What would it take you to be convinced God existed?

  • Thread starter Dave
  • Start date
  • #26
BoulderHead
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Or, maybe a long lost friend or relative will show up at your doorstep sometime in the near future, bearing news of something similar -- which, is just too uncanny to ignore? It all depends on what it means to you I guess?
You mean it is possible to think an occurance has something to do with God, when in reality it just might not?

But the main thing I suppose, is that you remember Santa Claus likes milk with his cookies. :wink:
Yes, I always leave some goodies near the chimney for him, too.
 
  • #27
2,225
0
Originally posted by BoulderHead
You mean it is possible to think an occurance has something to do with God, when in reality it just might not?
Yes I think it is possible, unless of course you're basing it on the notion that God doesn't exist. :wink:
 
  • #28
462
0
Iacchus,
I've done what I can to try and see your point of view. In terms of a personal belief in god, etc., I see no problem with most you have said.

What I have had issue with is your insistence that science acknowledge your beliefs as a scientific endeavor. To do so, science would have to completely change it's methodology, and the definition of what it is.

Sure, a lot of people here will not acknowledge something if there isn't scientific evidence - so what! That should be a completely seperate issue from perverting science to try and make it fit into a mold in which it wasn't designed.

You state you wish that science should address your beliefs as a scientific endeavor. Yet, when using the tools of science to do just that, in asking for evidence - you try to pass off evidence of a completely subjective nature - evidence that those who may disagree with your conclusions, cannot possibly check. You imply the mounds of objective evidence that support evolution are equivalent to your theory of god, simply because you use the word theory to describe them.

This is not science. It cannot be science without completely redefining what science is.

Science is a system that is designed to be self-correcting. Fraud and unintended, erroneous information can be and is discovered and rooted out. As an example: If we are to take completely subjective evidence as true, how do we cancel out the fraud, the erroneous results gotten because they were expected by the individuals that are part of the experiment, simple mental illness, or the same terms being used to describe completely different internal states? These are totally subjective, so it's not like I can repeat them with someone else or take them out and compare them with Boulderhead's or Zantra's.

(Our view of ) Objective reality is always filtered thru both the subjective and language. It does have some consistency and constantcy because there is a common set of referents. If the sensation I associate with seeing green is the sensation someone else has when seeing blue there is no problem, it is irrelavent, because each of us has the same type sensation, internally, to the same external referent, so the words and semiotic signs we use to designate them are consistent. With the subjective, there is no way of being certain the referents we assume are common, are in common. They could be influenced by expectations, or something completely different, yet we would call them by the same names. There are important reasons why science restricts itself to the objective. The recent thread on enlightenment is a great example. Some described almost mundane occurrences, others profound. They all used the same term.

I do believe there are things we can learn that are as far from the scientific as is possible - that is no reason for me, nor anyone else, to assume that science has a duty or should be perverted to investigate them, or that they have no value.

There are systems/patterns of behaviour/investigative methods that are used to discover these, but they are not within the scope of science.

Science may be able to tell exactly how a smile occurs, what the hormones and neurotransmitters occur with the emotion of happiness, but it cannot and is not meant to tell us how we are to find happiness. That doesn't mean finding happiness doesn't exist, only that it's outside the domain of science. The same could be said for appreciating art, for finding purpose in ones life, for finding spiritual fulfillment, or for learning to play a lute.

You say I'm on a high horse for stating what any first year college science major should know implicitly. You say you have evidence, but the only evidence you mention is explicitly excluded from scientific investigation. I have little clue as to your areas of expertise, but if someone started saying a lot a stuff that was plain nonsense about this field, how would you react.

I can no more investigate and double check your internal, subjective experiences any more than you can relieve my full bladder by going to the rest room for me.
 
  • #29
462
0
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Or, maybe a long lost friend or relative will show up at your doorstep sometime in the near future, bearing news of something similar -- which, is just too uncanny to ignore? It all depends on what it means to you I guess?

<...response>

Yes I think it is possible, unless of course you're basing it on the notion that God doesn't exist. :wink:
Actually, no. This is Occams razor at work.

God brings a lot of baggage to explain, something that precognition would answer but with less baggage/ less 'elaboration of reasons', which Occams is so famous for slicing thru.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
740
3
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes I think it is possible, unless of course you're basing it on the notion that God doesn't exist. :wink:
Basing events on God is a self-reinforcement. Things that would be normally written off as coincidental, or happening through a complexed chain of cause and effect, are being attributed to the intervention of God. Yet 99.9 percent of those events can be logically and scientifically explained if you have a complete picture and understanding.
 
  • #31
2,225
0
Originally posted by radagast
Iacchus,
I've done what I can to try and see your point of view. In terms of a personal belief in god, etc., I see no problem with most you have said.

What I have had issue with is your insistence that science acknowledge your beliefs as a scientific endeavor. To do so, science would have to completely change it's methodology, and the definition of what it is.

Sure, a lot of people here will not acknowledge something if there isn't scientific evidence - so what! That should be a completely seperate issue from perverting science to try and make it fit into a mold in which it wasn't designed.
Except for the fact that we're all human beings and we all own a piece of the "original equipment." Otherwise, what's the point in trying to communicate anything? You don't think science can be inclusive of that?


You state you wish that science should address your beliefs as a scientific endeavor. Yet, when using the tools of science to do just that, in asking for evidence - you try to pass off evidence of a completely subjective nature - evidence that those who may disagree with your conclusions, cannot possibly check. You imply the mounds of objective evidence that support evolution are equivalent to your theory of god, simply because you use the word theory to describe them.
As I have said time and time again, I have no qualms with the theory of evolution per se', in so far as it goes ... in terms of the "natural world."


This is not science. It cannot be science without completely redefining what science is.
And yet the difference between the "objective reality" and the "subjective reality," is the difference between the beginning of life (essence) and where that life culminates and drops off (in form). Or, you can even say it's a matter of life and death, in that essence doesn't extend beyond form (outside of context), in which case anything that exists outside of form -- and hence "objective reality" -- spells death for the essence or life within. Are you saying that science should not be inclusive of this?

At the very least I think it gives some grounds for the inquiry of what I'm trying to say. :wink:
 
Last edited:
  • #32
2,225
0
Originally posted by radagast
Actually, no. This is Occams razor at work.

God brings a lot of baggage to explain, something that precognition would answer but with less baggage/ less 'elaboration of reasons', which Occams is so famous for slicing thru.
And yet if you don't open up to the possibility that God exists, then you will never know. This is the only thing I was trying to say. :wink:
 
  • #33
2,225
0
Originally posted by Zantra
Basing events on God is a self-reinforcement. Things that would be normally written off as coincidental, or happening through a complexed chain of cause and effect, are being attributed to the intervention of God. Yet 99.9 percent of those events can be logically and scientifically explained if you have a complete picture and understanding.
And yet the original question was kind of misleading, perhaps on purpose?

And basically by my reply, I was trying to say which reality? A reality that includes God? Or, a reality that doesn't? I only suggested it was possible because of my own personal beliefs about God, not to reinforce mine or anyone else's.
 
  • #34
bleh
What is god?

if you think of god as a being, something tangible then i dont think i could wrap my head around that one, but if you think god is something intangible then i do think that it has some bearing because religion only sets out to make people as good as possible and religion dosnt exist with out god.
 
  • #35
462
0
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Except for the fact that we're all human beings and we all own a piece of the "original equipment." Otherwise, what's the point in trying to communicate anything? You don't think science can be inclusive of that?
Tell me how one communicates the exact taste of a mango to someone who has never tasted fruit, and I be more inclined to agree with what you are saying.



As I have said time and time again, I have no qualms with the theory of evolution per se', in so far as it goes ... in terms of the "natural world."
I realise that, my point was that "the conjecture you proposed was not equivalent to the evidence level needed for a 'theory' [such as evolution]", as you had implied that it was.



And yet the difference between the "objective reality" and the "subjective reality," is the difference between the beginning of life (essence) and where that life culminates and drops off (in form). Or, you can even say it's a matter of life and death, in that essence doesn't extend beyond form (outside of context), in which case anything that exists outside of form -- and hence "objective reality" -- spells death for the essence or life within. Are you saying that science should not be inclusive of this?
Aside from the extreme nature of the 'extended analogy flaw' verging on the 'Ignoratio elenchi' and perhaps 'Reification' flaws,

NO, science has no business, whatsoever, in investigating that, in that there is no evidence which can be agreed upon. Without some common ground upon which to agree, nothing of agreement can proceed. Just as the conclusion of logical proof is unknown, where the premise is of questionable nature, so are the conclusions of science, when the very basis of the evidence can be questioned.
 
  • #36
462
0


Originally posted by bleh
...and religion dosnt exist with out god.
Since both Buddhism and Taoism exist, without a god, then I would have to disagree.
 
  • #37
2,225
0
Originally posted by bleh
if you think of god as a being, something tangible then i dont think i could wrap my head around that one, but if you think god is something intangible then i do think that it has some bearing because religion only sets out to make people as good as possible and religion dosnt exist with out god.
I believe in God as both tangible and intangible, in that if there was nothing tangible we couldn't possibly know, and yet, there are so many intangible things that we will probably never know.
 
  • #38
megashawn
Science Advisor
435
0
Iacchus:

Did you know that this God idea has cropped up time and time again, throughout history, and clear across the globe? Are you trying to tell me that not even this can be construed as evidence?
Yes, I agree that this God idea has popped up. The problem, is that it is rarely the same, or even close to the same God that pops up.

And the particular brand of god your pimping out is not of the oldest known.

But this is supposed to be evidence? Hardly. Really it seems to work against your cause.

See, Jo Volcano in pre-history California sees something, that, in his limited understanding of nature confuses the mess out of him. In this confusion, he decides the act most have been of a supernatural God type being.

This is quite apparent, if you look at some of these religions that have "popped up".

And yet if you don't open up to the possibility that God exists, then you will never know. This is the only thing I was trying to say.
I do not deny the possibility of a god. Frankly, I don't have any idea. To make a decision based on ignorance does not seem like a good idea to me. If there is a god, then there is no good reason I do not know it.

(I in the previous paragraph can be any of us)
 
  • #39
2,225
0
Originally posted by radagast
Tell me how one communicates the exact taste of a mango to someone who has never tasted fruit, and I be more inclined to agree with what you are saying.
And yet, if we all had the capacity to experience the taste, then it wouldn't it be a matter of introducing the fruit?


I realise that, my point was that "the conjecture you proposed was not equivalent to the evidence level needed for a 'theory' [such as evolution]", as you had implied that it was.
Basically all I'm doing is taking the theory of evolution (not to detract from it) and extending it to include a "spiritual reality." So in that respect you can't really use evolution for the sake of comparison, unless you wish to claim only the "natural world" exists.


Aside from the extreme nature of the 'extended analogy flaw' verging on the 'Ignoratio elenchi' and perhaps 'Reification' flaws,

NO, science has no business, whatsoever, in investigating that, in that there is no evidence which can be agreed upon. Without some common ground upon which to agree, nothing of agreement can proceed. Just as the conclusion of logical proof is unknown, where the premise is of questionable nature, so are the conclusions of science, when the very basis of the evidence can be questioned.
And yet it does illustrate the fact that an "internal reality" exists and, that the purpose of the "objective reality" exists for the sake of maintaining that which is internal (life itself), that indeed the "internal reality" takes more precedence. What this tells me is that the key to the "mystery of life" is within. Therefore, if we want to better understand the human predicament -- i.e., from whence it comes and whence it goes -- then we need to look within.
 
  • #40
2,225
0
Originally posted by megashawn
Iacchus:

Yes, I agree that this God idea has popped up. The problem, is that it is rarely the same, or even close to the same God that pops up.

And the particular brand of god your pimping out is not of the oldest known.

But this is supposed to be evidence? Hardly. Really it seems to work against your cause.

See, Jo Volcano in pre-history California sees something, that, in his limited understanding of nature confuses the mess out of him. In this confusion, he decides the act most have been of a supernatural God type being.

This is quite apparent, if you look at some of these religions that have "popped up".
Pimping? ...

There are as many gods as there are people on this planet. And yet, there is only one sun in the sky. So that allows for just about any approach you could care for. And, while such a diversity of gods has existed, they tend to have a lot more things in common, with many underlying themes running throughout each.


I do not deny the possibility of a god. Frankly, I don't have any idea. To make a decision based on ignorance does not seem like a good idea to me. If there is a god, then there is no good reason I do not know it.
I can assure you, I wouldn't predicate my belief in God based upon this alone. :wink:
 
  • #41
462
0
Originally posted by Iacchus32

-----
Originally posted by radagast
Tell me how one communicates the exact taste of a mango to someone who has never tasted fruit, and I be more inclined to agree with what you are saying.
-----

And yet, if we all had the capacity to experience the taste, then it wouldn't it be a matter of introducing the fruit?
Iacchus,
You are a true master at avoiding the exact issue raised.

I try to make a point about the inability of one person to 'see' the evidence of another's subjective experience, and you divert the issue to something irrelevant. I have been under the working assumption you don't do this intentionally (otherwise I'd drop the discussion - no need speaking with anyone that isn't an honest debater).

I cannot figure out if you are subconsciously doing this because you want to win the argument, or you just cannot stick to the subject.
 
  • #42
462
0
Originally posted by Iacchus32

quote:From radagast
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I realise that, my point was that "the conjecture you proposed was not equivalent to the evidence level needed for a 'theory' [such as evolution]", as you had implied that it was.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Basically all I'm doing is taking the theory of evolution (not to detract from it) and extending it to include a "spiritual reality." So in that respect you can't really use evolution for the sake of comparison, unless you wish to claim only the "natural world" exists.
Evolution was only picked, because it was an existing theory in science. Any scientific theory would have done, because if it's a scientific theory, it will have a good deal of evidence to support what's hypothesized.

The point you are diverting from, is that I expect the same level and type of evidence for any theory to be accepted in a scientific setting, whether it covers the sex lives of the horn toad, or concerns the existence of a god.

So far, the only evidence you've mentioned (that I've personally seen) concerns a subjective experience, that cannot be seen or shown to a dispassionate investigator, or two that the concept to god has been around a while. The former isn't evidence that can be used by science, and the latter, using Occams razor, would have many, many simpler, more reasonable answers.
 
  • #43
462
0
Originally posted by Iacchus32

-------from radagast
Aside from the extreme nature of the 'extended analogy flaw' verging on the 'Ignoratio elenchi' and perhaps 'Reification' flaws,

NO, science has no business, whatsoever, in investigating that, in that there is no evidence which can be agreed upon. Without some common ground upon which to agree, nothing of agreement can proceed. Just as the conclusion of logical proof is unknown, where the premise is of questionable nature, so are the conclusions of science, when the very basis of the evidence can be questioned.
-------
And yet it does illustrate the fact that an "internal reality" exists and, that the purpose of the "objective reality" exists for the sake of maintaining that which is internal (life itself), that indeed the "internal reality" takes more precedence. What this tells me is that the key to the "mystery of life" is within. Therefore, if we want to better understand the human predicament -- i.e., from whence it comes and whence it goes -- then we need to look within.
One) The existence of an internal reality is irrelavent to what we are talking of, because of the next point;

two) Internal realities, as sources of scientific evidence, are outside the domain of science. They always have and always will, because they cannot be seen, check, and compared, by a dispassionate investigator.

three) The need to look within, the idea that it should be investigated has been stated, by myself, as a noble endeavor Just Not One Science Is Suited To DO.

four) External reality having a purpose is an unfounded statement, i.e. not an agreed upon fact. Without the two of us agreeing upon it, then any debating conclusions you derive from it are unsupported, because the foundation of the debate was built upon sand.
 
  • #44
2,225
0
Originally posted by radagast
Iacchus,
You are a true master at avoiding the exact issue raised.

I try to make a point about the inability of one person to 'see' the evidence of another's subjective experience, and you divert the issue to something irrelevant. I have been under the working assumption you don't do this intentionally (otherwise I'd drop the discussion - no need speaking with anyone that isn't an honest debater).

I cannot figure out if you are subconsciously doing this because you want to win the argument, or you just cannot stick to the subject.
Actually I wasn't sure what the heck you were trying to say here?


Originally posted by radagast
Evolution was only picked, because it was an existing theory in science. Any scientific theory would have done, because if it's a scientific theory, it will have a good deal of evidence to support what's hypothesized.
I realized that after I made the reply, but since I already had it in mind to say it, I decided to leave it as is.


The point you are diverting from, is that I expect the same level and type of evidence for any theory to be accepted in a scientific setting, whether it covers the sex lives of the horn toad, or concerns the existence of a god.
But it's not like somebody just came up with theory that God existed out of the blue. You can construe that as evidence too if you like. :wink:


So far, the only evidence you've mentioned (that I've personally seen) concerns a subjective experience, that cannot be seen or shown to a dispassionate investigator, or two that the concept to god has been around a while. The former isn't evidence that can be used by science, and the latter, using Occams razor, would have many, many simpler, more reasonable answers.
What would you have me do write a book about it and present it here for everybody's review?


Originally posted by radagast
One) The existence of an internal reality is irrelavent to what we are talking of, because of the next point;

two) Internal realities, as sources of scientific evidence, are outside the domain of science. They always have and always will, because they cannot be seen, check, and compared, by a dispassionate investigator.
Except for the fact (hence evidence) that we're speaking about the same animal here. You can apply this to your Occam's razor as well.


three) The need to look within, the idea that it should be investigated has been stated, by myself, as a noble endeavor Just Not One Science Is Suited To DO.
Just as with any endeavor, say like exploring the depths of the sea, you begin with the generalites (i.e., on the surface), and work your way in (hence down). Doesn't that at least suggest the beginnings of an approach? And why couldn't it be explored by means of psychology or anthropology and what not?


four) External reality having a purpose is an unfounded statement, i.e. not an agreed upon fact. Without the two of us agreeing upon it, then any debating conclusions you derive from it are unsupported, because the foundation of the debate was built upon sand.
And yet it's very clear that I couldn't exist without the confines (within context) of my physical body. If you stabbed me, and let the essence leak out (blood), then I would die. You cannot deny that there's a relationship between essence and form here. And hence another fact (evidence).
 
  • #45
Zero
Originally posted by Iacchus32



And yet it's very clear that I couldn't exist without the confines (within context) of my physical body. If you stabbed me, and let the essence leak out (blood), then I would die. You cannot deny that there's a relationship between essence and form here. And hence another fact (evidence).
See, this is where you screw up. Blood isn't 'essence', it is BLOOD! There is a physical, biological reason why you bleed to death. So, associating blood with your make-believe ideas is just wrong.
 
  • #46
462
0
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Actually I wasn't sure what the heck you were trying to say here?
Then I apologize for the diverting issues statement.

I will reiterate, so as to clarify.


1) You state Science should investigate 'gods' existence.

2) Science requires that all evidence be view and verified by all investigative parties, both those that accept a conclusion from the evidence and those unconvinced.

3) The evidence you keep bringing up doesn't match point (2), in that I can no more examine your evidence of god, andmore than someone who's never tasted a fruit can 'know' the taste of a mango, from someone else's description.


If this isn't clear enough, please point out which points are not.
 
  • #47
2,225
0
Originally posted by Zero
See, this is where you screw up. Blood isn't 'essence', it is BLOOD! There is a physical, biological reason why you bleed to death. So, associating blood with your make-believe ideas is just wrong.
No, I say blood because it's part of the internal makeup of the body, and hence essential. And let's not forget that the blood oxygenates our body and sustains it with nutrients.

Am just trying to use this as an example of how the form gets breeched (or corrupted) and the essence gets taken out of context, and the "life-form" (essence and the form) dies.
 
  • #48
Zero
Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, I say blood because it's part of the internal makeup of the body, and hence essential. And let's not forget that the blood oxygenates our body and sustains it with nutrients.

Am just trying to use this as an example of how the form gets breeched (or corrupted) and the essence gets taken out of context, and the "life-form" (essence and the form) dies.
And your example is wrong. That is your problem! You try to use faulty comparisons to 'prove' things that don't exist.
 
  • #49
2,225
0
Originally posted by radagast
Then I apologize for the diverting issues statement.

I will reiterate, so as to clarify.


1) You state Science should investigate 'gods' existence.

2) Science requires that all evidence be view and verified by all investigative parties, both those that accept a conclusion from the evidence and those unconvinced.

3) The evidence you keep bringing up doesn't match point (2), in that I can no more examine your evidence of god, andmore than someone who's never tasted a fruit can 'know' the taste of a mango, from someone else's description.


If this isn't clear enough, please point out which points are not.
And yet, which is what I was "attempting" to bring up, is what if you were to compare the experiences of those who have already shared the experience, and begin by comparing notes? And, while there may be nothing conclusive to it (although I have seen studies which were), you may discover a means by which to begin the approach.
 
  • #50
2,225
0
Originally posted by Zero
And your example is wrong. That is your problem! You try to use faulty comparisons to 'prove' things that don't exist.
As I said in the previous post to which you first replied, that in order to understand something, you begin with the generalities (i.e., what you do know) and work your way in (typically from the outside to the inside). So what is the difference between this and what I'm trying to tell you?
 

Related Threads on What would it take you to be convinced God existed?

  • Last Post
11
Replies
270
Views
25K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Replies
83
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • Last Post
18
Replies
444
Views
31K
Replies
31
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
100
Views
10K
Top