Now, let's talk evidence for God.

[shuttlt]

Malerin,

Feel a spiritual connection to unicorns? I personally don't and never met anyone who does.

It's amazing what people will believe in though. Conan Doyle and the fairies for example... I'm sure he'd have been up for unicorns as well.

Surely one of the issues here is consistency of belief. If I choose to believe in unicorns and admit I'm doing it for pragmatic reasons then that's one thing. If I choose to believe in unicorns and claim that they are more 'true' than wood sprites (without any proof of either) then that's something else. My main reason for not believing in religion is the apparent arbitrary nature of the choice. I can’t hold in my head the necessary mass of belief in unicorns while retaining the knowledge that there is just as much justification to believe in wood sprites. Either the belief or the knowledge has to go.
[I hardly need mention that both unicorns and wood sprites cannot both exist.]

It is necessarily the case that we have beliefs about reality. It is not necessarily the case that we understand and admit the foundations and limitations of those beliefs. You say, your "spiritual experience is proof of God's existence". My experience of reality is no kind of proof to me of its existence; I just see little point in believing in any of the uncountable many alternatives.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Anyway on the rare chance that there be atheists here possessed of understanding, who can appreciate that they cannot deny the existence of Cinderella if they don't have any ideas of what is Cinderella, and for that matter Santa Claus...

yrreg, do you believe in the existence of slood? Do you recognise the daily influence over your life that slood exercises? Do you daily consider your relationship to slood, and choose your actions so as to maximise the benefit you personally can derive from your interactions with slood?

If not, how can you possibly justify this position, given that you have no personal conception of what slood is?

If you find you can't answer this question without asking me what I mean by the word "slood", then you'll see how absurd your position is.

Dave

 

[Upchurch]

If you find you can't answer this question without asking me what I mean by the word "slood", then you'll see how absurd your position is.

But Dave, everyone knows and agrees what is meant by "God". Just ask the Buddhists or the Hindus.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I liked it better when god was chocolate. I drink tea so at least I'm not an ateaist.

It's got to be a chocolate Jesus.

 

[Beth]

How would a universe without your version of 'God' look different to the one we're currently in?

Explain your answer.

(Marks: /10)

Athon

I'll play: A universe without my version of 'God' would consist of space with a completely uniform distribution of all matter and energy. Every place/time in it would be identical to every other place/time in it. There would be no galaxies, stars or planets. There would be no life anywhere.

Now, can you figure out what my version of 'God' is?

 

[Nick227]

..... A feeling of God in one's life, however, is much more prevalent than the absence of that feeling.

Sez you. I think my spiritual experience is proof of God's existence. I can't prove it to anyone else (though a lot of people claim to share my experience). To ME (and them), it is proof.

Personally, I figure simple self-examination will reveal that there is not really any such thing as experience, nor any "I" that is having it. These are constructs created by thinking and language. So to me, it is dubious to say that you are experiencing God because experience is purely a social construct. It has no empiric foundation or validity in my book.

What I personally believe will account for a lot of people's so-called spiritual experiences relates to this. If thinking stops for a short period whilst one is fully conscious it will seem as though one is "at one with the universe" because separation is to a large degree (not solely) merely a mental construct. When thinking starts again, its action will be to package this thoughtless state as a spiritual or mystical "experience" that "I" have had, articulating it within the framework of whichever school of religious or mystical one is familiar with.

Nick

 

[Jimbo07]

So you just sort of assume you're not dreaming without any way to prove it because it's convenient? I assume God is listening to my prayers. I Can't prove it, except by appeal to inner feelings. More "woo", I suppose.

I don't believe anything without proof. Frankly I don't believe anything, even with proof. Stubbing my toe constitutes proof that I stubbed my toe. Perhaps it is something else, but it is sufficiently close enough to label it stubbing my toe, for the sake of expediency.

I didin't ask if you were pragmatical (actually, I wasn't talking to you at all in my original post). I asked if you had beliefs about reality you can't prove. You obviously do. You're no different than a theist.

I don't have any "deep" beliefs about reality. I have some gut feelings, but gut feelings don't constitute truth. Instead, I take a working approach to reality.

Try to act as if that's not valid. That's what the MDC is all about. As far as I know, the theory is not necessary. It is required only that one unambiguously act as if a certain working approach to reality is insufficient. So far, it has been a history of failure, regardless of "one mind," "dreamstate," "psychic powers," theories.

By ascribing the word belief, I suspect you're constructing a strawman against a number of people here.

 

[Malerin]

Malerin,


It's amazing what people will believe in though. Conan Doyle and the fairies for example... I'm sure he'd have been up for unicorns as well.

People believe all sorts of things. That doesn't negate the fact that I (and billions of others) feel a spiritual presence in my life that I associate with God. Not fairies, unicorns or dragons. Maybe it's neurons XYZ firing a certain way or maybe it's a true feeling. Neither of us can prove it, one way or another. Just like you can't prove other people exist, but you believe so anyway because if solipsism were true, it would be kind of depressing.

Surely one of the issues here is consistency of belief.

How is theism inconsistent?

If I choose to believe in unicorns and admit I'm doing it for pragmatic reasons then that's one thing. If I choose to believe in unicorns and claim that they are more 'true' than wood sprites (without any proof of either) then that's something else. My main reason for not believing in religion is the apparent arbitrary nature of the choice. I can’t hold in my head the necessary mass of belief in unicorns while retaining the knowledge that there is just as much justification to believe in wood sprites. Either the belief or the knowledge has to go.

I'm not clear what all this has to do with God. My point was that belief in God is on par with belief in the material world, or belief that other people exist, or belief that you're not dreaming. Many atheists (all the ones I've ever talked to here) believe in all three and there's no evidence for any of them and no way to prove any of them.

In the atheist's case, there's not even an appeal to a certain feeling or experience, as the theist often does. It is simply assumed that reality consists of material things and other people, and that's that.

[I hardly need mention that both unicorns and wood sprites cannot both exist.]

Why not? There's nothing logically contradictory about both existing.

It is necessarily the case that we have beliefs about reality.

It is? So agnosticism is a logical contradiction? And how many beliefs about reality do we necessarily have to have? 5? 42?

It is not necessarily the case that we understand and admit the foundations and limitations of those beliefs.

Nobody said it was. But to ignore the foundation for your beliefs is a bit close-minded. That is a criticism that is often levied against theists. I'm surprised to hear you say that.

You say, your "spiritual experience is proof of God's existence". My experience of reality is no kind of proof to me of its existence;

Such is the nature of subjective feelings. But don't think your absence of experience is any kind of proof God doesn't exist.

I just see little point in believing in any of the uncountable many alternatives.

So what DO you believe, and how is that belief not a part of "the uncountable many alternatives"?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

People believe all sorts of things. That doesn't negate the fact that I (and billions of others) feel a spiritual presence in my life that I associate with God. Not fairies, unicorns or dragons. Maybe it's neurons XYZ firing a certain way or maybe it's a true feeling. Neither of us can prove it, one way or another. Just like you can't prove other people exist, but you believe so anyway because if solipsism were true, it would be kind of depressing.

Who's negating the feeling? The only thing most folks argue against here is the reality of the what the feeling is about. Feelings alone are not generally considered reliable evidence -- and this includes feelings of the existence of a god as an existent property of the universe. If you mean God as a word that refers to the feeling, then that's fine. I certainly don't have any problem with it.

As to the issue of proving the existence of the material world or the existence of other people, those issues are not in the same category as the existence of God; so, at best, you are being highly misleading by putting them in the same category. When it comes to the the external world and other people we have plenty of evidence that they exist whenever we open our eyes. We simply do not have the sort of logical proof that demonstrates absolutely that they exist in the same way that thought exists. When it comes to God, we don't even have that sort of evidence; and for many kinds of gods we have evidence that they either do not exist or very likely do not exist. The same cannot be said of other people or the "material" world.

 

[billydkid]

I'm not clear what all this has to do with God. My point was that belief in God is on par with belief in the material world, or belief that other people exist, or belief that you're not dreaming. Many atheists (all the ones I've ever talked to here) believe in all three and there's no evidence for any of them and no way to prove any of them.

I find this completely baffling. How are things you can taste, touch, hear and see be on par with something you can do none of those things with? You argument see to me - I forget what the word is for it - that the world is an illusion and only you are real. The thing is - that 'illusion" is what we call real. We don't have a concept of what is "real" and then see if our experience fits the criteria. We get our notion of what is real from our experience. You and I both take forgranted that we are both real and we are by any meaningful standard.

So, let's say we're not real, the world is not real, the trees and people and cars and everything else is not real - where does that leave us in terms of God who exibits none of the attributes that all of us can point to and call reality, whether it really is or not. I have always seen this argument that what we call reality is an illusion as a weak attempt to put completely arbitrary and imaginary notions on par with things that can demonstrateably interact with us - that can burn us or cut us or move us around or things that we can eat or throw rocks at and break. If what we call reality is not real - than any notion of a God who exhibits no attributes and no behaviors or no indication whatsoever of his existence can only be less real.

 

[Third Eye Open]

Malerin,

It sounds to me like you are saying: "Nothing can be proven with absolute certainty, so that means all beliefs are of equal probability."

Since there is a chance that the sun will fail to rise tomorrow, then it is perfectly ok for people to believe that right? We can't prove that it won't, so anyone who believes that the sun won't rise is being just as logical and sane as those who believe it will rise, yes?

Just because there are two options does not mean they each have 50% probability.

Despite all your talk about 'How can we know reality is real?' you behave as if it is.

There is a chance your breakfast could be poisoned. How will you decide weather to eat it or not? How can you tell? Your senses might be fooling you! Any test you can come up with might still be wrong, there is no way to prove for sure that your breakfast is not poisoned. But will you eat it? Of course you will. There is no reason to think that your breakfast is poisoned in the first place.

This is how normal people live their daily lives. We stop considering the possibility of things that have NEVER HAPPENED to us. My computer might explode when I press '~', I might spontaneously combust as a result of posting this reply. But just because these things 'might' happen, in some philosophical sense, doesn't mean I am going to actually treat them as having any chance of really happening. If I did this I would not be able to live.

This is how I think Atheists view god. A minute probability that can be ignored because it has such a low chance of happening or being true. Another crazy thought like 'I hope my heart beats again! Oh good, it did. I hope my heart beats again!...' something that is a waste of time to worry about.

 

[Gestahl]

I'll play: A universe without my version of 'God' would consist of space with a completely uniform distribution of all matter and energy. Every place/time in it would be identical to every other place/time in it. There would be no galaxies, stars or planets. There would be no life anywhere.

Now, can you figure out what my version of 'God' is?

Symmetry breaking? Order? Quantum fluctuations expanded by the inflaton field?

 

[Nick227]

There is a chance your breakfast could be poisoned. How will you decide weather to eat it or not? How can you tell? Your senses might be fooling you! Any test you can come up with might still be wrong, there is no way to prove for sure that your breakfast is not poisoned. But will you eat it? Of course you will. There is no reason to think that your breakfast is poisoned in the first place.

This is how normal people live their daily lives. We stop considering the possibility of things that have NEVER HAPPENED to us. My computer might explode when I press '~', I might spontaneously combust as a result of posting this reply. But just because these things 'might' happen, in some philosophical sense, doesn't mean I am going to actually treat them as having any chance of really happening. If I did this I would not be able to live.

This is how I think Atheists view god. A minute probability that can be ignored because it has such a low chance of happening or being true. Another crazy thought like 'I hope my heart beats again! Oh good, it did. I hope my heart beats again!...' something that is a waste of time to worry about.

I think emotions play a bigger part in making decisions than the intellect anyway. When people suffer specific brain damage that stops them feeling they often do spend hours agonising over miniscule decisions and what might or might not happen.

I think decision-making is actually hard for the intellect because finally it doesn't really know anything for absolute certainty anyway. The more it tries to rationalise, the longer and longer it takes to decide which way to go.

I figure decision-making around God is also emotionally driven. People who are simply afraid to be fully alive and having to take responsibility for their actions and live by their own morals go for God. I don't blame them really. Life is actually quite a thing to take on if you're really open to it. God is a nice warm place where one can hide away until things get dull.

Nick

 

[Malerin]

As to the issue of proving the existence of the material world or the existence of other people, those issues are not in the same category as the existence of God; so, at best, you are being highly misleading by putting them in the same category. When it comes to the the external world and other people we have plenty of evidence that they exist whenever we open our eyes. We simply do not have the sort of logical proof that demonstrates absolutely that they exist in the same way that thought exists. When it comes to God, we don't even have that sort of evidence; and for many kinds of gods we have evidence that they either do not exist or very likely do not exist. The same cannot be said of other people or the "material" world.

Intellectually dishonest on your part. You should know that sense-data gets you no closer to the existence or non-existence of a thing. I know you know this based on previous discussions. It's the old kick-a-rock-and-refute-Berkeley joke in philosophy. Just because I have auditory, visual, and tactile sense data of a person says nothing about whether people (or any "material" thing) actually exist, external to me. That sense-data is perfectly consistent with solipsism and any number of brain-in-a-vat type realities, as you well know.

Since I'm not fully in either camp (strong theist/atheist), I can see the fallacies both sides cling to. Some atheists simply cannot fathom that what they experience with their senses is just that- sense-data. The idea that their senses might not correspond to the real world is inconceivable- you kick a rock, ergo the rock must be real. Some theists cannot conceive that the experience of God they feel might just be in their minds. It's a weird intellectual blindspot on both sides.

 

[Jimbo07]

Since I'm not fully in either camp (strong theist/atheist), I can see the fallacies both sides cling to. Some atheists simply cannot fathom that what they experience with their senses is just that- sense-data. The idea that their senses might not correspond to the real world is inconceivable- you kick a rock, ergo the rock must be real. Some theists cannot conceive that the experience of God they feel might just be in their minds. It's a weird intellectual blindspot on both sides.

No. It's a pair of competing straw men you have created. Not all atheists automatically assert that the kicked rock is a rock. There are some like that, but I've met some here who do, in fact, hold their beliefs provisionally. In support of the strongest atheists, the one advantage they do have over other forms of woo, is that reality does behave as they expect it to, despite their lack of belief. I am somewhat sympathetic to the position of strong atheism, even if I don't accept it.

There are also some theists who consciously choose faith, in the face of a lack of physical evidence.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Snip
In the atheist's case, there's not even an appeal to a certain feeling or experience, as the theist often does. It is simply assumed that reality consists of material things and other people, and that's that.

Actually, I have strong feelings of the absence of God. I look at the natural beauty of the world and marvel that anyone could desire supernatural spirits on top of the amazing fact of our existence. The sense of wonder I feel contemplating the natural processes that form the universe and everything in it fill me with such awe that I can't conceive of there being any room for something greater.

Previously, it has never occurred to me to offer this experience as evidence for the nonexistence of God or other invisible and immaterial beings, as objectively my account is only evidence that I have certain subjective experiences as a reaction to the vastness and complexity of the universe. However, since you regard such things as evidence, I offer it.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Intellectually dishonest on your part. You should know that sense-data gets you no closer to the existence or non-existence of a thing. I know you know this based on previous discussions. It's the old kick-a-rock-and-refute-Berkeley joke in philosophy. Just because I have auditory, visual, and tactile sense data of a person says nothing about whether people (or any "material" thing) actually exist, external to me. That sense-data is perfectly consistent with solipsism and any number of brain-in-a-vat type realities, as you well know.

Since I'm not fully in either camp (strong theist/atheist), I can see the fallacies both sides cling to. Some atheists simply cannot fathom that what they experience with their senses is just that- sense-data. The idea that their senses might not correspond to the real world is inconceivable- you kick a rock, ergo the rock must be real. Some theists cannot conceive that the experience of God they feel might just be in their minds. It's a weird intellectual blindspot on both sides.

No. You either did not read what I wrote or did not understand it. I specifically said that sense data do not give us absolute certainty.

You are conflating the absence of absolute cetainty that we have through our sense data with the absence of any reliable evidence for God. They are not the same.

We have oodles of a posteriori evidence that the world is the way we see it. None of that counts as an absolute, but that does not mean that there is not reliable evidence that the world is the way it appears. We simply could be wrong about it.

The best we get for a posteriori proof of God is a feeling. Or, in some cases, hallucination, or possibly a single person who hears or sees God. That is also not reliable evidence. It is not that we could be wrong about God, but that it is very likely that we are since the only type of evidence available to us is not reliable.

It is simply wrong to conflate the absence of absolutely reliabile evidence with the absence of any reliable evidence.

 

[Nick227]

Intellectually dishonest on your part. You should know that sense-data gets you no closer to the existence or non-existence of a thing. I know you know this based on previous discussions.

This is very cerebral, you know. I mean, why pontificate about what might or might not exist? What purpose does it serve? If you've got to then it anyway seems reasonable to state that sense data presents attributions which are present in whatever it is that provides sense data. That's to say, if the monitor in front of me measures 16" x 12" then these attributes of it must somehow be represented in its actuality.

It's the old kick-a-rock-and-refute-Berkeley joke in philosophy. Just because I have auditory, visual, and tactile sense data of a person says nothing about whether people (or any "material" thing) actually exist, external to me. That sense-data is perfectly consistent with solipsism and any number of brain-in-a-vat type realities, as you well know.

Since I'm not fully in either camp (strong theist/atheist), I can see the fallacies both sides cling to. Some atheists simply cannot fathom that what they experience with their senses is just that- sense-data. The idea that their senses might not correspond to the real world is inconceivable- you kick a rock, ergo the rock must be real. Some theists cannot conceive that the experience of God they feel might just be in their minds. It's a weird intellectual blindspot on both sides.

I don't care if it corresponds or not. We don't even know if senses exist, what the brain really is, if any of it is real...but so what? We never have. And there isn't even a "we" or an "I" anyway. You might as well have a good time.

Nick

 

[Upchurch]

I'm not clear what all this has to do with God. My point was that belief in God is on par with belief in the material world, or belief that other people exist, or belief that you're not dreaming. Many atheists (all the ones I've ever talked to here) believe in all three and there's no evidence for any of them and no way to prove any of them.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with the highlighted portion.

I have sensory inputs which are entirely consistent with the existence of a material world and other people. While that is not proof (and if we doubt the genuineness of our sensory inputs, nothing is provable, not even one's own self), it is surely evidence in favor of a material world and other people.

God does not share such evidence. As such, even if belief in material world and other people are provisional and based on an assumption of weak evidence, such beliefs still have more foundation than a belief in God.

 

[Beth]

Symmetry breaking? Order? Quantum fluctuations expanded by the inflaton field?

No. Good guesses though!