K

SOMMS:

If you'll recall, I said that it was compatible in that the evidence was not contradictory to the conclusion. You weren't satisfied with that because the lack of a sandwich in front of me is also not contradictory to the conclusion that martians stole it to power their spaceship. That's when you launched into the whole "my evidence suggests the existence of God" thing.

Once again you try to have your belief evaluated in a vacuum. I guess it's rational to believe that 5 is the only odd number because it isn't divisible by 2.

If 5 were the only odd number, then it wouldn't be divisible by 2. The fact that 5 isn't divisible by two is not incompatible with 5 being the only odd number. See what fun "rational" beliefs we can make with your myopic formula?

I've said that your belief is as rational as the beliefs in Thor, Heaven's Gate, and astrology when those are based on personal evidence similar to yours. Since you don't accept this answer, I assume that means you find these other beliefs irrational.

That's all? Then apparently it is rational to believe that a UFO is waiting behind Hale-Bopp and in the teachings of Scientology and in astrology. As long as someone can easily interpret the personal evidence they've seen as vindicating their belief, then the belief is rational. I don't think you really believe this. Otherwise you would have agreed long ago that the beliefs of the astrologers, prehistoric dolphin channnelers, and Heaven's Gate cultist were rational.

That didn't answer the question. Do you believe that your evidence suggests that God exists?

You said at one point that it did and at another that it didn't. Which is it?

Does personal evidence suggest the truth of the belief, or is your belief based on evidence that doesn't suggest the truth of your belief?

I don't know how many more times we can go over this. Let's try one more time.

You claim that your belief is rational because of personal evidence. If that is accepted as true, then any belief that is based on personal evidence just like yours is also rational. There are many beliefs out there (that we both know are irrational) that are based on personal evidence just like yours. So, personal evidence is not sufficient to ground a rational belief. Your personal evidence doesn't get some special treatment just because you want to believe that it does.

Yes, I've done that many times (in fact, I've done it in the paragraph above), but you didn't seem to grasp the concept without concrete examples.

Now can you explain why your personal evidence should be considered somehow different than that of all those who have the SAME EVIDENCE YOU DO for the irrational beliefs listed?

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,
And that's when you failed to explain exactly how

-The marked and verifiable prosperity in my life where before there was none. In terms of finances, health, friends, family, education, career and physical, mental and social achievement. One could draw a line on the calendar accurate to within probably 2 months of when I drew close to God.

-Large amounts of answered prayer. Some of the more notable: Father dying on hospital table and being the only student to finish a 3 day/3 night coding challenge.

-When I pray I feel God's presence.

-When I listen closely, at times I can hear God's voice.


does not in some way suggest that God exists.




In fact every time I ask this question...you retreat to 'Well if your belief in God is rational then that means others beliefs...' which, I sure you'd agree, is not actually answering the above question.

Again. I am not asking you how you will personally deal with the ramifications of my rational God belief (how you must regard this and other beliefs in relation to your world view). I am only asking 'Given the evidence how is it not rational?'. Replying with 'Well IF that's rational THEN all this other stuff may be as well' just isn't addressing the question K.








Yes I do...for me, since have no evidence for them. However, it may or may not be rational for others to believe.



Absolutely.


I (and everyone else on the planet) am claiming that 'evidence suggests truth'...I am not saying 'evidence implies truth'.



Uh...K, no you haven't. You didn't answer the question WITHOUT bringing up A-UFO's, dolphins or any claim other than the one at hand.


Can you simply address the issue at hand K? Can you tell me why it is irrational without bringing up some other belief I am not making a claim about?

Yes or no?


If 'yes' then 'why'?


If 'no' then you must concede that you aren't considering the evidence at all...you are merely assuming my belief is irrational.




Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Jobar

SOMMS:
Can you tell me why it is irrational without bringing up some other belief I am not making a claim about?

Whatever reply K makes, I will tell you why it's irrational. You are not taking into account all the possible alternate explanations for your experiences. None of the things you have described are in any way proof positive for the existence of God. Entirely natural events may make it appear that something extraordinary is shaping your life, when in fact chance is all that's happening. Even if you had won the lottery the day after you converted, given the numbers of people who convert to religion, and the numbers of lottery winners, it's more probable that luck and not God's reward caused you to win the lottery.

You are counting the hits and ignoring the misses, then attributing the hits to an entirely unevidenced agency.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Jobar,


Thanks for your comments. Especially considering that the last (5?) pages of this topic were probably very tedious to wade through.

Alas, this is a valid objection...one that addresses the actual case at hand. Essentially you are saying that there may be alternative explanations of the evidence I've witnessed. Fair enough. Let me clear up a few things though before we proceed.


First, granted you were only inciting an analogy, but my belief in God is no way based on a lottery. Again...I know this was just an example. However, I mean to point out that I am focusing on the evidence I actually have witnessed not hypothetical possiblities (which in this case are known to be random).

Second, I don't require 'proof positive' to believe something is true. Perhaps you do. That is fine...for you. However, the question at hand isn't if your disbelief in God is rational (I believe it is)...it is if my belief in God is rational. In the same way I (not necessarily you) don't require proof that my parents love me or that there is milk at the store...I don't require proof of God.

Third, while there may be alternative explanations for...

-The marked and verifiable prosperity in my life where before there was none. In terms of finances, health, friends, family, education, career and physical, mental and social achievement. One could draw a line on the calendar accurate to within probably 2 months of when I drew close to God.

-Large amounts of answered prayer. Some of the more notable: Father dying on hospital table and being the only student to finish a 3 day/3 night coding challenge.

-When I pray I feel God's presence.

-When I listen closely, at times I can hear God's voice.

...(like I am crazy, it was just random chance, someone is playing a trick on me) the existence of God is certainly a valid explanation for the above. Morever, if one does not assume a priori that God doesn't exist...God is a reasonable explanation for the above.




Now, my response to you given the above thoughts would be this: Given that I (not necessarily you) don't a priori assume God doesn't exist, would you agree that God is a valid explanation of the things I have witnessed.




Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Selsaral

I, predictably, would say human nature is an exponentially more powerful explanation than any of the ones you listed.

Jobar

Selsaral is right, SOMMS. Which is more reasonable- that you are experiencing a natural run of excellent luck in your personal fortunes; or that the all-powerful, eternal Creator of the entire universe is raining down blessings upon you, simply because you believe he exists (despite a complete lack of objective evidence that he does in fact exist?)

We are all prone to misinterpret subjective experiences. I certainly do. This fact makes me cautious about assigning causes without plentiful evidence, of a sort which others can see and corroborate. It may be, for you, that attributing your positive experiences to God gives you personal satisfaction, and even social reinforcement (through the support of your fellow Christians, who *want* to believe Goddidit.)

But to continue to believe this, you must ignore vastly more probable naturalistic explanations. And that, I put to you, is irrational.

K

SOMMS:

I explained exactly why is doesn't suggest that God exists. It doesn't suggest that God exists because THE EXACT SAME PERSONAL EVIDENCE exists for entities that are incompatible with your God. Therefore, personal evidence in general is not sufficient to suggest the existence of one of these entities. And you've given no reason why your personal evidence should be treated as any better than anyone else's.

It is perfectly legitimate and appropriate to examine what a similar treatment of the evidence implies for other beliefs when determining if a belief is rational.

Does the fact that 5 is not evenly divisible by 2 suggest that 5 is the only odd number? Certainly not when you consider all of the other numbers that aren't divisible by 2.

It's ridiculous to evalutate the coherence of a belief in a vacuum of other information.

It it does answer your question. It shows how your evidence does not suggest the truth of your belief. If it did, the result would be that evidence that is fundamentally the same both suggests the truth and falsehood of your belief.

If you really believe the rationality of a belief should be evaluated in a vacuum, then please tell me how it is irrational to believe that 5 is the only odd number since it isn't evenly divisible by 2, WITHOUT USING INFORMATION ABOUT ANY OTHER NUMBER.

Or, perhaps you believe this is rational?

This has nothing to do with the ramifications of your belief to my world view. You can also believe that 5 is the only odd number if you want. I'm just pointing out that your belief isn't rational.

That may be true, but that isn't what I replied. My point was that if your belief is rational, then all this other stuff MUST ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT QUESTION be considered rational.

Here is why (again).

1. You claim that your personal evidence makes your belief rational.

2. There is personal evidence exactly like yours for all of this other stuff.

3. These beliefs must therefore be rational - UNLESS your personal evidence should somehow be treated differently than everyone else's. But you've already said that you didn't want any special pleading (something that would undermine the rationality of your belief).

I never said it was rational for YOU to believe these other things. I said that if your personal evidence makes your belief rational, then the exact same personal evidence of a believer in anything makes that belief rational. There is no "may or may not". That would imply that personal evidence alone is insufficient to make a belief rational - which has been my position all along.

Do you believe that evidence exactly like yours implies that there is a UFO behind Hale-Bopp waiting to whisk properly castrated and dead people to a place of eternal bliss? Remember, special pleading for your evidence undermines your position.

At one point you emphatically stated that your evidence didn't suggest truth. In fact you felt the need to repeat it for emphasis. I'm sure you can see why I would like to get this point nailed down.

As soon as you tell me why it is irrational to believe that 5 is the only odd number without bringing up any other belief that I am not making a claim about.

If you insist that your belief must be evaluated in the absense of information except your evidence and your belief, then we are simply using two different definitions of the word rational. This is another thing I've been claiming numerous times.



My definition of rational requires that a belief be coherent with the rest of reality. If certain evidence suggests the truth of a proposition, then the exact same evidence for another propostion also suggests it's truth. And both being true should not lead to logical contradictions.

Since your defintion of rational doesn't require this consistency, we are arguing apples and oranges.

However, my definition categorizes astrology, Heaven's Gate UFO's, and prehistoric dolphin channelling as irrational. Your's clearly does not.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Selsaral and Jobar,

Selsaral...how or why is 'human nature' a more powerful explanation of the evidence?


Jobar...I think it would be more reasonable for you to believe it may be luck as I don't believe in luck. Also, I don't believe that God is doing these things simply because I believe he exists. That would be silly.




Thoughts and comments welcomed.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

K,

And has been pointed out many times before...other gods are not incompatible with God. Other people may (or may not) have witnessed evidence for other gods. It could be the case...I don't know. I do know I haven't witnessed evidence for other gods.

Moreover, saying 'personal evidence' is not sufficient is simply wrong. I have 'personal evidence' of gravity, conservation of momentum and the second law of thermodynamics. Are you claiming my belief in these is also irrational?







First, as has been pointed out numerous times before...existence of other gods is not incompatible with the existence of God. Thus your entire objection fails. You are essentially claiming if there is evidence for other beliefs then my belief can't be true. This is a fallacy.

Second and most important: this is completely beside the point. We aren't discussing whether or not my belief is true, we are discussing whether or not my belief is rational. That is do I have some reason for believing what I do?

And as has been shown, I most certainly do have a reason to believe what I do. You have completely failed to show why the evidence is not consistent with my belief...or that the evidence does not suggest my belief. Jobar and Selsaral have valid points...they actually addressed this issue by saying 'it could be chance'. Notice, however, that they didn't simply dismiss the evidence out of hand. They didn't say 'SOMMS...your evidence CAN'T support your belief in God'. Do you see this difference?


If you wish to simply dismiss the evidence then there is no reason to have a discussion. When I asked 'Why do you think my belief is irrational?' you could have simply said 'I don't acknowledge the evidence.' We would have been done with this conversation long ago.







A few more notes...
So it seems that we more or less agree about the above.



Given the above can you see why I hold that my belief in God is rational?


Then your belief in atomic particles is irrational. There is evidence for Bohr's model of the atom. There is also evidence for the quantum mechanical model of the atom. These two models are contradictory with each other. Thus your belief in either one is irrational.


Also, your belief in matter itself is irrational...as there is evidence that matter is a wave...and that matter is a particle. However, these are contradictory of each other...therefore your belief in matter is irrational.


Also, your belief in time and space is irrational...as there is huge amounts of evidence for General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics...yet these two theories are contradictory....therefore your belief in spacetime is irrational.

Ad infintum.




Thoughts and comments welcomed,



Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Selsaral

SOMMS, the 'human nature' argument is what I have been spewing about in our latest discussion here in this thread. I'll quote a few previous posts I made. It's scattershot and not very well-written, but it manages to get some of my arguments out. The primer is that humans are, by nature, superstitious and gullible creatures with a proven record of believing in a huge amount of ridiculous things. Furthermore, a study of human behavior (I came at it from the anthropological side) shows humans of all faiths have equal levels of assuredness and devotion to their particular religion. When you see these drastically different religions (Islam, shamanism, ancestor worship, psychedelic communion with the spirit world, etc) being practiced with equal seriousness by human beings, you are seeing evidence that having profound religious experiences is a natural and common feature of human behavior.

I'd like to elaborate a little bit too. I've noticed a lot of christians here on this board will flat out admit that a major motivation for their belief is emotional, wishful thinking. In one of Tom Clancy's books Jack Ryan is asked why he believes in god, and he answers basically 'Because I can't accept that this life is meaningless and I cease to exist after I die'. (I don't necessarily accuse you of such things SOMMS, but I hear this regularly and see such ideas are rampant among people of many religions). These sentiments set off huge warning bells in my mind. They show that the human mind, greatly influenced by emotion, has a vested interest in religious thought, because it provides such powerful rewards to believers (immortality in paradise, punishing all wrongdoers etc). This is profoundly suspect in my eyes.

The fact that religion exists everywhere humans are, spanning back into prehistory, and each religion so conveniently mirrors the cultural and physical environment of the people where it exists is another big indicator to me. (For instance there are no sacred cows in the Amazon jungle or in China). The way religions develop and change is much like the way languages develop and change as they are acted upon by the changing cultural scene and external cultural influences. (I love the study of early judaism and christanity; how judaism slowly emerged from polytheism and how early christianity borrowed heavily from nearby religions, incorporating concepts from many different sources).

The final piece of evidence I'll stress is the concept of indoctrination. I don't mean it in a brainwash type fashion, but as the method by which humans learn about their culture. This happens during childhood, and instills the morals and customs of the culture into the mind. I find it highly suspicious that in the vast majority of cases, humans adopt the religion of the culture they were raised in. This shows that it isn't necessarily the fact and truth of a particular supernatural phenomena that induces religious belief, it's at least partly the cultural indoctrination that all children experience as they grow up.

I think one place my 'human nature' argument would fall apart is if EVERY supernatural phenomena claimed throughout all cultures and religions actually exists/occured. If you think most occured, or some, the argument will become less or more convincing. If you claimed you and those of your religion alone are the only ones who truely experience the supernatural, then the argument would be less convincing, although parts of it would be undiminished (and I think you'd set off another argument...I'd certainly dispute such as assertion). I also think my amateur study of anthropology adds some backing evidence that makes this argument more convincing. I tried to present some of why I find that supportive here, but I didn't go into it very thoroughly. (Read 'Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches' if you are interested, it's an easy read and a great book.) So if you hadn't studied lots of other cultures or religions you might find this argument less convincing (or parts of it). What other holes can be poked in it?