Evidence being observable events,
there is a shitload of recorded evidence of there being a God.
(
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:18,
Share,
Reply)
ORLY?
Suggestions?
EDIT: Actually, I'm about to go home. But I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut that there's nothing in the cupboard.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:23,
Share,
Reply)
The Bible is evidence for the existence of god?
Only in the same way that The Complete Works of Shakespeare is evidence of the existence of Prospero.
The Bible provides ample evidence that people can talk meaningfully about a deity; but it doesn't give us a reason to beleive that that deity exists. People can talk meaningfully about Prospero as well.
Nor does the fact that people take the Bible to be true reliable evidence that it is; again, we could imagine someone who thinks that Shakespeare provides accurate historical commentaries, though that person would be wrong, and the accuracy or otherwise of Shakespeare has nothing to do with whether or not he's believed.
Seriously: if you think that the Bible is a reliable guide to actual events or existing entities, you...
Gah. I can't even think of a suitable way to finish that sentence.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:42,
Share,
Reply)
Well I do not. not even a little bit
but if you feel that documented accounts are not evidence then you are a mong.
(
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 18:08,
Share,
Reply)
Documented accounts
need to be judged for reliability, not all evidence is equally valuable.
How reliable is a 2,000 year old document that has been translated, edited, redacted etc?
I'm going to go with "not very". Even if it was hot off the fucking press though, I'd still probably want more than a boring collection of anecdotes to convince me of the one true story of creation. I'm terribly cynical like that.
(
chart cat has an itch, Sun 28 Nov 2010, 15:43,
Share,
Reply)
Are you referring to biblical miracles?
That's not evidence. Humans are notoriously poor at recalling even fairly ordinary events, and can easily be fooled by conjuring tricks, not to mention the game of Chinese Whispers that goes on after the events are first reported. What evidence is there of God's existence *now*? Jesus' face in a peanut butter jar?
(
flatfrog Staring vacantly into space, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:31,
Share,
Reply)
What evidence is there of Australia *now*
for me, in my living room at home?
(
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:33,
Share,
Reply)
That's a great analogy
There is evidence for Australia now because you know people who have gone there, and you have seen pictures from there, you may even have visited there yourself. All the evidence points towards its existence. To believe that Australia *doesn't* exist, you'd have to state that all the evidence you have seen was made up. The TV broadcasts were faked, your trip was an elaborate simulation, the people were abducted. Sure it's *possible*, but it's ridiculously unlikely, and I would be quite within my rights to say 'I think you're wrong' and explain the reason. And if you wrote a book stating your belief, I would be entitled to say *that* was wrong too!
(
flatfrog Staring vacantly into space, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:51,
Share,
Reply)
Indeed.
Yet I have seen more evidence of a God than of Australia (And again, let me stress that I am not a religious nutter and add that I do believe in Australia).
Many more people I know have witnessed the existence of God, spoken with him and met him than have been to Australia.
I would question that to believe that Australia does not exist I would have to state the evidence. Indeed, the only situation where I would have to do so is if I were to be trying to convince others.
As Dawkins is.
(
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 18:16,
Share,
Reply)
Okay, I have to finish up here
Someone that wanted to deny the existence of Australia could be refuted by taking them to Australia and pointing to it. There is no such option for God. The fact that you cite the miracles of the Bible as evidence demonstrates this: you're right, only a miracle - that is to say, a verifiable violation of the laws of physics - could constitute evidence for God. But all such miracles seem to occur hundreds or thousands of years in the past, leaving only hearsay evidence - as I said before, notoriously unreliable.
What examples of modern-day miracles have been attested? People surviving accidents, and blatantly made-up morality tales.
Even if God existed, what evidence do we have that he wants our worship, or will punish gay people, or answers prayers, or in any way cares about our existence? It seems to me that he might just as easily punish us for refusing to accept the evidence in front of us. People can keep their faith, of course, maybe it is even a good thing (that's a separate question, independent of the existence question - and an interesting one, I think), but if it's such a weak thing that they feel offended by someone challenging it or asking them why they believe it, then they can fuck right off.
And with that, see you next time Dawkins pops up - we seem to do this a lot.
(
flatfrog Staring vacantly into space, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 19:16,
Share,
Reply)
Evidence for Australia
Earlier today I finished a call to a friend in Australia. I am 99.999%confident that I could call him tomorrow for example. But I can not prove 100% that anything exists beyond what I can see or hear. You could take me to Australia, you could show me it, make me smell, hear, see and touch and taste it. I am 99.999% confident I could return to England, but not 100%.
But I could stay there, or here and maybe feel 100% certain that Australia does exist, and try to convince everyone that it does, but not be able to do it until they too come and stay in Australia and touch, see, hear, smell and taste it.
But what is the quality of 100%? Is my trust, (do I have trust?) 'Yes', or 'No', more important? Is that '100%'? Effectively, am I either 'in' or 'out'?
Could I prove that writing this isn't part of some big Truman Show type game? That Like in The Others one day I'm going to realise I am a ghost, or living some weird existence where people are robots and interact with me, the sole human being? Am I effectively the sole human being, or sole soul? Is time a circular or spherical concept? What if I have no senses? What then of my world? What if I can't think and can't sense? What is my reality?
All I can do, now, is react or be inert to my senses and react or be inert to my thoughts. I can't speak for anyone else.
However, in my world, I believe that the people I interact with have recounted so many common things, and the people that have preceeded us have recounted so many common things, that I agree with the concept, definition and etymology of the word 'trust', and trust these commonalities. I agree with many (most? all?) scientific concepts that I can see or understand and trust. I even agree and trust many of our flawed application of scientific concepts - I believe that the theory behind the flight I am going to take works, and I believe in the human beings that also believe in it and am willing to accept that they built the aircraft to a certain standard and I'm happy with that standard, and that is my reality.
Is what we are talking about a question of how we think? I believe in God. I have evidence enough to satisfy myself that God exists, in what I feel and think and what I have seen. But I'm certain that I could not put this into words, certain that I couldn't satisfy and present evidence to other people who demand something (that I believe they would describe as) more 'tangible'. I understand that demand. I can see that my beliefs are maybe 'unsound' in that respect. And I'm not talking about differing standards of proof either, or 'values' versus 'beliefs'. And I can see how I would fail a test to say: 'there's God, he feels like X, he smells like Y, he looks like Z. If you throw him in the air, he comes down to earth'. And I can see how someone would say, 'well, if you can see the science and logic, and agree with testing and evidence (because I take testing of aircraft over belief, and I don't subscribe to excusing flight 'well, after all the testing is done, you are in God's hands') then how can you believe something we can't all sense, or 'prove'? I would say this:
I feel, and think that God exists. I don't use God to excuse the hitherto inexplicable, but believe that God explains both the inexplicable and the explicable. I don't believe in fairies, or horoscopes or anything like that. But I have felt God, think God and therefore believe in God. But I don't expect you to.
I doubt God will ever reveal himself as we expect.
(, Sat 27 Nov 2010, 18:56, Share, Reply)