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

[HghrSymmetry]

I see Jesus on the news healing people at the mall. I take my amputee veteran friend down to the mall and Jesus grows him a new leg.

I think that does it for me.. how about you guys?

Impressive indeed. What does it prove? I suppose it proves that person has power and ability beyond any human (as long as the feat can be reproduced in the lab and the results peer reviewed).

What the source of that power is and if this individual is even human would be seperate questions.

 

[Mobyseven]

I see Jesus on the news healing people at the mall. I take my amputee veteran friend down to the mall and Jesus grows him a new leg.

I think that does it for me.. how about you guys?

That'd be a step in the right direction. Of course, it could simply be a person with incredible powers claiming to be Jesus, so perhaps if after the initial test Jesus shows everyone in the world, simultaneously, a vision of heaven and has god reveal himself to us before returning us all to earth with identical marks on our wrists saying, "God is real, dangit!" in our respective first languages, that would definitely do it for me.

Of course that only works with the omnipotent Christian god...for other definitions of god the evidence required would be different. But I can't say what the evidence for god would be until I know how a person is defining 'god'.

 

[Mobyseven]

Also, as Beth probably still has me on ignore, can someone post the following challenge?

If you claim that it is rational to believe in god, then you should be able to provide evidence for that claim in the form of a rational argument for the existence of god.

Can you provide such an argument?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I see no reason to ignore you, Moby, maybe Beth might reconsider.

Also, as Beth probably still has me on ignore, can someone post the following challenge?

If you claim that it is rational to believe in god, then you should be able to provide evidence for that claim in the form of a rational argument for the existence of god.

Can you provide such an argument?

 

[epeos76]

So?

There is no "ultimate" truth - why would I waste my time trying to find it?

The ultimate truth thing is Articullet's battle flag. See her earlier posts about reality having only one side etc.

I'm fine with the claim that there is no ultimate truth, at least in the sense of recognizing that it's a logically unimpeachable position.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... Why is this a contradiction? If I'm sitting on jury, I'll hear evidence both for the defendant's guilt and innocence. Evidence is not proof nor am I obligated to believe that every piece of evidence presented is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I agree it's evidence. I don't necessarily believe that it is true. That depends on such things as how trustworthy the person is, if there is reason to be suspicious of their ability to discern colors, if there is reason for them to mislead or lie about what they saw, etc.
Yes. I understand why you would assess the probability of it being an accurate description of reality differently for the claim of 'god' versus 'red'. I don't understand why you think one qualifies as 'evidence' and the other does not but must be labed 'conclusion' and not 'evidence'. Or rather, I don't see how you can rationally make that argument without basing your rationale on the assumption no god exists.

All of this addresses the same issue.

If you conclude the person's experience is evidence of an experience, then you can conclude that person may or may not be experiencing god. But if you make the statement the experience is evidence of god, then you cannot conclude it isn't.

I'm still at a loss as to what it is that is blocking you from understanding this concept. I think it is because you are confusing "evidence to that person" as evidence of god. In reality, it is evidence of an experience to that person as well. You are confusing the fact that the person is drawing a conclusion based on evidence with the fact the person is drawing a conclusion based on evidence for the conclusion.

On the one hand, you are calling the conclusion evidence. On the other, you aren't really treating it as evidence. You are blurring the two. If you recognize all you have is a person who believes something, and that person may or may not be correct, I can't quite tell if this is a semantics problem here or a concept problem or a mix of the two.

...Here's a tack you haven't tried yet. Tell me what you would consider 'evidence' rather than a 'conclusion' for the existance of some non-material entity that might be termed 'god', specifically evidence that doesn't rely on anyone's subjective experience and subsequent labeling (i.e. concluding) the experience as 'god'. Give me an example what 'evidence' that isn't what you term a conclusion would be.

You are just asking here for a way to test for something untestable. Once you define god as something that does not exist in the physical world, you define an untestable god. Just like invisible pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters, you can make this kind of thing up all day.

God beliefs did not originate as mental visitations and nothing more. God beliefs began as beliefs in gods that affected people's real lives. Gods controlled good and bad things. Prayers were supposed to have an outcome. Show me any ancient god belief that consisted (or consists if the belief continues) of a god that merely causes a subjective mental experience and does absolutely nothing else. Is a person's dream of flying spaghetti monsters evidence for spaghetti monsters or evidence of dreaming?

 

[Beth]

I see no reason to ignore you, Moby, maybe Beth might reconsider.

Moby has expressed his opinion of me to me in a PM. While I don't understand why he would care to converse with someone he thinks so little of, I don't care to converse with anyone who thinks so little of me.

 

[Beth]

... Why is this a contradiction? If I'm sitting on jury, I'll hear evidence both for the defendant's guilt and innocence. Evidence is not proof nor am I obligated to believe that every piece of evidence presented is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I agree it's evidence. I don't necessarily believe that it is true. That depends on such things as how trustworthy the person is, if there is reason to be suspicious of their ability to discern colors, if there is reason for them to mislead or lie about what they saw, etc.
Yes. I understand why you would assess the probability of it being an accurate description of reality differently for the claim of 'god' versus 'red'. I don't understand why you think one qualifies as 'evidence' and the other does not but must be labed 'conclusion' and not 'evidence'. Or rather, I don't see how you can rationally make that argument without basing your rationale on the assumption no god exists.

All of this addresses the same issue.

If you conclude the person's experience is evidence of an experience, then you can conclude that person may or may not be experiencing god. But if you make the statement the experience is evidence of god, then you cannot conclude it isn't.

I think this may be our disconnect. I can consider an experience that something I saw was red to be evidence that it is red, yet still be aware that I could be mistaken and change my mind based on other evidence. This is even easier to do when the experience is regarding an intangible thing and I was not the person who had the experience. To say that the experience was due to A does NOT mean I cannot later conclude it was something else. To presume otherwise is to confuse evidence with proof.

I'm still at a loss as to what it is that is blocking you from understanding this concept. I think it is because you are confusing "evidence to that person" as evidence of god. In reality, it is evidence of an experience to that person as well. You are confusing the fact that the person is drawing a conclusion based on evidence with the fact the person is drawing a conclusion based on evidence for the conclusion.

No, I understand the point you are making here. I simply don’t agree with you on this point. See below.

On the one hand, you are calling the conclusion evidence. On the other, you aren't really treating it as evidence. You are blurring the two. If you recognize all you have is a person who believes something, and that person may or may not be correct, I can't quite tell if this is a semantics problem here or a concept problem or a mix of the two.

I don’t think it’s possible to draw a distinct line between ‘evidence’ and ‘conclusion’ that you are attempting. I think you have to include what the person thinks is the cause of the experience as part of the evidence being evaluated. When you try to exclude it, you end up with nonsense like claiming the experience of seeing something that is red is the ‘evidence’ and the description of it as red is a conclusion and not evidence.

...Here's a tack you haven't tried yet. Tell me what you would consider 'evidence' rather than a 'conclusion' for the existence of some non-material entity that might be termed 'god', specifically evidence that doesn't rely on anyone's subjective experience and subsequent labeling (i.e. concluding) the experience as 'god'. Give me an example what 'evidence' that isn't what you term a conclusion would be.

You are just asking here for a way to test for something untestable. Once you define god as something that does not exist in the physical world, you define an untestable god. Just like invisible pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters, you can make this kind of thing up all day.

I am asking you to give an example of what you would consider evidence for the existence of god, assuming god is a non-material being that doesn’t involve a personal subjective experience. That is not, despite your protestations to the contrary, an unusual definition of god. In fact, it doesn’t even have to be a god. Give me an example of evidence for any non-material thing that exists, such as justice or mercy, that doesn’t involve a person’s subjective experience and subsequence ‘conclusion’ about what they experienced. I don’t think you can and I think that is why you refuse to answer the question. As I said above, I think the line you are trying to draw between ‘evidence’ and ‘conclusion’ does not exist when discussing intangible things.

God beliefs did not originate as mental visitations and nothing more. God beliefs began as beliefs in gods that affected people's real lives. Gods controlled good and bad things. Prayers were supposed to have an outcome. Show me any ancient god belief that consisted (or consists if the belief continues) of a god that merely causes a subjective mental experience and does absolutely nothing else. Is a person's dream of flying spaghetti monsters evidence for spaghetti monsters or evidence of dreaming?

However god beliefs may have begun and even if all human conceptions of god were known to be inaccurate, it does not invalidate the proposition that some god exists. What evidence would you accept for the existence of some god that does not depend on identifying similar human experiences that are reported to be due to god? In short, what evidence could be presented that would change your mind about your conclusion that no god exists?

 

[articulett]

The ultimate truth thing is Articullet's battle flag. See her earlier posts about reality having only one side etc.

I'm fine with the claim that there is no ultimate truth, at least in the sense of recognizing that it's a logically unimpeachable position.

I am referring to the stuff that is true whether people believe in it or not... like the earth being spherical, DNA, whether leprechauns exist or not... the fact that 2+2=4. I don't believe in "divine truths"... just the garden variety facts that are the same for everybody no matter what they believe. Either some invisible form of consciousness exists or it does not. Either there are divine truths or there aren't. I see no evidence of either--no more evidence then there is for leprechauns or Xenu or astrological influences on human personality. The evidence I see suggests very strongly that all supernatural explanations are products of the human mind.

 

[epeos76]

People keep bringing up Tom Cruise and it's quite apt. It certainly seems he believes that crap and it certainly seems a lot of people do. Yet I don't think you would equate his woo with your sincere faith But if you don't then there goes the only underpinning you have "Lot's of people believe. they can't all be wrong!"

There is a saying about all the world looking like a nail to a kid with a hammer. It applies equally to an atheist armed with the grammar of greek logic.

You realize there are some valid conclusions you can draw from the fact that lots of people believe something right? And you realize that neither Beth nor I have ever proposed the depth, sincerity or degree of our faith as a relevant test, right?

Wide spread social phenomenon, especially those that have persisted are probably doing something functional, for good or ill. Without any reference to belief or faith, it is possible (and reasonable) to make some ordinary judgments about what they are doing, at least with respect to their effect on the lives of practioners.

On that principle, it requires an act of willful blindness to equate the actions of the Co$ with the actions of eg. UU's, Lib. Presbys, Quakers, Jain, Reformed Jews etc. A Unitarian church probably has more in common with an amateur dramatics society than the Co$.

I conclude therefore that they are doing different things. I don't like what the Co$ is doing. It's unethical by any standard. I like what the Quakers and Presby's are doing. It passes the best objective tests of ethics known to me. There is certainly an element of discretion there, but it's bounded by all the usual rules of judgment. Treating the difference as completely arbitrary is sloppy thinking.

The only possible equivalence between Co$ and e.g. liberal Presbyterians is in the area of epistomology. But of course, as I've been explaining for several pages now, there is a perfectly obvious distinction there as well. As Articullet briefly identified, it lies in the area of certainty and scope.

 

[Faithkills]

There is a saying about all the world looking like a nail to a kid with a hammer. It applies equally to an atheist armed with the grammar of greek logic.

It's a latin term, but I suppose it's all greek to you..

You realize there are some valid conclusions you can draw from the fact that lots of people believe something right?

Certainly and I do. There's almost a billion people in the world addicted to tobacco. There's more than that addicted to religion. There's less than that addicted to meth.

Wide spread social phenomenon, especially those that have persisted are probably doing something functional, for good or ill.

Who claimed otherwise? What does religion do for the individual? It is a balm for fear of dying. It absolves you from taking existential responsibility for yourself. What does it do sociologically? It provides a very cheap and effective way to control people on a large scale.

On that principle, it requires an act of willful blindness to equate the actions of the Co$ with the actions of eg. UU's, Lib. Presbys, Quakers, Jain, Reformed Jews etc. A Unitarian church probably has more in common with an amateur dramatics society than the Co$.

Not at all. Your list suits YOUR purposes but you are omitting some of the largest sects. And even of the ones you list many have a quite violent and repressive history.

I conclude therefore that they are doing different things. I don't like what the Co$ is doing. It's unethical by any standard. I like what the Quakers and Presby's are doing. It passes the best objective tests of ethics known to me. There is certainly an element of discretion there, but it's bounded by all the usual rules of judgment. Treating the difference as completely arbitrary is sloppy thinking.

To gloss over the similarity is sloppy thinking. The one thing they all do is ask the participant to have faith. To disregard evidence and become habituated to internalizing the fabricated doctrine as reality. There can be some good to the resultant activity but in my opinion this is in itself ethically repugnant, and we have seen throughout history to this day is open for horrific abuse.

One thing I would nearly assert is a 'universal truth' is this:

If you tell me "Belive me" or "Have Faith in me"..

You are lying. If you aren't lying you don't need to appeal to credulity.

The only possible equivalence between Co$ and e.g. liberal Presbyterians is in the area of epistomology.

Completely wrong. The equivalence between them is the same with all religions. They ennoble the idea of faith, and usually make lack of faith questionable, if not a sin entirely.

 

[Mobyseven]

Moby has expressed his opinion of me to me in a PM. While I don't understand why he would care to converse with someone he thinks so little of, I don't care to converse with anyone who thinks so little of me.

It is true that I expressed my opinion of Beth to her in a PM - in response to a PM in which she told me she was ignoring my posts. My opinion was that she was deliberately evasive and I found it quite rude.

That this is her response is therefore quite appropriate, and rather confirms what I had already expressed in my PM.

 

[Mobyseven]

Oh goody. Beth has brought up 'justice' and 'mercy' again. Will someone point out to her (again) that these are artificial human constructs that do not correspond to any object in objective reality?

And round and round the carousel we go...

 

[epeos76]

It's a latin term, but I suppose it's all greek to you..

Cute but silly. You didn't use any latin and you know as well as I do who originally got all hot and bothered about the taxonomy of logic.

Certainly and I do. There's almost a billion people in the world addicted to tobacco. There's more than that addicted to religion. There's less than that addicted to meth.

Pat but unjustified. We know a lot about the mechanism of tobacco addiction. The idea that religion is some sort of psychic addiction is a largely untested hypothesis. Fun to chant, though.

Who claimed otherwise? What does religion do for the individual? It is a balm for fear of dying. It absolves you from taking existential responsibility for yourself. What does it do sociologically? It provides a very cheap and effective way to control people on a large scale.

Religion can do some of these things. Of course, it's quite possible to do them without religion. These are themes in the literature dating back to Voltaire. When was the last time you tested them against reality?

1. We have evidence based medicine now. Very few people walk around obsessing about death. Yet religion persists.

2. Personal responsibility has been a constant theme in at least some protestant sects since Martin Luther. Check out some 19th century theologians, to gauge the timeliness of your complaint.

3. TV/internet is the new opiate of the masses, don't you read Calvin and Hobbes?

Religion does lots of things. Different religions even do different things. As mentioned earlier, I can't give you a complete list, because it falls into areas (social dynamics, identity, psychology, etc) that haven't been very well analyzed yet. Some of the obvious ones: fosters and creates conditions for various types of relationships; teaches various emotional processes (efficacy open to ordinary judgment), provides a tested moral framework etc.

Not at all. Your list suits YOUR purposes but you are omitting some of the largest sects. And even of the ones you list many have a quite violent and repressive history.

Since I was talking about making distinctions based on judgment (a point which you, like so many others ignore) I didn't so much omit the violent ones as I did judge and choose the helpful ones. The Westboro folks aren't my co-religionists any more than the Jain are. It's an entirely different conception of God. I have no trouble distinguishing between sects on the basis of the practioner's acts, and hold mine to the same standard.

To disregard evidence and become habituated to internalizing the fabricated doctrine as reality.

Allow me to translate from philosobable: Stawman. Paying attention to inner experience is not necessarily equivalent to disregarding the rules of objective evidence. Seriously, you just need to be clear about how conflicts get resolved.

If you aren't lying you don't need to appeal to credulity.

Sometimes, you might. I leave construction of the hypothetical as an exercise to the reader. In any event, the question of faith hasn't been raised by anyone but the atheists. In my view the important battle is to properly circumscribe its scope (or magisterium if you will, thanks JREF for the new vocab).

Completely wrong. The equivalence between them is the same with all religions. They ennoble the idea of faith, and usually make lack of faith questionable, if not a sin entirely.

On reflection, I feel you may be bringing a personal perspective to this question that I don't yet understand. In any event ennobling faith over reason would seem to be an epistomological choice, so the use of the word "completely" appears a little reflexive.

More to the point, I have specifically argued that a denomination's attitude toward faith is the litmus test for reasonableness. I and many others would say that faith has to be subordinate in the areas where our best epistomological methods have produced results.

 

[modecom]

I am asking you to give an example of what you would consider evidence for the existence of god, assuming god is a non-material being that doesn’t involve a personal subjective experience. That is not, despite your protestations to the contrary, an unusual definition of god. In fact, it doesn’t even have to be a god. Give me an example of evidence for any non-material thing that exists, such as justice or mercy, that doesn’t involve a person’s subjective experience and subsequence ‘conclusion’ about what they experienced. I don’t think you can and I think that is why you refuse to answer the question. As I said above, I think the line you are trying to draw between ‘evidence’ and ‘conclusion’ does not exist when discussing intangible things.

These are artificial human constructs that do not correspond to any object in objective reality.

BTW: Mobyseven sends you his love.

 

[articulett]

It is true that I expressed my opinion of Beth to her in a PM - in response to a PM in which she told me she was ignoring my posts. My opinion was that she was deliberately evasive and I found it quite rude.

That this is her response is therefore quite appropriate, and rather confirms what I had already expressed in my PM.

She doesn't like the message, so she considers the messenger (you) rude.

All woos think those who don't "respect" their woo are rude.

 

[articulett]

These are artificial human constructs that do not correspond to any object in objective reality.

BTW: Mobyseven sends you his love.

Me too. "Kisses" to Beth.

 

[articulett]

Epeos... regarding the OP... what do you tell yourself regarding whatever beliefs you have when you understand that other people believe just as strongly in things you don't believe in... stuff for which there is similar subjective "evidence". How do you explain Tom Cruise' faith or the hijacker's faith or a Mormon's faith while presuming you are not the their ilk? I presume you think they are mistaken. How is it this could happen, while you are not mistaken? Why would your "inner knowingness" be more correct than theirs?

Why should skeptics take your faith more seriously or respect it more

-- or should we?

 

[epeos76]

Oh goody. Beth has brought up 'justice' and 'mercy' again. Will someone point out to her (again) that these are artificial human constructs that do not correspond to any object in objective reality?

And round and round the carousel we go...

Think you could unreify a bit for me? Is language an "artificial" human "construct"? Are you on board with the idea that some of the constituents of justice and mercy might be built into our skulls?

I'd say language at least is obviously a hybrid. Some of it is direct human invention and some is hardwired. Some may have evolved "meme" fashion on a more abstract level.

Same deal with justice and mercy. I don't think we have a complete answer yet.

There is evidence that moral decisions of this type are based on emotional reasoning as well as abstract cognition. There is also evidence that emotional reasoning can be trained and structured by language. The next step in the chain is an unproven hypothesis, but not a delusional one.

 

[epeos76]

Epeos... regarding the OP... what do you tell yourself regarding whatever beliefs you have when you understand that other people believe just as strongly in things you don't believe in... stuff for which there is similar subjective "evidence". How do you explain Tom Cruise' faith or the hijacker's faith or a Mormon's faith while presuming you are not the their ilk? I presume you think they are mistaken. How is it this could happen, while you are not mistaken? Why would your "inner knowingness" be more correct than theirs?

This is a fair question and an important one. It directly touches on the difference in our understanding of what I am doing.

What I am not doing is claiming that the "strength" of my conviction is worth a tinker's damn. In fact, I am explicitly putting a limit on the persuasive force that can be attributed to unproven god beliefs. That is one clear way in which I am different from T.C., and the hijackers.

This is another way of saying I explicitly acknowledge that I may be in error. To stretch the analogy, imagine a system that attaches a different error bar to results reached by different methods.

Mormons come in too many flavors to be dismissed en masse by that test. Mormons who make appropriately limited claims can fairly say I have no way to discredit them based on epistomology. At that level, it is a matter of watching what happens when people practice a particular faith and judging the results as honestly as you can.

It's quite clear (and important) that my judgment can be wrong, but this is no different than the risk run when we use this same judgment in lots of everyday situations - situations that fall into areas we don't yet know how to analyze explicitly (interpersonal relationships, government regimes, etc.)

Results? Co$ and the hijackers make claims categorically different from mine. I can specifically point to the error they are making that I am not. I could only judge the Mormons after doing some research into what they are really like. Currently, my impression is limited to the relevant South Park episode. The possibility that they are right and I am wrong is already accounted for in the "error bar" I attribute to my god beliefs.

ETA: It would be ever so nice if, when you post your scathing, invincible, irrefutable rebuttal, you address the propositions I am actually suggesting, instead of whatever the last five god bothers you discussed this with had to say. Please note that "Nuh uh" is not a response fostering further discussion.