Vorador

I am inclined to think the opposite, but I can under you having a different opinion.
Even if you think there is no good philosophical arguments for God, and no good physical evidence, what about an inner conviction that God exists? Many people would argue that it is sufficiently justifiable to believe in God based on an inner conviction of His existence regardless of rational evidence.

Inner conviction? I don't have one of those. I don't think so anyway. Is it somewhere near my spleen? I think mine's defective. Does it comes with a receipt?

Lack of rational evidence is lack of all evidence, as evidence is by nature rational. Thusly, no evidence = no foundation for belief.

I'd have to disagree. Though it depends what argument you are refering to, many of the arguments for the existence of God would prove the existence of God if you accepted their premises and logic.

WHAT logic? All I ever hear is "have faith" and I have never heard anything but. Theists try to make logical arguments, but when those arguments are torn up and thrown down, it all comes back to "well you should have faith". No. If I found a logical argument for the existance of any God I might be inclined to change my mind. But as it stands, I have never found one.

Surely there is more types of evidence than philosophical arguments and holy books? What about religious experiences, changed lives, miracles etc?

You mean Holy Books like the Ramayana? Yeah. There are lots of them. And no, there is no evidence in the Bible because it's one of many of these 'Holy Books'. The Bible brings nothing new and has no proof to back up it's wild claims.

Perhaps. If you see what you feel are contradictions in a holy book then it may well diminish any belief that the book is divinely dictated. However there are other forms of evidence such as Archeology etc that can be employed to evaluate some of the claims of a holy book in an objective manner.

Oh, right, such as everything being created at once. And the earth being a mere 6,000 years old. Yeah. Archaeology really proves your Bible right. If anything, it tends to prove it wrong. It proves species show up at LATER dates than others, it shows that species are OLDER than 6,000 years. Archaeology proves you wrong, not right.

I must disagree. It is for example possible to conclude that a deity whose absolute primary goal is to remove all suffering from the world and is absolutely and utterly all powerful does not exist given the observed fact of the existence of suffering. Similarly it is possible to conclude that a deity certainly does exist if one accepts the premises and logic of some of the philosophical arguments.

Again, show me your logic, show me your proof, and I'll show you a mind changed. But until then, stop babbling on about your so called 'logical arguments' you keep referring to when you continue to hack away at the same old, entirely illogical arguments. If you know of so many logical arguments for theistic belief, let's see them.

James AD

We could call that the fallacy of 35 terms.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Sidewinder,
True, but notice you can't really prove *anything* save for very intricate detailed things about mathematical/logical structures. For example: you can't *prove* that the chair you sit in at work will hold your weight next time you sit in it...yet you set in it regardless. You can't prove what the news says on TV is correct...yet you still use it to make daily decisions. You can't even prove that your mother or father love you....yet you know it.

In life...proof amounts to nothing. We live our entire lives through patterns and evidence.

Perhaps there is evidence, but it is difficult to see when one is biased, close-minded and presuppose the non-existence of God.

I disagree. It is a common fallacy to mistake 'minor discrepancy' for 'flagrant contradiction'. Many people think because the Bible is divinely inspired that it MUST be completely 100% free from any sort of discrepancies. Right? I mean if God wrote the thing and He's sposed to be perfect...right? Many completely forget that mankind wrote the book upon inspiration from God. As such the Bible is very human in its structure, verse and consitancy.

Frankly, I would be worried if there were NO discrepancies in the Bible...it would make a strong case that that whole thing was pledgerized.


Hey...we finally agree on something.:^)

In reality I think that more than the statement 'God is possible' can be gleamed from the world around us. I think there is much evidence to believe in God.


Thoughts and comments welcomed,


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

[ May 15, 2002: Message edited by: Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas ]</p>

Tercel

Correction, inner feelings have never been objective evidence for anything. But surely if someone feels a conviction that God exists then that's good enough for them, and we can reasonably accept that it might be reasonable for them to believe - even if we personally have no such conviction.

You're using the standard naive atheist logic here. Yes they're not all true. But that neither means that none are true, or that we are incapable of reasonably discerning their truth by careful investigation.

You're being closed minded here. The fact that people are fascinated with the supernatural and so make things up sometimes, does not justify the assumption that all the claims are made up or that they can all be ignored!

Laera

How does one discern the truth of a feeling/religious experience/miracle/hallucination? What is an appropriate test of these things that makes us capable of "reasonably discerning their truth?"

[ May 15, 2002: Message edited by: Laera ]</p>

Tercel

Do you believe the physical world exists? I sincerly hope you do. However what rational evidence do you have for believing that over Solipsism? If you have no rational evidence, then according to you, you have no foundation for that belief. Yet believing in the existence of the world is a fairly major part of any worldview on par with belief in a deity's existence. If you can believe in the physical world's existence over Solipsism without "rational evidence" why not God?

There are innumerable logical and reasonable arguments for belief, those who say "have faith" are in my experience those who simply don't know any arguments themselves.

Okay.

I accept evolution and a ~15 billion year old universe and I am a Christian. As far as I am concerned neither of these things has more than an incidental relevance to my faith.
I was not refering to Archaeology as proving such dubious claims as Young Earth Creationism, but rather things like the accuracy of the Gospels etc - a task which it has succeeded admirably in over the last century or so.

I don't have enough time right now to give a reasonable treatment to even one of the arguments. One of the other Christian posters might have time if you ask nicely.

Ron Singh

Thomas Reid:

1) No empirical evidence can prove the existence of the external world, other minds, or the reality of history, or other such basic things.
2) We do not find this epistemological dilemma debilitating on a daily basis because we assume that if our experiences are consistent and regular than we can navigate in "reality" whether it is ultimately illusory of not.
3) Consistency and regularity of personal experience is the key.
4) religious experience can also be regular and consistent, perhaps not to the same degree, but in the same way.
5) therefore, we have as much justification for assuming religious belief based upon experince as for assuming the reality of the external world or the existence of other minds.

~Your friendly neighborhood 15yr old Sikh.

Cite---
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/experience/Reid.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/experience/Reid.htm</a>
I obtained the information above from Metacrock's site. There's my citation.

[editted to cite my source, damn brainwashing english teachers]

[ May 15, 2002: Message edited by: sikh ]</p>

AJ113

This is why I think the subject is best approached on a personal level. I am not sure that there can be an appropriate test.

As everyone is different, the discernment should come from your peace of mind, or lack of it, when making decisions.

Tercel

Thanks sikh.

Vorador, I've got a little time now, so let's get started. Based on Reid's first points, I think we can construct another two arguments:
-----
1) No empirical evidence can prove the existence of the external world, other minds, or the reality of history, or other such basic things.
2) We do not find this epistemological dilemma debilitating on a daily basis because we assume that if our experiences are consistent and regular than we can navigate in "reality" whether it is ultimately illusory of not.
3) Consistency and regularity of personal experience is the key.
4) A personal and consistent deity as the ultimate reality will yield consistency and regularity of personal experience.
5) A non-personal naturalistic ultimate reality will be incidental to personal experiences and hence has no more reason to render personal experiences consistent and regular than not.
6) Probabilistically observed consistency and regularity in personal experience implies the existence of a personal and consistent deity as more probable than a naturalistic ultimate reality.
-----
1) No empirical evidence can prove the existence of the external world, other minds, or the reality of history, or other such basic things.
2) We do not find this epistemological dilemma debilitating on a daily basis because we assume that if our experiences are consistent and regular than we can navigate in "reality" whether it is ultimately illusory of not.
3) This assumption is a purely pragmatic one. Here we are assuming the accuracy and truth of extremely important propositions based on no evidence but only convenience.
4) If pragmatic assumptions are justifiable with respect to such major components of one's worldview, pragmatic assumptions are justifiable with respect to the existence of the deity.
5) It is pragmatic to assume the existence of the deity. (*)
6) Hence it is justifiable to assume the existence of the deity.

(*) I imagine that the premise that is most problematic in the above is number 5 - that it is pragmatic to assume the existence of the deity. I would defend that with:
a) Pascal's Wager. Most religions teach that if one doesn't believe in the exisetence of the deity then bad consequences follow. Hence a lack of belief in the deity if the deity did in fact exist is probably very bad. Conversely there seems to be no compelling reason why belief in the deity if the deity didn't exist should be a bad thing. Hence belief in the deity is pragmatic.
b) Belief in the deity gives a sufficient philosophical foundation for morals. Lack of belief in the deity fails to give (or at best gives an extremely questionable) philosophical foundation for morals. Morals are pragmatically necessary. Hence a sound philosophical foundation for morality is pragmatically necessary. Hence belief in the deity is (perhaps probabilistically) pragmatic.
c) Many people find belief in the deity give a meaning to life and gives answers to similar such important questions. While some maintain that with a lack of belief in the deity people can still give "their own meaning" to their lives, this also seems to lack a sound philosophical foundation, and in general life without the existence of the deity would appear absurd and meaningless. Hence belief in the deity is pragmatic.
d) Many people use their belief in the deity and a subsequent afterlife as an emotional crutch, so to speak, to help them during emotional strife. Lack of belief in the deity, provides no such crutch (save perhaps the oft voiced idea that atheists are "facing reality"). Hence belief in the deity is pragmatic.
-----

Tercel

We can investigate such things as whether the people who claim to have seen/felt them could be lying, or deceiving themselves, or mentally unbalenced, or not in a sufficient position to know the truth of that which they are telling us. We do this sort of thing all the time whenever anyone tells us anything, so most of us are pretty good at it. (Although some people seem to leave their critical thinking behind when the claim gets sufficiently impressive)
We can also in some cases bring scientific examination to bear on the subject. eg a healing "miracle" - does the alleged miracle have a simple medical explanation, is it totally and utterly inexplicable, somewhere in between, or is there not enough evidence to say anything for sure?
If it's our own religious experience we are considering here, then unless we have some reason to doubt our sanity we surely must accept it. We live our lives by accepting our experiences in general as corresponding with factual reality. Unless you can present a justifiable reason for why any religious experiences should be an exception to this rule, there would seem to be no basis for doubting any religious experiences any more than me doubting that I am sitting typing at a computer.