would anyone think that you sincerely want anything explained to you?

You addressed that to another poster, but it was in response to a comment from me. He asked you for the science behind your god belief a few times, you declined to answer, and I advised him that he might prefer to just give his best guess of what your answer probably would be if you gave it, allow you a chance to modify it if you like, and be done with the matter, the question being answered and the answer explicitly or implicitly confirmed by the response or nonresponse to it.

You say that I am not willing to be corrected in my view and ask why anyone would think I wanted something explained to me. I disagree. He asked for your explanation. So would I. It hasn't been offered by you, which is where this began - refusal to answer a question asked multiple times, and why I suggested answering for you and being done with it.

Regarding, "there is no evidence outside of science," evidence isn't in or outside of science. Empiricism is the interpretation of evidence by any intelligent nervous system. We all do that every waking moment. When it is evaluated according to the academic standards for evaluating evidence as we see in scientific peer review and courtroom trials, we can consider its sound conclusions confirmed by observation to be tentatively correct.

The answer is ego, the same as when the scientism cult believes that science is the only legitimate tool for determining the truth.

That was a response to, "He asked why those who say they know gods exist think they know that and why they should be believed." I disagree with the last part of your comment. First, there is no scientism cult, but there does appear to be a cult of those crying "scientism." I already refuted the claim that it was impossible to rely too much on empiricism and sound conclusion. You had no comment, but here you are repeating yourself with the mindless chant of those offended by strict empiricists for rejecting their unfalsifiable beliefs, hence the word cult.

You could go ahead and rebut it now if the claim were wrong. You could show me another method for determining what is correct about reality that empiricism. But you can't, because you are wrong and there is no other path to answers that empiricism. And that's how matters like these can be resolved rather than me asking you in vain over and over to rebut the claim.

Belief is just the ego masquerading as knowledge.

I don't know what that means, but it sounds like another expression of epistemic nihilism - that nothing is knowable and belief is illusion and folly. Learning is the accumulation of a belief set, the validity of which is measured by its ability produce desired outcomes. We have a belief that fire burns, is painful, and can harm or kill a living thing, and make decisions accordingly, some life-saving. How does that comport with your claim? I'll answer for you in anticipation of you not answering at all: It falsifies it. Feel free to rebut that if you think you can.

 

[nPeace]

You addressed that to another poster, but it was in response to a comment from me.

No. It was in response to @lukethethird.

He asked you for the science behind your god belief a few times, you declined to answer, and I advised him that he might prefer to just give his best guess of what your answer probably would be if you gave it, allow you a chance to modify it if you like, and be done with the matter, the question being answered and the answer explicitly or implicitly confirmed by the response or nonresponse to it.

I declined to answer? You are mistaken... again. I answered.

You say that I am not willing to be corrected in my view and ask why anyone would think I wanted something explained to me.

No. That was to @lukethethird.
Something must have gone wrong somewhere.

I disagree. He asked for your explanation. So would I. It hasn't been offered by you, which is where this began - refusal to answer a question asked multiple times, and why I suggested answering for you and being done with it.

Can you demonstrate that I did not answer the question?
I'll look for that. As it stands, what you say is not the truth.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Please define evidence.

Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with the scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls. - Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

 

[nPeace]

Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with the scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls. - Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

So as to be clear...

You said "Such evidence".... What do you mean, by such evidence?
Are you talking about Circumstantial evidence - evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly - i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another

 

[lukethethird]

If you believe there is no evidence outside science or what scientists consider, and you are not willing to be corrected in that view, why would anyone think that you sincerely want anything explained to you?
Are you not sending the message... "I worship scientists, and scientism is my religion. So nothing else matters."?

If you had evidence you would have explained it to me. It's OK, I understand why you dodge.