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

[GeeMack]

That's not stupid or delusional or even poor logic.

Yes, Beth. Yes, it is.

It's just based on the assumption that god exists and applying that assumption to their experiences.

You're making an assumption that some supernatural being exists (stupid), and neglecting to assume that the infinite number of possible, equally unevidenced supernatural beings available to our imaginations also exist (very poor logic). You're willfully ignoring the fact that there is no objective evidence to support any of those existences (delusional). Then you pursue your end, your conclusion, based on your unsupported premise. You say that isn't stupid or delusional or even poor logic, but really, you'd be hard pressed to come up with better examples.

 

[articulett]

Yes, Beth. Yes, it is.




You're making an assumption that some supernatural being exists (stupid), and neglecting to assume that the infinite number of possible, equally unevidenced supernatural beings available to our imaginations also exist (very poor logic). You're willfully ignoring the fact that there is no objective evidence to support any of those existences (delusional). Then you pursue your end, your conclusion, based on your unsupported premise. You say that isn't stupid or delusional or even poor logic, but really, you'd be hard pressed to come up with better examples.

Well said. Although I'm sure Beth has both you and I on ignore. It's very important to her to, not only believe in the god possibility, but to believe that it's logical to believe that way (and all those who don't are rude meanies).

Information that threatens Beth's belief cannot penetrate. Cognitive dissonance is a fascinating thing. This is evidence of the way faith damages the ability to reason.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

"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.

Damn right!

 

[Mobyseven]

Another thing I've noticed is this idea that atheists are starting from the position 'no god exists' and thus obtaining that as the conclusion. Quite aside from the fact that 'no god exists' is not the starting point (instead it is the conclusion), it completely ignores the fact that many atheists, myself included, were theists for a number of years prior to becoming atheists. If one starts with the idea that god exists and ends up realising that he doesn't, it kind of screws up Beth's argument that we've reached that conclusion by begging the question, eh?

 

[articulett]

Yes. I was indoctrinated from birth. It took a lot of thinking to figure out that there was no way for me to know if anyone really knew what the hell they were talking about. Lots of guys seemed to, but they didn't agree with each other. I could never make sense of religion, but when I started learning science and learning about genes and memes and psychology-- it all made sense. God is entirely invented by humans. It's the only way god makes sense.

 

[thoth108]

Not true. They can always put into words how they want you to behave and how they want you to think. What they can never put into words is the actual justification for doing so.

That's what is problematic.

Do this thing that the god commands!

Why?

You dare question the word of god? That's sinful! God is not for man to understand!

But then how do you know that's what god wants? Or that not doing it is sinful?

Umm..

We agree on the dangers and downfalls of dogma and rule-sets when they are applied by man, upon his fellow men. The realm of religion should be an individuals choice, and should not impede the free will of anyone else. I don't agree with religion as a set of laws by which we may control, or seek to control, other people.

What I was saying is the the experience of meeting God, or knowing God, or experiencing God is impossible to verbalize. It goes beyond the limits of our vocabulary. Even if we could go and talk to God, what we would bring back from that experience would not translate into words that could communicate that experience effectively to anyone else.

 

[edge]

"Tell one who had never seen water, that there is an ocean of water, and he must accept it on faith or reject it altogether. But let one drop fall upon his hand, and he then has the fact from which all the rest may be inferred." Helena Blavatsky

This is how it is, isn't it?

It is hard to put into words so I have to agree with your statement.
We all get that drop sooner or later and sometimes a bath.

articulett says,

God is entirely invented by humans. It's the only way god makes sense.

We can't invent a being greater than ourselves; you’re a woman aren't you?
I mean, I'm just curious.

See if I'm reading you right.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

We can't invent a being greater than ourselves.

So, there really isn't a Superman? Next you're going to tell me that Spidey is impossible too aren't you?

 

[cyborg]

Hey edge, any thoughts on converting to deism yet as per your argument?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

<< SNIP >>

What I was saying is the the experience of meeting God, or knowing God, or experiencing God is impossible to verbalize. It goes beyond the limits of our vocabulary. Even if we could go and talk to God, what we would bring back from that experience would not translate into words that could communicate that experience effectively to anyone else.

How on Earth do you know that? If God is so damn smart, surely he could give us the ability to assimilate his Awesome Presence?

(Just to prove I am still following this thread to see if will ever provide a sensible answer to the simple question in the OP.)

 

[edge]

So, there really isn't a Superman? Next you're going to tell me that Spidey is impossible too aren't you?

When I run into spiderman he'll be no more, I'm the greatest!

There's nothing greater than the human being!
Too bad it's not true.
Why else would we be stuck on one planet?

Deism is a religious philosophy and movement that derives the existence and nature of God from reason and personal experience.

This is in contrast to fideism which is found in many forms of Christianity[1]. Islamic and Judaic teachings hold that religion relies on revelation in sacred scriptures or the testimony of other people as well as reasoning.

Well cyborg I feel it is what it is to each of us as it is reveled to us in the way that gets our attention back to God.

 

[edge]

There seems to be a rash of atheism vs theism threads going on right now. Several have requested atheists support their conclusions about the non-existence of gods. I could ask what evidence do god believers have for their theist conclusions but I already know the usual answers. I'm not interested in any of the faith explanations, they belong solely to the believer.

But I am interested in the evidence one has for believing in one particular version of god over another. If you are just going to describe intangible inner feelings, there's no need. That isn't evidence. If you are going to make some value statement, monotheism is superior to polytheism, I doubt you can actually support that claim but feel free to offer your evidence.

I am interested in how theists can support their cognitive dissonance of recognizing other god beliefs are false, yet justifying their own gods beliefs are true. And why do you think you just happened to be born where 'true' god beliefs were common and those born into cultures with other god beliefs were not so 'blessed'? Or do you think the fact people tend to believe in the religions they grew up with is worth considering as evidence against the validity of any god beliefs?

I am challenging believers here but please, I mean no disrespect. This is about evidence and beliefs, not about who's right and who's wrong.

She asks about 10 questions then doesn't want answers.
So we'll do it with pictures.
When you see one of these then let me know if it's real or not.

 

[cyborg]

Why else would we be stuck on one planet?

You sorely lack imagination to come up with other options?

Well cyborg I feel it is what it is to each of us as it is reveled to us in the way that gets our attention back to God.

Then I shall gain his attention by not being a sycophant only interested in servitude because they are afraid not to be servile to the infinite.

 

[biomorph]

Seeing one of these I'm not sure would count.

Lets have one in captivity.

 

[Beth]

I wasn't using 'proof' in this context to mean the mathematical definition, just as in a previous post I presumed you were not using 'complete' and 'consistent' to mean the mathemathical definition.

I certainly intended it that way and since you never clarified what issue you had with it I can't really clarify it for you.

I'm probably too tied into set theory.

I think of completeness as meaning that every cauchy sequency converges
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Completion.html

and consistency as if A is a subset of B, then the intersection of A and B = A. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ConsistencyTheorem.html

Somehow, I don't think that is what you had in mind. If it is, I don't follow your argument at all. Or did you mean something else?

I was using proof in the sense that most people would not feel the conclusion was well-justified with such evidence.

Then let us be clear:

evidence: that which is presented in support of a truth
evidential statement: a formalisation of evidence in the form, "I experienced X which I explain with Y," such that we can examine the relationship between the experience and the explanation
evidence for: an evidential statement which has statistically significant support for its truth is "evidence for" it
informally proven: "evidence for" which reaches some threshold indicating a very high degree of certainty
formally proven: informal proof with a certainty of 1

So put simply you don't have evidence for something until you reach a certain degree of significance - you just have a conjectural statement.

By the first definition you list above, "evidence" is merely "that which is presented in support of a truth" while "evidence for" requires that it have significant support. That seems a trifle difficult to distinguish such preciseness in casual conversation. In addition, your first definition would apply to a conjectural statement or even a false one.

 

[cyborg]

Somehow, I don't think that is what you had in mind. If it is, I don't follow your argument at all. Or did you mean something else?

Logic namely.

Completeness: every true theorem in a given system can be shown true.
Consistency: every theorem in a given system is either true or false.
Soundness: theorems are true if their arguments are valid and premises true.

Namely if you try to have complete knowledge of a system - i.e. know all its truths - and the system allows for recursion then inconsistency will follow.

I demonstrated this earlier - if statements of truths about "gods" can refer to each other then the knowledge about them can be inconsistent.

By the first definition you list above, "evidence" is merely "that which is presented in support of a truth" while "evidence for" requires that it have significant support. That seems a trifle difficult to distinguish such preciseness in casual conversation.

There is a difference between saying, "I have evidence," and actually knowing what it is evidence for.

Finding an empty gun in the street can be presented as evidence for a murder but it doesn't support such a truth until one has gone through some sort of more rigorous analysis.

This is the simple fact you seem to be continually avoiding: relating a personal experience attributed to a god doesn't support the truth of a god by merely stating it as such, any more than accusing a man of murder because you found a gun and you thought he looked like a murderer.

It's a vastly premature conclusion.

Namely you don't know what "truth" it is you're supporting.

In addition, your first definition would apply to a conjectural statement or even a false one.

False statements imply truths by negation.

 

[edge]

Then I shall gain his attention by not being a sycophant only interested in servitude because they are afraid not to be servile to the infinite.

You go boy!

 

[articulett]

Then I shall gain his attention by not being a sycophant only interested in servitude because they are afraid not to be servile to the infinite.

Could you do it somewhere else? I don't think this is the forum for it.

 

[Beth]

Logic namely.

Completeness: every true theorem in a given system can be shown true.
Consistency: every theorem in a given system is either true or false.
Soundness: theorems are true if their arguments are valid and premises true.

Namely if you try to have complete knowledge of a system - i.e. know all its truths - and the system allows for recursion then inconsistency will follow.

I demonstrated this earlier - if statements of truths about "gods" can refer to each other then the knowledge about them can be inconsistent.

Okay. I get you now.

There is a difference between saying, "I have evidence," and actually knowing what it is evidence for.

Finding an empty gun in the street can be presented as evidence for a murder but it doesn't support such a truth until one has gone through some sort of more rigorous analysis.

Interestingly enough, I once hung a jury because that sort of evidence was what was presented and it was insufficient for me to convict. Not for 10 other people on the jury though.

This is the simple fact you seem to be continually avoiding: relating a personal experience attributed to a god doesn't support the truth of a god by merely stating it as such, any more than accusing a man of murder because you found a gun and you thought he looked like a murderer.
It's a vastly premature conclusion.

Namely you don't know what "truth" it is you're supporting.

Sigh. You're making the same mistake about my argument that nearly everyone else here does. I can only presume I do not present it well. I'm not arguing that believers are correct. I'm only arguing that they are not irrational or delusional in coming to their conclusion, or at least, no more so than any other human being .

I agree, a personal experience isn't proof. However, it is supporting evidence. People who take their own experiences or those of people they know and trust as sufficient evidence may be making a premature conclusion, but they are being no more irrational or illogical when they do so than those who dismiss all such claims as mistaken or delusional.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

Could you do it somewhere else? I don't think this is the forum for it.

Whoa! Careful with your quotes Art. The first round was just a warning.

By the way have you noticed any material by T'[email protected], now I'm slipping towards the profane.