Is there evidence your god beliefs are true while other god beliefs are false?

[lupus_in_fabula]

And that's the trick.. god sticks around because you can never disprove him.

No amount of evidence can get him out the equation once he's there. Scientific explanations just push god into the of of "explainer things that I don't understand yet". Demons, should of course, be given the same privilege by believers... all invisible entities should, --but only god belief can make a person feel "holier than thou".

Yes, we cannot disprove god, but that doesn’t really trouble me; if there’s sufficient information at hands, then other interpretations and explanations tend to outweigh the god-hypothesis anyway – that is, if you’re rational about it. It seems to me that ‘god did it’ is the equivalent of ‘I don’t know’! It’s a very weird phrasing, but there you have it. The sad part starts when people, in addition to their god-beliefs, also begin to think that they know the will of that god… then all hell breaks loose, literally!

 

[cyborg]

Thanks. Nice to hear from you again. I'm afraid I didn't understand your example. You assumed X but didn't mention X again, but started in with p and q.

I use a Prolog style convention where X is a variable and x is a constant.

What is your example trying to illustrate. Incompleteness? Unsoundness?

If you try to complete knowledge by adding "God" (i.e. X - which is anything, and "God" is an "any thing") then your epistemology will either have to be unsound or inconsistent.

If you try to have consistent knowledge by not adding "God" (i.e. X) then it will not be complete.

Naming "God" achieves nothing.

 

[Beth]

I use a Prolog style convention where X is a variable and x is a constant.



If you try to complete knowledge by adding "God" (i.e. X - which is anything, and "God" is an "any thing") then your epistemology will either have to be unsound or inconsistent.

If you try to have consistent knowledge by not adding "God" (i.e. X) then it will not be complete.

Naming "God" achieves nothing.

Thanks for trying to explain, but I'm not a prolog programmer and I really don't know what you are meaning by 'complete' and 'consistent'. In mathematics, those words have pretty rigidly defined meanings, but I don't think they are the same meanings you are meaning here. If it's not asking too much, could you define what you mean by 'complete' and 'consistent' and 'sound' versus 'incomplete', 'inconsistent' and 'unsound'.

If you don't have time or inclination, I can understand. Thanks anyway.

Beth

 

[articulett]

Yes, we cannot disprove god, but that doesn’t really trouble me; if there’s sufficient information at hands, then other interpretations and explanations tend to outweigh the god-hypothesis anyway – that is, if you’re rational about it. It seems to me that ‘god did it’ is the equivalent of ‘I don’t know’! It’s a very weird phrasing, but there you have it. The sad part starts when people, in addition to their god-beliefs, also begin to think that they know the will of that god… then all hell breaks loose, literally!

yep

 

[articulett]

Thanks for trying to explain, but I'm not a prolog programmer and I really don't know what you are meaning by 'complete' and 'consistent'. In mathematics, those words have pretty rigidly defined meanings, but I don't think they are the same meanings you are meaning here. If it's not asking too much, could you define what you mean by 'complete' and 'consistent' and 'sound' versus 'incomplete', 'inconsistent' and 'unsound'.

If you don't have time or inclination, I can understand. Thanks anyway.

Beth

He's using logic to show you that it makes no sense to believe in things that are indistinguishable from things you don't believe in (woo.) There is no reason to believe in one invisible undetectable power or form of consciousness and not every other thing with the same qualities (if you believe in the possibility of god... you should equally believe in the possibility of demons, thetans, Xenu, etc. if you were going to be logically consistent.)

Why do I have a feeling this won't compute? I think the majority are understanding each other very well.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I notice you didn't answer my question, you only disparaged me for asking it. I think there is no real difference between god believers and atheists*, but I wouldn't extend that sentiment to the larger categories you used as examples. .....

Because I've answered it over and over and you continue to not understand what the difference is between evidence and fantasy. I thought perhaps if I got you to actually verbalize the difference instead of hearing it over and over you might get it that way.

The only disparaging is in your not being able to grasp what to me is a simple concept, conclusions do not make evidence into something it is not.

From this comment,

Actually, there are a lot of differences, including perhaps genetic ones, but in the sense that I think skeptigirl is referring to, I don't think is much difference between strong atheists and god believers.

it appears you've revealed the common underlying misbelief that evidence based belief systems are simply another religion.

No, they are not. People who revert to that tactic, claiming evidence based beliefs are simply a different version of Biblical beliefs or any other religious dogma based beliefs cannot comprehend or can't face the difference.

Evidence based beliefs are testable and continually improve as new evidence is developed or discovered. Fantasy based beliefs fail. Evidence based beliefs are successful. Those are the simplest differences. To me, the differences are obvious and easily recognized. To you, after multiple explanations and examples, you still fail to grasp the basics.

Did you happen to notice there are very few if any defenders of your position here, Beth? Yet there are a number of people recognizing the problem with your version of reality that have said so over and over, consistently agreeing with each other and consistently disagreeing with your definitions of evidence?

 

[Mobyseven]

*Mobyseven waits for the inevitable, "You're so rude I'm not going to talk to you anymore," post from Beth...*

 

[cyborg]

If you don't have time or inclination, I can understand. Thanks anyway.

Since you seem to be dancing around the point I fail to see what that would achieve.

We both know what it means.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I'm still reading this thread looking for an answer to the question in the OP.

Did I miss it?

God, some of you posting here are really . . . um, er . . . prolix.

 

[Beth]

From this comment,it appears you've revealed the common underlying misbelief that evidence based belief systems are simply another religion.

No, I don't think it's another religion. You continue to insist that athiesm is an evidence-based belief system while religious beliefs are not. I dispute that contention. But, if you are tired of arguing it with me, that's fine. We can let it drop. I'll don't think I'll convince you that there are other ways to assess the evidence available and I doubt you'll convince me that yours is the ONLY reasonable assessment.

No, they are not. People who revert to that tactic, claiming evidence based beliefs are simply a different version of Biblical beliefs or any other religious dogma based beliefs cannot comprehend or can't face the difference.

That isn't what I was saying. However, I do think that dogmatism is dogmatism and it matters not whether the dogma is religious or atheistic in content. You consistently equate your views with 'evidence based' views and dismiss contrary views as non-evidence based; I do not see it that way. I think you defend your position by refusing to consider any evidence to the contrary and then considering the null hypothesis of 'no god exists' as proven true when in fact, all you have done is fail to reject it.

I think we will simply have to agree to disagree on these points.

Did you happen to notice there are very few if any defenders of your position here, Beth?

Yes, it's deliberate. I typically choose to argue points contrary to the majority in nearly all forums I've participated in. I enjoy the stimulation of it. So what? Are you seriously advancing an argument from popularity in support of atheism? I think that would be problematic if you were to argue your point of view elsewhere.

 

[cyborg]

I think you defend your position by refusing to consider any evidence to the contrary

The evidence to the contrary boils down to, "I believe in X."

Refute this first otherwise everything you are saying is simply hollow.

 

[Beth]

The evidence to the contrary boils down to, "I believe in X."

Refute this first otherwise everything you are saying is simply hollow.

That's one popular argument for the rejection of all testimonial evidence regarding the existance of any god. Certainly, all such evidence relies on the assumption that 'some god exists'. OTOH, rejecting it as evidence requires the assumption that 'no god exists'.

 

[cyborg]

That's one popular argument for the rejection of all testimonial evidence regarding the existance of any god. Certainly, all such evidence relies on the assumption that 'some god exists'.

Wrong.

OTOH, rejecting it as evidence requires the assumption that 'no god exists'.

Wrong.

"I have evidence of X because I experienced X," is circular.

"I have evidence X, which I explain with Y," is the correct construction.

Belief or non-belief in X as a null hypothesis makes no difference if you cannot construct your evidential statements properly to make use of it.

Contrast:

"I have evidence of men in my TV because I experienced seeing men in my TV."

"I have evidence 'Men in my TV', which I explain with 'I saw men in my TV'"

"I have evidence 'Men in my TV', which I explain with 'Photon emitting surface presenting abstract representation of hominid forms.'"

 

[edge]

The evidence for design in the universe and biology is so strong that Antony Flew, a long-time proponent of atheism, renounced his atheism in 2004 and now believes that the existence of a Creator is required to explain the universe and life in it. Likewise, Frank Tipler, Professor of the Department of Mathematics at Tulane University, and a former atheist, not only became a theist, but is now a born-again Christian because of the laws of physics



A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles: 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and 2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated. However, strong atheism states that there is no god, even though observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally. So despite the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, the strong atheist believes that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god, contradicting the tenet that all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence.

Strong atheism contradicts its own worldview by believing the universe has a natural cause despite the lack of observational evidence for such a belief. However, since there is no direct observational evidence regarding the origin of the universe, why should one believe the equally unobserved hypothesis that God created the universe? Although there is no direct evidence for the cause of the universe, we now have a fair amount of knowledge about the early history of the universe and the laws that govern it, which provide us with indirect evidence that a super-intelligent Agent designed the universe.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro2.html





Down towards the bottom.

Christian vs. Naturalistic Worldview
Premise Christianity Naturalistic Materialism
Purpose of the universe

Taken from here.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro3.html

 

[cyborg]

The evidence for design in the universe and biology is so strong that Antony Flew, a long-time proponent of atheism, renounced his atheism in 2004 and now believes that the existence of a Creator is required to explain the universe and life in it.

Taking this on board if I renounce my non-God belief and take up a God belief because of Antony Flew will you renounce your Christian God belief and take up a Deist God belief because of Antony Flew?

 

[Beth]

"I have evidence of X because I experienced X," is circular.

I have evidence of love because I experienced love is circular? I have evidence of justice because I have experience justice is circular? How about I have evidence of rain because I experienced rain? Is that circular? Subjective experience is the most fundamental sort of evidence any of us can have. When you ask someone to ignore their subjective experience and accept instead another explanation, I think your alternative explanation must be very strong. Humans generally need strong evidence to accept that their underlying assumptions are incorrect and change the way they interpret the evidence of their senses is wrong. It can be done. The world is not flat as it appears? No, it's round became the accepted belief eventually.

"I have evidence X, which I explain with Y," is the correct construction.

"I was acquitted of a crime I did not commit, which I explain as justice being done." This would be the correct construction right? And it seems reasonable to considered such testimonials as evidence. Not proof, but evidence in support of the idea that justice exists, (at least occasionally in our court system )

Likewise, 'I was able to quit drinking after I was saved which I explain by god intervening in my life" would be the correct construction then? It seems equally reasonable to consider such testimonials as evidence. Not proof, but evidence in support of the idea that god exists.

 

[cyborg]

I have evidence of love because I experienced love is circular? I have evidence of justice because I have experience justice is circular? How about I have evidence of rain because I experienced rain? Is that circular?

Yes.

Subjective experience is the most fundamental sort of evidence any of us can have.

And it's also quite fallible to the concept of the "lie".

Something you do not seem to appreciate:

I experienced love because I took Ecstasy.

I experienced justice because I got what I wanted.

I experienced rain because I was in a shower.

Likewise, 'I was able to quit drinking after I was saved which I explain by god intervening in my life" would be the correct construction then? It seems equally reasonable to consider such testimonials as evidence. Not proof, but evidence in support of the idea that god exists.

Yes. That would be a correct construction.

First we correctly construct our correlations - THEN we seek to see if they establish a causation.

We don't go straight to causation as you seem to insist we should.

You see, now that we have this correlation we can examine the statistical evidence for similar constructs "I explain X with Y," by examining the variations in Y with respect to X.

And since we find upon examination of reformed alcoholics a lack of a statistically significant effect of the correlation between reform and god we do not infer a causation.

We therefore do not have evidence for a god.

 

[Beth]

I experienced love because I took Ecstasy.

I experienced justice because I got what I wanted.

I experienced rain because I was in a shower.

Right. That's why it's only evidence, not proof.

We therefore do not have evidence for a god.

No, I think we can only say we do not have proof for a god.

 

[cyborg]

No, I think we can only say we do not have proof for a god.

No. We do not have evidence for a god.

Proof, as you well know, has a mathematical connotation in this context that would require the evidence for mechanism to have an infinite amount of evidence to "prove" something.

Having infinite amounts of something is only practical in the world of abstract symbolic manipulation.

 

[articulett]

I'm still reading this thread looking for an answer to the question in the OP.

Did I miss it?

God, some of you posting here are really . . . um, er . . . prolix.

"Prolix" appears to be a good way of shoring up confirmation bias. It's a way to ignore the points that threaten your delusion while pretending you are giving convincing arguments in support of your delusion.

Unfortunately, I get drawn into the prolix tangents and become prolix in return.