Now, let's talk evidence for God.

[PixyMisa]

Not quite sure what you mean by "target." But Brahman, being ineffable, is fairly immune to any form of targeting. Whatever you try to describe, that isn't it. All terms for it are just signposts. Can't be proven. Can't be disproven.

You do realise that this claim is utterly vacuous?

 

[RandFan]

Feel a spiritual connection to unicorns? I personally don't and never met anyone who does. Church of the Unicorn? A feeling of God in one's life, however, is much more prevalent than the absence of that feeling.

Fallacy. Argument ad numereum. BTW, that fact is easily understood from an evolutionary standpoint.

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.

Of course there is a more prosaic and logically valid explanation for what your "spiritual experience" is proof of. And please note that many people think that their "spiritual experience" is proof of something that has nothing to do with god (see Buddhists).

Ah, so you believe in something you can't prove (that you're not dreaming). But when a theist does it, it's "woo"?

Why is it so hard for you to understand such a simple point? Did you even read my post?

Belief doesn't figure into it. If I believe that life isn't real, I STILL HAVE TO EAT! What is so bloody difficult to understand?

So you just sort of assume you're not dreaming without any way to prove it because it's convenient?

Oh come on, are you really so incompetent? I DON'T GIVE A DAMN!

I don't need to assume or not assume. I can skip assuming altogether. It makes no difference either way. I still have to eat. I still have to sleep. I still have to go to the bathroom. I still have to pay my rent to keep from getting kicked out of my house. Those aren't simply "pragmatic" those are statements of fact about what I perceive as reality and how reality, real or not, won't change it's effect on me whether I believe it or not.

What don't you get about that? Belief is inconsequential and entirely irrelevant. The sun still comes up every morning whether it is real or not. Every morning. So believing or not believing are exactly the same.

I didin't ask if you were pragmatical ... I asked if you had beliefs about reality you can't prove. You obviously do. You're no different than a theist.

BS, pure and utter BS.It doesn't matter what I believe about reality.

Sheesh. Let me repeat that because it is obvious you simply can't understand.

It doesn't matter what I believe about reality.




Do you understand that?

1. Whether my body is real or not won't change the fact that I have to sleep to renew it.
2. Whether the world is real or not won't change the fact that I have to eat to keep from dying.
3. Whether the world is real or not won't change the fact that I have to interact with it.

I can choose NOT to believe either way.

Ok, now, here's the important point, please pay close attention, can you make the same statement about assuming whether there is a god and god's effect on your life? Yes? No?

The answer Malering is a resounding NO! Whether god is real or not doesn't change one damn thing. You can live your life the same whether god exists or not. You can't say the same thing about reality.

Are you getting this?

 

[cj.23]

Its easy. Go to an area thats supposed to be haunted and look for spooks. No spooks, no supernatural.

Dear Cainkane.

OK, I did just this and found some; last weekend i stayed in a supposedly "haunted" hotel, and at one am heard loud clumping about of about three people moving around in the room above me. In the morning I discovered the whole hotel was empty but for me and my companion. Unless we encountered burglars who burgle empty hotel rooms for fun -- possible I guess - or someone other than the wonders and us had keys and decided to sneak in and stay the night, well spooks is an option.

Now I have a problem however. Having accepted the supernatural in to my life, should I worship Yahweh, Allah, or Thor? Can you advise???

Yours
Confused Religious Ghosthunter, UK.

 

[cj.23]

You do realise that this claim is utterly vacuous?

I don't think Nick's description of Brahman is at all vacuous actually. I think it's an epistemological issue maybe rather than anything to do with Brahman's actual qualities... It is possible to think of situations and entities with similar qualities: indeed all of science seems a bit like this to me. I'll defend that assertion if you want...

cj x

 

[cj.23]

On Sensus Divinatus or however you spell it, the feeling of God in ones life...

Fallacy. Argument ad numereum. BTW, that fact is easily understood from an evolutionary standpoint.

Is it? You are going to have to explain to me at least. I've spent a lot of time on evo psych and a lot of time on sociology of religion and religious experience, and so far I have not seen a theory that even approaches reasonable explanatory power. That is not to say there is not one, but I have not seen it. Care to enlighten me? A new thread might be a good idea...

cj x

 

[RandFan]

Unless we encountered burglars who burgle empty hotel rooms for fun...

The house I grew up in was haunted. I used to invite friends over and before the night was over they were absolutely convinced. In the basement we could clearly hear people walking across the floor above us even when there was no one else in the house. There simply was no question about what we were hearing and all were convinced.

Years later I found out about how wood expands in the heat of day and contracts in the cool at night and the floor boards were simply buckling from the contraction.

Funny how people exclude any and all prosaic answers without even trying to be skeptical.

For those who don't want to believe that it is far more likely that there are rational explanations your imagination won't entertain, Joe Nickel has been investigating and debunking these claims for years. If there were ghosts you would think someone like Joe would have found evidence for them by now.

 

[cj.23]

Belief doesn't figure into it. If I believe that life isn't real, I STILL HAVE TO EAT! What is so bloody difficult to understand?

Oh come on, are you really so incompetent? I DON'T GIVE A DAMN!

I don't need to assume or not assume. I can skip assuming altogether. It makes no difference either way. I still have to eat. I still have to sleep. I still have to go to the bathroom. I still have to pay my rent to keep from getting kicked out of my house. Those aren't simply "pragmatic" those are statements of fact about what I perceive as reality and how reality, real or not, won't change it's effect on me whether I believe it or not.

What don't you get about that? Belief is inconsequential and entirely irrelevant. The sun still comes up every morning whether it is real or not. Every morning. So believing or not believing are exactly the same.

BS, pure and utter BS.It doesn't matter what I believe about reality.

Sheesh. Let me repeat that because it is obvious you simply can't understand.

It doesn't matter what I believe about reality.

I liked this a lot: sensible pragmatism. I am tempted to nominate it -- because it makes a lot of sense.

Yet -- if we adopt beliefs about ultimate reality I think they might actually have purely pragmatic effects upon us. I suspect that beliefs impact pretty directly by modifying our perceptions and reasoning. and that some beliefs will provide benefits, and probably adaptive advantage. So while my sympathies are with both Malerin and Randfan in this part of the discussion, I'm going to have to say I think beliefs might impact, even if not grounded in any objective reality.

And of course if there is a post mortem state it might be important: I am not sure about that though - the importance, that is.

cj x

 

[cj.23]

The house I grew up in was haunted. I used to invite friends over and before the night was over they were absolutely convinced. In the basement we could clearly hear people walking across the floor above us even when there was no one else in the house. There simply was no question about what we were hearing and all were convinced.

Years later I found out about how wood expands in the heat of day and contracts in the cool at night and the floor boards were simply buckling from the contraction.

Funny how people exclude any and all prosaic answers without even trying to be skeptical.

That was my first "ghost experience" too in King Street Lowestoft in the early 80's. My father reset the ghost by resetting the central heating an hour, and we understood what was going on in my sisters house then. It was a useful lesson. In fact there is I think an essay on my website explaining this - in England we tend to see in late September and early October, when the central heating is turned back on. One of my first major investigations of a haunted college hall of residence was resolved exactly so, and a search on here wil show it still forms the solution to maybe 30% of my early autumn cases.

For those who don't want to believe that it is far more likely that there are rational explanations your imagination won't entertain, Joe Nickel has been investigating and debunking these claims for years. If there were ghosts you would think someone like Joe would have found evidence for them by now.

I like Nickell and Fischer's books, and think they came up with the best solution of the moving Coffins of Barbados story I have ever seen. Highly recommended. I have now twenty years in the field as an investigator and I dunno maybe 200+ cases under my belt, and a small percentage remain resistant to any obvious solution (see interminable previous posts)...

cj x

 

[cj.23]

The title of this thread is:

Now, let's talk evidence for God.

I am at this point trying to get atheists to come up with their ideas of God, in simple most plain language.

If you atheists have any, please put them in your messages, in very brief statements.

Otherwise please just read but don't post here because you are distracting people from the topic.

Sorry, did not see this. However one argument i am having does impact directly on the topic -- so I'll reply to that and then bugger off to other threads then...

cj x

 

[RandFan]

Is it? You are going to have to explain to me at least. I've spent a lot of time on evo psych and a lot of time on sociology of religion and religious experience, and so far I have not seen a theory that even approaches reasonable explanatory power. That is not to say there is not one, but I have not seen it. Care to enlighten me? A new thread might be a good idea...

No. No new thread is needed at all. Let me first state that there is no single hypothesis and it is not likely a simple solution but there are a number of very compelling theories and it is likely that it is a dynamic set of variables. In any event, one of the most important and compelling arguments for anthropologists is as follows.

• Humans evolved brains capable of problem solving and making things.
• Humans evolved theory of mind (the ability to infer that others think).
• Smarter humans are better problem solvers and can make better and more complex tools.
• It's natural to infer that the natural world was created.
• Humans understood the relationship of parent and child. A parent is capable of solving more complex problems than children.
• The natural world is complex and rather large.
• A creator of the world would need a complex and powerful mind to construct a large and complex natural world.
• This creator was not visible or easily discernible therefore it lived apart from other humans.

The god hypothesis resolves the problems facing early humans as to how the world was created. Using the brain given them by evolution humans deduced that the natural world was created by a being with a relationship to adult humans in proportion to the relationship adult humans have with children.

God flows quite easily from that. But that is only part of the story. A very big and important part though.

 

[RandFan]

I liked this a lot: sensible pragmatism. I am tempted to nominate it -- because it makes a lot of sense.

Yet -- if we adopt beliefs about ultimate reality I think they might actually have purely pragmatic effects upon us.

Why do we need to "adopt beliefs"? The point of the post is that "beliefs" are not necessary. Ants do not need to believe that they exist in order to act. Here's a surprise, neither do humans.

I'll grant you that we do in fact make assumptions and have beliefs. I don't check to make certain there are no monsters under my bed before I go to sleep. You could say that I believe that there are no monsters. However my "belief" is based on experience. When I was a child I thought, for a time, that monsters were real and that they lived under my bed. Since then, experience (AKA reality) has demonstrated to me that the belief is unlikely and it would be perverse to actually think that there were monsters living under my bed.

The point that you fail to grasp (it seems to me) is that belief based on experience isn't the same as belief in the supernatural. Reality might not be real but it is persistent and consistent. The supernatural isn't. I don't need to take a position on whether what I perceive as reality is real. I just need to decide how to behave to avoid negative consequences. If you say it's not real then fine. It doesn't change the fact that if I hit my head with a hammer it will hurt and no amount of disbelief will change that.

So, again, and to be painfully redundant in the vain hope of getting the message across, real or perceived it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.

So, answer me these questions, would you put your hand on a hot plate and leave it there? If no, then tell me, is it because you "believe" in heat and pain and you want to live a "pragmatic" life or is it that belief and pragmatism don't mean **** and regardless of whether pain is real or not you are not stupid enough to burn your hand?

You figure out those answers and I promise you that "belief" and "pragmatism" as they relate to reality will evaporate into irrelevance. If I'm wrong then you have an absurd and incoherent world view.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Why do we need to "adopt beliefs"? The point of the post is that "beliefs" are not necessary. Ants do not need to believe that they exist in order to act. Here's a surprise, neither do humans.

I'll grant you that we do in fact make assumptions and have beliefs. I don't check to make certain there are no monsters under my bed before I go to sleep. You could say that I believe that there are no monsters. However my "belief" is based on experience. When I was a child I thought, for a time, that monsters were real and that they lived under my bed. Since then, experience (AKA reality) has demonstrated to me that the belief is unlikely and it would be perverse to actually think that there were monsters living under my bed.

The point that you fail to grasp (it seems to me) is that belief based on experience isn't the same as belief in the supernatural. Reality might not be real but it is persistent and consistent. The supernatural isn't. I don't need to take a position on whether what I perceive as reality is real. I just need to decide how to behave to avoid negative consequences. If you say it's not real then fine. It doesn't change the fact that if I hit my head with a hammer it will hurt and no amount of disbelief will change that.

So, again, and to be painfully redundant in the vain hope of getting the message across, real or perceived it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.

So, answer me these questions, would you put your hand on a hot plate and leave it there? If no, then tell me, is it because you "believe" in heat and pain and you want to live a "pragmatic" life or is it that belief and pragmatism don't mean **** and regardless of whether pain is real or not you are not stupid enough to burn your hand?

You figure out those answers and I promise you that "belief" and "pragmatism" as they relate to reality will evaporate into irrelevance. If I'm wrong then you have an absurd and incoherent world view.

It's posts like this that remind me why I love the JREF forums. Randfan, I know we've come across one another (and had a few arguments in politics, if I recall) but I've always thought you were a smart guy (despite being politically wrong, of course) and this sort of thing is why.

Now, whether to nominate THIS post or your previous one on the subject....

 

[cj.23]

Why do we need to "adopt beliefs"? The point of the post is that "beliefs" are not necessary. Ants do not need to believe that they exist in order to act. Here's a surprise, neither do humans.

OK, let's play. I apologize in advance to yrreg for straying off topic -- and would be very happy if a mod would split this off.

First, you assume beliefs are chosen, an act of volition. That is a major premise, and one i think I disagree with completely.

Secondly, I am absolutely certain we do need beliefs, as you go on to suggest. You appear to be discussing a small subset of beliefs - beliefs about ultimate reality here. Yet possessing a set of beliefs is fundamental to human experience - it allows us to get to work, buy food, and go outside at all. If you do not believe paying the rent is important, your lack of conviction may be falsified when you are evicted -so the belief you must pay the rent is important. So I'm struggling to follow - we need to define which beliefs you regard as unimportant.

I'll grant you that we do in fact make assumptions and have beliefs. I don't check to make certain there are no monsters under my bed before I go to sleep. You could say that I believe that there are no monsters. However my "belief" is based on experience. When I was a child I thought, for a time, that monsters were real and that they lived under my bed. Since then, experience (AKA reality) has demonstrated to me that the belief is unlikely and it would be perverse to actually think that there were monsters living under my bed.

And so is the experience of the two earnest young LDS gentlemen who come round every week to try to persuade me that Joseph Smith was the Prophet of God. Their experience has "shown" them the truth of their belief structure: mine has not. They keep encouraging me to pray for an experience: but answer came their none. Still, religious beliefs can be as grounded in reality as any other.

Your monster might live under the bed. Experience has suggested otherwise: you have adopted a critical belief to this claim. I have not experienced the truth of the Book of Mormon - but my young friends have.

The point that you fail to grasp (it seems to me) is that belief based on experience isn't the same as belief in the supernatural. Reality might not be real but it is persistent and consistent. The supernatural isn't. I don't need to take a position on whether what I perceive as reality is real. I just need to decide how to behave to avoid negative consequences. If you say it's not real then fine. It doesn't change the fact that if I hit my head with a hammer it will hurt and no amount of disbelief will change that.

I use the term supernatural in a very precise way. I think if I substitute "paranormal" a term I find completely useless but which makes sense in this context, we might be able to get further. Either way you are making a vast and unevidenced leap of faith here - "Reality might not be real but it is persistent and consistent. The supernatural isn't." Er, how do you know that the supernatural is not part of reality? You are making a circular argument - the supernatural does not exist, so...

So, again, and to be painfully redundant in the vain hope of getting the message across, real or perceived it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.

Well, we might agree here sort of - I believe that beliefs have an impact on human organisms regardless of their objective veracity in terms of ultimate truth. I assert this position is massively evidencely supported. I do not believe that beliefs are irrelevant, and one can merely live at the experiential level.

I have never experienced Australia, but I believe in it. I have no ability to experience the big Bang, but should cosmologists give up on the issue of the early universe as a set of beliefs with no objective impact, beyond empiricism?

So, answer me these questions, would you put your hand on a hot plate and leave it there? If no, then tell me, is it because you "believe" in heat and pain and you want to live a "pragmatic" life or is it that belief and pragmatism don't mean **** and regardless of whether pain is real or not you are not stupid enough to burn your hand?

It is because experience has shown that would burn, and i believe it would, so I avoid the test. Yet if I was convinced the hot plate was on and would burn me, and it was not, I would still not place my hand on it - the belief is the issue you see.

New thread?

cj x

You figure out those answers and I promise you that "belief" and "pragmatism" as they relate to reality will evaporate into irrelevance. If I'm wrong then you have an absurd and incoherent world view.[/quote]

 

[RandFan]

First, you assume beliefs are chosen, an act of volition.

No, I don't care. An assumption of volition or not is irrelevant. It is obvious that we discuss and debate and that the discussion and debate can persuade whether we have free will or not. People's "beliefs" can change regardless of volition so the premise is moot.

Secondly, I am absolutely certain we do need beliefs, as you go on to suggest. You appear to be discussing a small subset of beliefs - beliefs about ultimate reality here. Yet possessing a set of beliefs is fundamental to human experience - it allows us to get to work, buy food, and go outside at all. If you do not believe paying the rent is important, your lack of conviction may be falsified when you are evicted -so the belief you must pay the rent is important. So I'm struggling to follow - we need to define which beliefs you regard as unimportant.

Again, it doesn't matter. Only that I act.

Assuming Malerin's original premise, this could all be a dream but a dream with consequences nonetheless. So it doesn't matter what I "believe" as to the nature of reality only that I act depending on the variables in my life. Hunger? Eat. Fatigued and drowsy? Sleep. Avoidance of the elements? Work to pay rent.

And so is the experience of the two earnest young LDS gentlemen who come round every week to try to persuade me that Joseph Smith was the Prophet of God. Their experience has "shown" them the truth of their belief structure:

As a Mormon (I'm on the records of the Church and they count me as Mormon) and having served a mission and having been a true believer I can say that any "experience" is very likely not consistent and persistent in the way that hunger, fatigue or exposure to the elements are consistent and persistent. All of my loved ones and associates outside of my immediate family are Mormon. Not one of them has ever described their spiritual experiences as being the same as the persistent and consistent events we call reality. None of those "experiences" are empirical.

Still, religious beliefs can be as grounded in reality as any other.

You'll have to give me an example.

Your monster might live under the bed. Experience has suggested otherwise: you have adopted a critical belief to this claim. I have not experienced the truth of the Book of Mormon - but my young friends have.

It might be there but there is no empirical evidence that a monster is there. I can check under my bed. Your Mormon friends have no objective evidence. They can't demonstrate their "experience". I can show you the space under my bed. My evidence is demonstrable, empirical and I can make predictions based on that evidence. If I lock you up in a room long enough you will eventually want food, water and sleep and if you don't get those things your vital signs will cease.

Your Mormon friends can make no such predictions based on their "experience".

"Reality might not be real but it is persistent and consistent. The supernatural isn't." Er, how do you know that the supernatural is not part of reality? You are making a circular argument - the supernatural does not exist, so...

No. I can't make any predictions based on the supernatural (paranormal). I can make predictions based on what you and I identify as natural (not supernatural). I can put you in a locked room and no amount of appeals to the supernatural will keep you from, at some point, wanting food and water or dying.

It might not be real but it is consistent and persistent. So long as it is it is reality. If it's not then it's not natural. That's the nature of empiricism. That's what those Greek philosophers contributed to the human race. Real or not.

I have never experienced Australia, but I believe in it.

Based on emotions and feelings? I "believe" in Australia because to not believe in it would be perverse. It would be to assume that many people are deluded or intentionally deceitful about an objective and empirical claim and for what reason would so many disparate individuals have a consistent and persistent delusion or to be duplicitous.

Occam's razor. It's more reasonable to "believe" in Australia. Occam's razor is not so kind to the supernatural (paranormal).

It is because experience has shown that would burn, and i believe it would, so I avoid the test. Yet if I was convinced the hot plate was on and would burn me, and it was not, I would still not place my hand on it - the belief is the issue you see.

Would your belief be based on emotion and feelings or empirical (demonstrable) facts? Persistent and consistent. Every time I put my hand on something hot it burns. It's rational and coherent to not touch a plate I "believe" to be hot.

Please to tell me, when is it rational to "believe" in the supernatural (paranormal)? Because it is consistent and persistent I don't need to know if it is real or not. I only need know that it is consistent and persistent.

 

[cj.23]

I'm still waiting for cj to come up with an experiment or protocol that can test for or otherwise detect the supernatural when, by cj's own definition, we are purely naturalistic beings limited by natural laws and sensory organs.

Anyone else care to take a whack at it? Got any way to detect that dragon in the garage?

** Crickets chirping... **

Given yrreg's objections to the discussion continuing in this thread i have replied here
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4252077#post4252077

cj x

 

[six7s]

Not quite sure what you mean by "target." But Brahman, being ineffable, is fairly immune to any form of targeting. Whatever you try to describe, that isn't it. All terms for it are just signposts. Can't be proven. Can't be disproven.

Nick

You do realise that this claim is utterly vacuous?

I don't think Nick's description of Brahman is at all vacuous actually.

My take on Nick's post is that it is vacuous, merely because it uses a whole bunch of words to say nothing of any apparent relevance

YMMV

I think it's an epistemological issue maybe rather than anything to do with Brahman's actual qualities... It is possible to think of situations and entities with similar qualities: indeed all of science seems a bit like this to me. I'll defend that assertion if you want...

cj x

No disrespect intended... but Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

I'll defend that assertion if you want...

Cool!

Please explain (i.e. expand upon) what you're on about

It is possible to think of situations and entities with similar qualities

Qualities similar to what?

indeed all of science seems a bit like this to me

A bit like what?

 

[PixyMisa]

I don't think Nick's description of Brahman is at all vacuous actually. I think it's an epistemological issue maybe rather than anything to do with Brahman's actual qualities...

It says that Brahman has no qualities, and yet exists. That is vacuous.

It is possible to think of situations and entities with similar qualities: indeed all of science seems a bit like this to me. I'll defend that assertion if you want...

Feel free. You're completely wrong, of course.

 

[Nick227]

I don't think Nick's description of Brahman is at all vacuous actually. I think it's an epistemological issue maybe rather than anything to do with Brahman's actual qualities... It is possible to think of situations and entities with similar qualities: indeed all of science seems a bit like this to me. I'll defend that assertion if you want...

cj x

"God = Brahman" is an interesting one. If God is understood as the source of existence then, by definition, God does not itself exist. If it existed then it would not be the source (though there are Vedantic schools that take the position that God is both the source and the creation).

What's interesting is that it is of course very hard to refute this position. God as Brahman has no attributes. Thus the statement "God does not exist" is true, but does not really refute God as Brahman! Believers in God as Brahman claim that God does not exist! The traditional line of skeptical enquiry thus falters with Brahman.

Nick

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

It says that Brahman has no qualities, and yet exists. That is vacuous.

I think Nick would probably agree that it is vacous, because it cannot be expressed though language. It is not really proper to say, though, that Brahman has no qualities yet it exists, as though that works to explain Brahman.

It would be just as proper to say that it contains all qualities and that it is existence.

The problem is that "it" is outside proper discussion because language cannot properly address "it". Ni.

 

[Nick227]

It says that Brahman has no qualities, and yet exists. That is vacuous.

I said Brahman does not exist. If it existed it would not be Brahman because Brahman is the conceptual source of existence.

eta: I mean, the concept of Brahman must have arisen as a result of meditation being widely practiced among Eastern religious groups. At some point on the meditative journey it becomes apparent that all phenomena are simply happening and the belief in self arises solely because of identification with thought and feeling. Brahman is thus a concept for something that does not exist but which is the source or backdrop of all that does exist. The number "0" is a similar thing. Conceptualising something which does not exist in this manner allowed meditators to create a cosmology, such as Hindu Vedanta, that tried to point the devotee towards meditation, because it would be only through meditation that Brahman could be known.

Nick