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

[epeos76]

MobySeven, no worries at all. You really raised the bar, and I'll try to keep up.

I'd like to talk about your substantive point too, but it will have to wait on real life.

Kaylee is too damn cute for words. And I had a weird moment...

She is. Isn't that other woman the villian in that episode? That would be weird.

 

[Mobyseven]

MobySeven, no worries at all. You really raised the bar, and I'll try to keep up.

I'd like to talk about your substantive point too, but it will have to wait on real life.

Mmmm...real life is tricky that way. I'll be moving back to college for uni on the 1st of March...I'm not sure whether that means I'll be posting more, or less...

Take your time. It's teh interwebs, so there's no real rush.

Kaylee is too damn cute for words. And I had a weird moment...

She is. Isn't that other woman the villian in that episode? That would be weird.

Yeah. She is. And then she shows up again in a later episode (I was sick yesterday, spent the day watching Firefly. Only two episodes left...)

I've texted my friend who's seen the whole series, just to make sure that no other ex-girlfriends show up in the finale. She said all of them do, and gave me some 3D glasses.

I'm worried, to say the least.

 

[articulett]

Oh, what, now you're one of those 'round earth' crazies? Go tell that bs to Rincewald why doncha?

I'm agnostic about the shape of the earth.

 

[Mobyseven]

I'm agnostic about the shape of the earth.

And I'm unable to remember a simple name like "Rincewind". Such is life.

 

[articulett]

I'm agnostic about names like Rincewald and Rincewind. I don't believe anyone can truly know which one is correct.

 

[Mobyseven]

I'm agnostic about names like Rincewald and Rincewind. I don't believe anyone can truly know which one is correct.

*Mobyseven goes and checks Terry Pratchett books...

No, it's definitely Rincewind.

 

[rocketdodger]

What now? We have to be taught lots of behaviors and beliefs. Tooth brushing, for example. I don't think that makes tooth brushing a mind virus. In fact, I don't think the concept of addictive ideas is well defined.

I think a pretty canonical defintion would be ideas that include directives whose sole intent is to reinforce the acceptance of the idea.

Tooth brushing does not contain any such directives -- you brush your teeth because it cleans them.

Religion does contain such directives -- you believe (utter nonsense) because it convinces you it is wrong to not believe.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Don't know if you are still reading the thread, Beth, but this one is for you and the perception of red vs the evidence.

It took me 32 pages or so to find a more precise description of the difference between evidence and conclusion. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have mattered in this discussion, but it might make sense to you sometime in the future. However, I'm glad we had the discussion because it sharpened my own understanding of the difference between the evidence and the conclusion.

So let me sum it up one last time with the better understanding I have, and a new example that could help clarify it for you as well.

I believe your position is, if you trust your senses when you see something red, then you should be able to trust your senses when you sense god. Seeing red is therefore evidence of red, so sensing god is evidence of god.

What we've been trying to tell you is what the person senses is the evidence, but what it is evidence of is not evidence of god. The underlying question is, which thing is the evidence and which thing is the conclusion?

You then gave an example where the conclusion was likely to be correct, seeing red. And you surmise then, that if the person is capable of drawing the correct conclusion seeing red, they must (or might) be capable of drawing the correct conclusion about sensing god.

But here is where your reasoning breaks down. You conclude that since red (the evidence) is evidence of red, then experience the person has(the evidence) is evidence of god.

In both cases you have evidence, the red thing and the experience. In both cases you have the conclusion, one sees red, one senses god respectively. But in neither case is the conclusion the evidence. In the case of the conclusion a thing is red because it looks red, the color of the thing is still the evidence. Whether or not the conclusion the thing is red is correct is dependent upon one's sensory input and neuro processing. But regardless, the evidence is still the red thing and the interpretation it is red is still the conclusion.

The red thing is only evidence of being red, if the conclusion is correct.

Take a look at the following science blog examining the visual sensory system of the brain. The anatomy of an illusion -- and what it tells us about the visual system.


After you digest that interesting article, then think about your other request of how it is one provides evidence of something like a god that doesn't have a physical presence? The answer is you don't. Evidence is a physical thing. It exists. If it is not a physical thing, then people believe in it but there is no evidence for it.

One can dissect the neuro sensory system in a person. If there was to be evidence there that the conclusion an experience was indeed initiated by a god, then one would need to find evidence, first, confirming that such an experience actually occurred and was consistent from person to person. Meaning one would need to show exactly what occurred physically in the brain that was being triggered by the god. If nothing was found, then you have no evidence.

Then, if something was found, you would still need physical evidence a god triggered the experience.

In the case of the red evidence, we have the red thing. In the case of the god experience, we only have the conclusion. There is no thing which is evidence of gods. There is no evidence for gods regardless that some people conclude they have some kind of god experience.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

So no one has an answer other than "I believe in my God, so He is the Right One"?

Not too surprised.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

Correct.
After centuries and millennia of building temples, churches, mosques and countless wars, torturing, and printing of billions of books on the subject we're left with..........(drum roll please)..........................................................................................................
.
.
.
.
.
(no evidence).

 

[articulett]

... or maybe you could say evidence on par with what a schizophrenic would give for their delusion confirmed by lots of people who sound like they may share a similar nebulous delusion... thus lending pseudo veracity to their own delusion.

sort of like a conspiracy theory, but "nice" and more vague.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

(a fine alternative)

 

[Piscivore]

And it looks like this is a side track so feel free to take it to the thread it started in with Beth. I'll see that it was bumped and reply there.

Hello!

Piscivore, I'll have to address the rest of your post later, however regarding evidence vs conclusions which are not evidence,

This could get a little tricky. The experience is the means by which you detect the evidence. The red thing is still the evidence.

No, it isn't. Let me diagram it for you:

(O+P) = D
D + X + Y + Z +?... = E
E => C

Where:
O is the object, The red thing (let's call it a chair, just to forgo using "thing" so much). it could also be an event, of course. A volcano eruption, an EEG scan, etc.
P is the perceiver, the one who experiences the object. It could be you, me, Claus, a video camera, a little green Cthulhiod, a sex robot, or any number of scientific instruments.
D is the Data, the experience. This could be seeing the chair, or having an emotional reaction, or smelling a nice plate of salmon as it greedily dissapears into the fat guy in the next booth.
X,Y,Z and ? are all the supplemental bits of data that may be needed to correlate and corraborate with Mr. D. These would include repeatability, reproducability, statistical analysis, and all the other elements of the scientific method, as needed.
E is the evidence.
C is the conclusion.

What you seem to be proposing is taking out P, D, and X etc. and just going straight to O = E. It doesn't work that way. "Evidence" unobserved is not evidence. I can't claim that there are fossil bones undiscovered that conclusively prove my family evolved from squid. I can't say the chair I've never seen is red. The invisible unicorn no one can detect cannot be used as evidence that invisble unicorns are pink. Something has to observe O before it can be evidence, and even then it might not be enough evidence.

Contrariwise, your statements that the experiences Beth mentioned are not evidence seems to mean you are working backward:

C [There is no god possible] => D [the feeling god is real] = ((O [god] + P [the person feeling])-O [god]) because C

That is wrong in so many ways. More accurately, we should be looking at it like this:

(O [something] + P [the person feeling]) = D [the feeling god is real]

P experienced something, but whether it is god or not is as yet undetermined. This is where I see Beth going wrong, thusly:

(O [something] + P [the person feeling]) = D [the feeling god is real] => C [O = god]

That's unwarranted. While D is evidence that something exists, it needs X etc. to corroborate what it is before we can get to C, Because sometime D can be misleading. I might see a red chair but have a vision problem such that every other observer sees a blue one. I might see a red chair, but be hallucinating and not see it tomorrow. I might have a feeling of intense peace and euphoria because I was touched by god, had a stroke, or someone slipped me LSD.

For example, when you observe the checkerboard optical illusion one light square in the shadow is really the same shade of gray as one dark square not in the shadow. In this case your experience is faulty, but the evidence does not change.

What you are saying here is:
(O + P) = D
((D = C) or (D =/= C)) => (O = E).

That doesn't work. The error correcting mechanism for perception error is repeatability and reproducability, not stipulating that what you think (or are told) something is is the evidence. Which you seem to imply- how does one discover in this case that what is perceived is in error? Appeal to authority? Or observation by other means?

I hope that's clear.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

What you seem to be proposing is taking out P, D, and X etc. and just going straight to O = E. It doesn't work that way.

Agreed. Very good post. I have to tell also that this formula can be applied to everything we want, but that's subject for a whole thread I guess.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It is not a good post and it is not logical logic.

Define evidence for me Piscivore.

Have you heard the saying you are welcome to your own opinion but not your own facts?

You aren't even looking at the same thing here that is being discussed when you make up something called 'data' as if it differed from 'evidence'.

Yes, evidence must be observed, measured and so on. But there are very few cases in physics where the observation changes the evidence. So regardless of your observation, the thing you observe does not change except with the exceptions in quantum physics.

Go back to the original problem. If you are colorblind, does that change the red thing? Of course not.

Try again.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

First of all, excuse me for not reading the thread, I will just give my opinion in this specific point.

Yes, evidence must be observed, measured and so on. But there are very few cases in physics where the observation changes the evidence. So regardless of your observation, the thing you observe does not change except with the exceptions in quantum physics.

The thing as it is "in itself" (if such thing is even logical to express) is not what we observe. What we observe is a construct, made by our perceptions, memory and culture.

Go back to the original problem. If you are colorblind, does that change the red thing? Of course not.

It is not a red thing unless it is seen by someone who can spot (and conceptualize) red. The key here is that there are not "red things", red is a color, and a color is part of perception. Sure, what causes red is beyond subjectivity, it is an objective component of reality, and it can be described as having a particular wavelength and so on.. but it is not red unless it is red to someone.

In other words. Red REQUIRES US (note that I say us and not a perceiver, or a consciousness or mentioned any qualia). Why us? Because red is part of a culture ("red", "color", "things that are red", "redness", are relational concepts, not stuff outside us).

 

[Beth]

Hello!

This is where I see Beth going wrong, thusly:

(O [something] + P [the person feeling]) = D [the feeling god is real] => C [O = god]

That's unwarranted. While D is evidence that something exists, it needs X etc. to corroborate what it is before we can get to C, Because sometime D can be misleading. I might see a red chair but have a vision problem such that every other observer sees a blue one. I might see a red chair, but be hallucinating and not see it tomorrow. I might have a feeling of intense peace and euphoria because I was touched by god, had a stroke, or someone slipped me LSD.

Thanks for the great post. I quite agree with the above. I'm never claimed that the subjective evidence for god must be considered convincing. I'm just saying that it is evidence and is, therefore, not in the same category as IPU's. If other people find the evidence convincing, well, that's also a reasonable conclusion for certain concepts of an non-material god - such as yours. Good luck convincing sg about that though.

 

[Piscivore]

Define evidence for me Piscivore.

ev·i·dence
n.
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.

However, there's a problem with this definition- "thing".

Thing is perhaps the worse word in the English language. It can be used to refer to just about anything. This dictionary alone has nineteen different senses for it. As I said to Alric in the other thread, English is great for art because of this ambiguity, but lousy for accuracy. You seem to want "thing" to mean the object. That's understandable, one of the first uses anyone learns for "thing" is as a referent to an object.

But as I said, a "thing" undetected cannot be used for evidence. You can't take a murder weapon no one's found into a courtroom as evidence, you cannot cite the measurements of a phenomenon you didn't make in a scientific paper. The chair in a locked room you haven't seen cannot be evidence for "red" because you don't know what colour it is in the first place. The broken window in the dictionary is just a broken window until somebody sees it, and puts it in context of the burglary. Otherwise, it might as well be evidence of an errant baseball or a windstorm. It's all the same to the window. "Evidence" is a human judgement that has no meaning to the universe at large.

Have you heard the saying you are welcome to your own opinion but not your own facts?

Quite so. Do you have evidence that this is only my opinion?

You aren't even looking at the same thing here that is being discussed when you make up something called 'data' as if it differed from 'evidence'.

I didn't make up "data", skeptigirl.

da·ta
pl.n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
1. Factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
2. Computer Science. Numerical or other information represented in a form suitable for processing by computer.
3. Values derived from scientific experiments.
4. Plural of datum (sense 1).

Sense one and sense three are the important ones here. Watch what happens when we make a couple of substitutions:

ev·i·dence
n.
1. Factual information helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment

ev·i·dence
n.
1. Values derived from scientific experiments helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment

That's a whole hell of a lot less ambiguous, isn't it? It also eliminates a lot of nonsense, like unrepeatable phenomenon, or subjective opinion, from the definition of "evidence"- because if it is to be factual information (at least under a scientific framework) it has to be verified by repeatability, reproducibility, falsifiability, etc. Exactly as I said before.

Yes, evidence must be observed, measured and so on.

What is it if it is not observed, measured and so on?

But there are very few cases in physics where the observation changes the evidence.

Whoever said it did? What I said was that observations of an object (what you are here calling evidence) is not meaningful or helpful to the conclusion or judgment (which are also soley human judgements) unless it is observed.

So regardless of your observation, the thing you observe does not change except with the exceptions in quantum physics.

Quite so. Never said it did. The reason you are thinking I did is because you are making the mistake that "evidence" is an inherent quality in an object. It isn't.

Funnily, this is exactly the same mistake plumjam makes about the "aesthetic value" of art.

Go back to the original problem. If you are colorblind, does that change the red thing? Of course not.

Of course not. but it does affect the observation of the object. Can the colourblind man ever come to the conclusion the chair is red, no matter how often he repeats the test? How then is the chair itself evidence?

Try again.

Likewise.

ETA: One of my older dictionaries defines "evidence" as "That which demonstrates a fact is so". Much better, but leaves out the word "helps".

 

[Piscivore]

Thanks for the great post.

Thank you.

I quite agree with the above. I'm never claimed that the subjective evidence for god must be considered convincing.

Then I misread, I'm sorry. I didn't read the whole thread, just the last few posts.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

For the record, I stated over and over that the degree of certainty in Beth's "evidence" has never been part of the discussion. She continues to not understand that point which has been discussed in detail over and over in this thread.

The point has always been that "a feeling" is evidence of "a feeling". Because you believe that feeling is evidence of god does not make it evidence of god. That would be akin to saying because you believe your dream about a unicorn is real, the dream is evidence unicorns are real.

And now you, Piscivore, are either as confused as Beth or are unwittingly reinforcing her misconceptions about the difference between a conclusion and evidence and the fact conclusions are not evidence (unless you are talking about evidence about conclusions themselves).