What We Believe But Cannot Prove

[punshhh]

The evidence is that evolution produces lifeforms which are best suited for their environment. That does not necessarily mean more intelligent and/or sophisticated. There are numerous creatures which have evolved to suit particular niches which have barely changed at all for millions of years, let alone become more intelligent. Whether intelligence of the order we have is an evolutionary advantage has not yet been established. If we end up wiping ourselves out (a distinct possibility) it will have been yet another of nature's many mistakes.

The belief that there is an "onwards and upwards" direction to evolution, whilst understandable, is mistaken. Check any textbook on evolution for confirmation.

Yes I am aware of this and understood that this is what you were referring to in your last post.

Perhaps most evolutions become mistakes or wipe themselves out. This does not rule out a proportion making it to a state in which their longer survival and a progression to highly advanced technologies is more or less secure. Due to technologies through which they can manipulate and take advantage of their surroundings, alongside morality and politics of a more highly civilized form than our own.

There is plenty of evidence for the initial steps required for this progression to intelligent creators evident on our planet.

 

[3point14]

All theories are a result of "people making stuff up to explain things". Did you think Einstein found theory of relativity written on golden plates?

No, he extrapolated from the data provided, using logic and mathematics. That which he extrapolated he could communicate to others and explain exactly how he got to his conclusion and this allowed them to do the same independantly.

He didn't invent relativity, he merely defined and described it.

What he most certainly did not do is make stuff up. The analogy is far from sound.

 

[Malerin]

http://clinicallypsyched.com/neurotheologywithgodinmind/



We know of many ways in which the brain can malfunction. Schizophrenics often believe the voices they hear are coming from supernatural entities.


The Mormon I mentioned insists that he only gets these experiences when asking for confirmation that his beliefs are true. His beliefs are provably not true. Surely that's evidence that his experiences - and therefore all such experiences - are not coming from God?

How is that explanation more likely than theism?

 

[Malerin]

No, he extrapolated from the data provided, using logic and mathematics. That which he extrapolated he could communicate to others and explain exactly how he got to his conclusion and this allowed them to do the same independantly.

He didn't invent relativity, he merely defined and described it.

What he most certainly did not do is make stuff up. The analogy is far from sound.

Like Zeus and Odin were described and defined?

It's a trivial point: all theories, atheistic and theistic, are "made up" by people. Move on.

 

[3point14]

Like Zeus and Odin were described and defined?

It's a trivial point: all theories, atheistic and theistic, are "made up" by people. Move on.

I'm afraid not.

The moment one persons 'Siritual Feeling' can be replicated by anoter person many days and many miles away then they're equivalent. Right now they're not and you're wrong.

Wishful thinking and the scientific method are not the same thing and there's a huge difference between making things up and discovering things.

 

[Pixel42]

How is that explanation more likely than theism?

How are known physical effects which can fully account for an observed phenomenon a more likely explanation of that phenomenon than a hypothetical undetectable entity for which there is no evidence whatsoever?

Is that a serious question?

It's an odd one to ask on a forum devoted to scepticism.

 

[PixyMisa]

Nor should it. The god explanation only explains why people report feeling the presence of a supernatural being in their life.

Nope. It doesn't explain anything. Because it's not an explanation.

 

[PixyMisa]

Like Zeus and Odin were described and defined?

It's a trivial point: all theories, atheistic and theistic, are "made up" by people. Move on.

A theory describes physical processes, and can be evaluated by observing the physical processes in question. Theistic twaddle describes nothing actually observed, and is rarely even logically coherent.

 

[PixyMisa]

It's an odd one to ask on a forum devoted to scepticism.

Odd, but hardly uncommon.

 

[Nonpareil]

Nor should it. The god explanation only explains why people report feeling the presence of a supernatural being in their life.

As does the no-god explanation.

So the same applies to theism: people feel a profound spiritual experience towards god. But then they want to saddle the concept with everything they think the "revelation" entails. This muddies the waters because we now have many different theistic groups (just as we had different pro-alien groups). However, none of the groups would dispute that God exists and they're feeling god's presence. They'll just start fighting it out over who God is, exactly, which is neigther here nor there when it comes to theism itself.

Here's the problem, though: in Contact, the message was (presumably; I haven't seen the movie) provably from somewhere outside of our human world. No such evidence exists for these "god experiences".

How is that explanation more likely than theism?

Is it? I don't recall anyone saying that it was more likely. Just more rational.

"Likely" is the wrong word. We have no idea what the probabilities are. But we can assess the rationality of the arguments using the evidence that we currently have, and come to the conclusion that the god explanation is irrational. It posits the existence of an entity for which there is neither need nor evidence.

 

[Pixel42]

don't recall anyone saying that it was more likely.

I did.

But you're right, more rational is what I should have said.

 

[Nonpareil]

I did.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There are all sorts of mystical experiences people report. Many people report mystical experiences that they feel directly comes from god. Why is it then irrational for them to believe there is an actual god and they are feeling its presence?

You are cherry picking a single bit of evidence and proclaiming a conclusion based on that single thing is legit. That's not how critical thinking works.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

All theories are a result of "people making stuff up to explain things". Did you think Einstein found theory of relativity written on golden plates?

Typical tactic of god believers, dismiss the true difference between the scientific process and fiction then argue against the straw man of equivalency that you built.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

A common, but incorrect, belief.

[side track] Just because all life doesn't evolve toward more intelligence does not negate the fact a better brain does seem to be under a fairly strong natural selection pressure. And while I would label it technology not "more sophisticated creations", it would appear that as long as human intelligence or better exists on the planet, this also seems a supportable claim. [/edit]

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Thankyou for telling me what I think and believe.

I suggest you throw out all your thoughts regarding christian theology and just go on the dictionary definitions of the words I use. You might then get what I am saying.

I am not suggesting an evolved life form god came first. Only that it came before the big bang event. The big bang event was its creation.

I am not talking of a first cause, I am talking of an endless existence in time and space.

You need to read more carefully. I said the language you used was 'consistent with', not that I could read your mind.


And first cause vs infinite existence does absolutely zero to support any god hypothesis.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
Besides, religious people don't "just make stuff up". They have evidence (their subjective experience) and a theory that explains the evidence (theism).

Care to support your claim that their 'subjective experience' differs from that of an inspired fiction author? Then while you are at it, tell us how cherry picking evidence and confirmation bias are consistent with critical thinking.

Everyone on the planet is not thinking rationally or critically. We define the process by the means which are successful. The scientific process has rules and procedures that result in more successful outcomes like spaceships to Mars and cures for cancer. Unsuccessful techniques like imagining prayer and rituals cure cancer and can get a space craft off the ground are not consistent with the successful scientific process. You continue to create straw man to battle that somehow all methods of coming up with one's view of the Universe are equivalent.

 

[Malerin]

How is that explanation more likely than theism?

How are known physical effects which can fully account for an observed phenomenon a more likely explanation of that phenomenon than a hypothetical undetectable entity for which there is no evidence whatsoever?

Is that a serious question?

It's an odd one to ask on a forum devoted to scepticism.

There are two things going on here:

1) Your explanation is not incompatible with theism. A theist could easily say there is a biochemical and theistic foundation for spiritual experience. They are not mutually exclusive.

2) You're assuming god is a

hypothetical undetectable entity

. This is circular reasoning. Theists will tell you that god is easily detectable, when they pray and whenever they experience god's presence. You're already assuming such experiences are not evidence because you've adopted the scientific atheistic viewpoint, but that's the very thing you're trying to show is "more likely".

3) You're claiming there is no evidence for god. Again, this reveals an assumption on your part: that reality is materialistic. If reality is a projection of God's mind (Berkeley's idealism), then there is copius amounts of evidence for god. Literally all sensory input is evidence. You arbitrarily favor materialism over immaterialism without any evidence for the former.

Kind of an odd thing to do in a forum devoted to skepticism.

 

[Malerin]

As does the no-god explanation.



Here's the problem, though: in Contact, the message was (presumably; I haven't seen the movie) provably from somewhere outside of our human world. No such evidence exists for these "god experiences".



Is it? I don't recall anyone saying that it was more likely. Just more rational.

"Likely" is the wrong word. We have no idea what the probabilities are. But we can assess the rationality of the arguments using the evidence that we currently have, and come to the conclusion that the god explanation is irrational. It posits the existence of an entity for which there is neither need nor evidence.

Again, a claim there is no evidence for god based on a starting assumption that there is no god and reality is materialistic. Of course you won't find evidence for god with this kind of circular rasoning. But don't complain when theists assume, from the start, there is a god and their experiences confirm their beliefs. It's one and the same.

ETA: Theism, if true, would explain quite a few things:
1. The existence of cross-cultural spiritual experiences reported by countless people
2. Near death experiences (both veridical and subjective)
3. Cosmological fine-tuning
4. Paranormal experiences reported by reliable witnesses (e.g., Dr. Allan Hamilton's reported experiences).

 

[Malerin]

You are cherry picking a single bit of evidence and proclaiming a conclusion based on that single thing is legit. That's not how critical thinking works.

A single bit?

Only one person in history has reported feeling god's presence? Did you mean singular type?