Yes, I think you do, but you don't like the implications of it, so you're diverting the discussion to something else.

My point is that there's no way to discuss the existence of a god without first discussing that god's attributes. But you don't want to go there because you're adamantly opposed to the idea ANY god whatsoever, regardless of attributes. Am I right?
This is a gratuitous put-down. I have taken several graduate level math and statistics courses, so I'm well enough acquainted with the concepts of probability and statistical inference to know that they are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Is it? Are you unwilling to discuss my point about the subjective nature of "evidence"? Scotty sees "vast quantities" of it. You see none. How do you account for that?

Speaking for myself, I don't see anything outside myself (evident: from ex- "fully, out of" + videntem (nom. videns), prp. of videre "to see") that compels me to believe in god. Still, the conviction that there is a transcendent spiritual dimension to my being and consciousness has never completely left me through all the twists and turns in the path my life has taken. The source of that conviction remains something of a mystery to me, and I certainly can't provide anyone else with "evidence" that will produce a similar conviction within them. There is a saying attributed to Jesus that has always struck a chord with me:To "exist" means to stand outside, so the question of some god's "existence" is really a whole different matter than whether there is a dimension of our own inner self and consciousness that transcends the mundane world of logical thought, evidence, and inference. To me, that's a far more interesting and relevant question.

You don't have to prove the existence of God to anyone. The beauty of it is we can draw our own conclusions, and go with it any way we choose. Since everyone thinks they know better than the next about how best to do as God wishes, then do what you think best. The key is to let others exercise there own God given choice. Personally, I don't think God has , nor cares about denomination, so we all can individually do GOOD

I think ancient man was more concerned with the beliefs of what he thought were pagan tribes, and foreign conquerers, dictators and the like, so the one and only God came from that idea. I think and have said it before, take away the man BS, pomp, and ceremony, dogma, and traditions of the region, we all speak of the same GOD, as God wouldn't be concerned with such man induced crap. Mans hatred for what may be a little, or a lot different, has him blinded to all, but his own personal truth.

OG,

Ok, I think we've bantered back and forth now to the point where we understand each other's point clear enough and are starting to repeat ourselves. So like Scotty said, maybe we'll run across each other in another thread. I just want to respond to one very big misconception you seem to have about myself and other atheists...

I am not adamantly 'opposed' to the idea of god in any way. I am simply stating that there is zero evidence that one exists. Zilch, as in none whatsoever.

I am completely open to ideas on how our universe came to be, but I am not going to adjust my core axioms to think that it started from the sneeze of a 5th dimensional being without evidence this may have happened. In other words, I will dismiss such notions (as we all should), until evidence to the contrary is presented. That's all I'm trying to say.

Also, gods who take an interest in our personal lives, perform miracles, and answer prayers are significantly LESS likely than all other possible beings (be it from distant galaxies, or higher dimensions), who we might call gods that would NOT take any interest in us or even know that we exist. That's just simple math based upon existing evidence. And again, anyone who doesn't understand this, doesn't understand math probabilities or Baye's Theorem. I have nothing else to add to this thread that wouldn't be redundant. Good luck.

Tali,

First let me say I have appreciated your contributions on every thread we have crossed paths.

Yes we can't help but do this I think. People wonder and question it seems to me that somehow we all have a little piece of the puzzle to share, and it would be irresponsible to keep it to ourselves.

Yet we live in a world where this kind of subjective freedom is dangerous. While I am reluctant to go with it in any way that I choose personally, others are not and have caused a lot of damage in the world in the spirit of those conclusions.


[/QUOTE]

While I must say that I agree in principle, I also recognize the potential danger in this. I think this is essentially the paradigm we are working under presently. Unfortunately it allows for extremists. Where do we draw the line, I mean if we allowed it people would make human sacrifices again. I don't think that people really have a "god given choice" perse, at least in the sense that people's can not go around doing whatever they want as their actions have consequences that effect others who have not made those choices.

I couldnt agree more. As for good, I fear it must be qualified.


Yes... sadly, yes. We hate ourselves and have a hard time recognizing the roots of our condition.

Peace friend,

Scotty

That was my whole point, we all have a choice of the actions we take, and with that choice comes blessings, or consequences. I believe also that our actions do effect others to one degree or another, and should be considered when we do take any action.

It wouldn't be redundant to respond to this question, since you haven't done it before.

I was about to respond to this, but to be honest... Wasn't sure how to counter it. I try to refrain from spewing and am hesitant to say something unless I'm reasonable sure that I'm right, or at least giving a sound answer. I'll admit, this question gave me pause. Is evidence in the eye of the beholder? My first reaction was that this was an absurd statement! But the more I thought about it, the more I realized I was having difficulty refuting it.

My first inclination is that evidence is evidence. Very much unlike beauty, which IS subjective. The problem I had was... How we 'interpret' evidence may very well be subjective and in the eye of the beholder. But here's the difference...

Science uses evidence to form theories. Then science rigorously tests those theories and uses them to make predictions! It literally tries to falsify its own theory. Nothing is ever proven in science. However, it only takes a single false prediction to destroy a theory. The longer a theory goes without being falsified, the stronger the theory becomes.

The problem with all this theistic mumbo-jumbo (if you'll excuse the expression), is that none of the theories or evidence which get espoused by theists can be subjected to scientific testing. So getting back to the ghost in my closet...

I could give you several bits of evidence I feel proves my ghost is there. I might tell you that I feel its presence in the very depths of my being. I could tell you how my clothes had been mysteriously re-arranged. I could then conclude: What else but my ghost could have done that? This evidence may be very real to me. But it would be utterly useless to you. To everyone else in the world, it could be any number of things from my being delusional, to someone breaking into my house and tampering with my closet. At the end of the day, my 'theory' is useless because it is untestable.

Does that make sense? You use evidence to formulate theories. You then subject those theories to rigorous testing and predictions. So while evidence may be in the eye of the beholder, theories are NOT! And if you can't test a theory it's useless for any practical purposes.

I'd like to ask you a question and mean no offense by this, but what line of work are you in and/or what is your level of education? Again, no offense in any way, but I'm finding myself having to explain some very rudimentary principles of math and science in these religious forums. There's nothing wrong with not knowing about these subjects, but many people here make very glaring mistakes when it comes to applying both logic and knowledge in these subjects, and I'm wondering why.

Many Athiests have contributed to the world in a positive way. It is pure ego to think that non christians need to be christians to do good. In my opinion christians throughout history have caused much more pain and suffering than any other group.

workerbee

Athiests can go to heaven too says pope benedict..

Here is my proof, ZENIT - Commentary on Psalm 136(137)

Seeing that Athiests don't believe in the silly supersition of heaven that means nothing. I am not sure popes can't go to heaven, many of them having fathered lots of illegitimate children and killed many innocents

workerbee

If you believe in him/her, he/she will love you. You don't have to be Christian to believe in God, you have to believe Jesus Christ is the son of God. If you know he is there then know he is watching you. He will always be with you.

Good. Now we're getting somewhere.
I don't think we disagree in any fundamental way about how scientific methodology works, but I would put it a little bit differently.

The role of theory is to provide a coherent explanation that accounts for all available evidence. More than that, it's theory that tells us where to look for evidence, and even what constitutes relevant evidence. Evidence consists of observations and measurements. Sometimes evidence is derived from designed and controlled experiments, other times that's not possible and evidence comes from observing and measuring phenomena and processes that occur naturally.

In either case, it's theory that tells us what is important to observe and measure, as well as how to understand and interpret our results. The accumulation of evidence that a theory can't adequately explain and harmonize with previously available evidence is what leads to extensions, refinements, and reformulations of the theory.

It probably is a bit of an overstatement to say that evidence is subjective, but it isn't too much to say that people with radically different theoretical models in mind will not only interpret some evidence differently, they are also very likely to disagree about what constitutes legitimate evidence in the first place.

I think what happens so often when religionists and rationalists try to communicate is that each approaches the world and their own experience of it with theoretical frameworks that are so different that they can't even agree on what evidence is, never mind how to interpret it.
Actually, this isn't quite true. There is a fair body of research on the effects of intercessory prayer, and the results of these studies and the ensuing debate makes for fascinating reading if you're interested in this sort of thing. Google "scientific study intercessory prayer" if you're interested. The thing I take away from what I've read about it is how very hard it turns out to be to operationalize the concepts and fit them into the framework of scientific methodology. A major reason for these difficulties (as I see it) is the lack of a coherent theory of how the natural and supernatural realms might relate and interact.

Critiques of these studies (which have generally concluded that there is little or no measurable effect of intercessory prayer) come from both sides of the "belief spectrum". Scientific rationalists often say something along the lines of "This is a waste of time because the scientific method is only applicable to natural phenomena", while religionists often say something like "Well, no wonder, God doesn't work like that".

I'd say that theories are what directs the eye of the beholder to the evidence.
I think this goes a bit too far, but maybe it depends on what your "practical purposes" are. I would say that an untestable theory is immune to improvement, but if its purpose is to give comfort and meaning to its adherents, and it works for that, maybe it's as good as it needs to be.

Do you think there are any questions that are meaningful and interesting that the scientific method is unable to address? Is there any job worth doing for which it is just not the right tool?
I have a BS in Electrical Engineering, and a MS and PhD in Economics, with an emphasis in statistics and econometrics. How about you?
If you had stopped with your question, it would have been easy not to take offense. Now, it's harder, but I'm trying.

Really, I didn't mean any offense. It's just that I see such glaring errors in math and science here. One common example is that since the existence of god can neither be proved nor disproved, it must mean there is a 50/50 chance he exists! That's just ludicrous!

I'm willing to read (more) on prayer (let me know if you have any specific links). So far, everything I have read shows that it is pure bunk! The odds of a prayer being answered are exactly the same as the odds of that event occurring anyway. Coincidence? And there is ample evidence in prayers NOT being answered. Why in the history of mankind, has god never answered the prayers of an amputee? Even the most ardent believers wouldn't expect to re-grow a limb.

Yes, I think there are things that are immeasurable by science. Relative happiness, love, beauty, meaning, etc. But we aren't talking about any of those things. We are discussing the specific question of whether something exists. That CAN be a scientific question. A universe with (say, a Christian god for example), may be very different than a universe without one.

And throughout all of this, I am not, nor have I ever, said there most definitely isn't god. I'm simply saying there is no compelling reason for me to think there is. And if someone does, then they are obliged to provide evidence there is. That's a big difference.

I think you and I agree on much more than our correspondence in this thread would let on. We agree that it matters on what 'type' of god we're talking about before we assign a probability. That's huge. I think we also agree on other things. But I'm a little less willing to bend the scientific method or how it is used. Should science be the most important thing in our lives? No. But it's how we understand our world. And at the end of the day, scientific theories must make accurate predictions. It's for this reason, I think gods and religions are useless when it comes to understanding how the universe works.

Something's off with the argument here. So you're saying that the non-believer that does good in his life, can't have eternal salvation from God because he doesn't believe in eternal salvation? So what happens to the non-believer who happens to be a good human being? He goes to hell then?

What?

So you're telling me that the way you interpret God is that even though someone is a good human being, because he doesn't believe in heaven or hell, God will definitely choose to give him hell? But the non-believer does not believe in hell either. How does this make sense when your argument is that despite being a good person "God can't give the non-believer heaven clearly because he does not believe in heaven".

I can't answer for a Christian, because I'm not one. I feel no need to prove anything about the God that I understand, and believe to be real (to me). My only concern is to be wise in the way I conduct my own existence. I fall short sometimes, but try to stay on the path that I have personally chosen. Its not about math, logic, or knowledge of all things. Its about a personal relationship that shapes my humanity. The fact that I have woke up this morning is all the proof I need to carry on, No proof, no evidence (that I can explain) no logic, just belief. I require no more than that. Good journey, if you do.

Despite everyone's opinion or belief, some questions will never be answered by humans. If you don't believe in God fine, if you do, then let HIM do the judging.

If everyone thought the way you did, it would be a much better world. You are admitting there is no evidence or logic you can present that should compel anyone else to believe in the god you know deep down exists. Rather, it is a personal experience or feeling that YOU feel guides your faith in a supreme being. Nothing wrong with that. I think you're wrong :) , but could easily get along with you.

Sorry, but are you saying that those women who were killed during the witch burnings, for questioning the logic that was used through the bible to kill them dude to their moles or sour milk, was evil? Are you saying those women should have shut their traps, because otherwise it means they were working for the other side? Goodness..

What about those blacks that were enslaved, and the logic of some people who called themselves Christians, being used to to justify this lunacy?

I could make a verrrrrry long list as to why it is verrrrrry healthy to question the ideologies that some label as Christianity (or any other religion, or atheism). I believe that if you are truly a Christian, Fr_Chuck, and not an evil-doer in disguise, then you shouldn't fear people trying to have a rational debate about religious ideologies by automatically claiming they are working for the other side. What are you afraid of? I mean, people who truly believe in the power of what they're saying, don't mind a healthy argument or discussion. That is, they don't need to use propaganda or to silence others...

Do you remember who the anti-Christ is supposed to be, Fr_Chuck? Something like Christ on earth.

So, I'm sorry, but according to Christianity, it's not those that would love discourse and enjoy getting human beings closer to the truth (God) that is working for the other side, but it can be people who pretend they are Christian (good) when they are truly NOT, that is working for the other side. Come on, you know this.

Me thinks that people who are not afraid to speak about God, and hence choose to have debates to try and get closer to truth (him), are not the ones you should fear are working for the other side. Those who prefer to silence others, and cast them as evil-doers if they try to question ideologies, seem to actually have something to hide themselves. I mean, I guess there is a lot to hide about the argument as to why we should have burned women to death, slaved blacks, and house-arrested Galileo. True Christians, in my opinion Fr_Chuck, and true good-doers, are the ones who questioned all these things.

Oh, and I do believe in God, for the record. But the God that I believe in, I think wants me to question all those things?

Surely you can see why I'm having a bit of a struggle. It's hard to avoid the implication that you think I'm one of those who makes these "glaring errors" that you see here. It's hard to see how my level of education and training could be related in any way to errors made by others.

Will you be offended if I ask you (again) about your education and training?
Yes, of course it is, but what has it got to do with anything I've said?

The "mother of all prayer studies" is Benson, et. al. Am Heart J. 2006 Apr;151(4):934-42. Here's the abstract: Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory P...[Am Heart J. 2006] - PubMed Result
Here's a couple of critiques, the first from a secularist, the other two from a religionist who is also a scientist.
About Intercessory Prayer: The Scientific Study of Miracles
ON ASSESSING PRAYER, FAITH, AND HEALTH
Arm-Twisting with the Almighty

Well, see, this is the heart of the matter. The theory of God that you bring to the subject allows a methodological distinction to be made between all those ineffables and the existence (or not) of God. But in the theory of God that the devout believer brings to the subject, the nature and existence of God are intimately and irrevocably connected to all these things.
And the heart of the "experimental design" problem is to define specifically and precisely how a universe with that particular god (attributes specified in detail) would differ in an observable, measurable and repeatable way from a universe without such a god. Unless you and the religionists can agree about those matters of detail, you won't be able to design an experiment that will be recognized by both as providing legitimate and convincing results.
I'm with you up to this point.
As long as they aren't trying to change your mind, they aren't obliged to provide you anything.
I've known it all along.
You surely misunderstand what I'm saying here if you think I'm willing to bend the scientific method at all. My concern is that it while it is a very powerful and useful tool, there are some fairly strict limits on its applicability, and it's a fool's errand to try to bend and stretch it to address questions that are far outside its scope, such as the effects of intercessory prayer, or the existence of god, or the meaning of life.
If it's the only tool in your box, you will learn a lot about the outer world, but very little about the inner one.
Scientific theories are mostly about providing coherent explanations, hardly at all about making predictions, except in the limited sense of what results to expect from certain controlled experiments or from specific observations or precise measurements of phenomena. But the purpose of such experiments and observations is to arrive at a more satisfying and comprehensive explanation.
I wholeheartedly agree that the scientific method is the preferred tool for that job. For the job of finding meaning and purpose and joy in our individual lives, some form of spiritual endeavor may be a better choice.

But Athiests do not believe in God, or Jesus or any God for that matter, and there are hundreds of different gods. There is evidence the Jesus never existed at all, sounds shocking to someone who has been told stories all of their lives that he was real

workerbee