Why the low bar for evidence of gods?

[james bond]

I'm trying hard to resist the temptation to just dismiss theists in general as irrational loons. The best way I see to not go down that road is to talk through the things that are pushing me to that conclusion. Do you have any better ideas?

It just strange to me that atheists continue to ask questions like this thread and then answer their own questions. Aren't you the one being irrational and looney tunes with the assumptions you make? All the answers are not found in the natural and physical world. And when the atheists have no answers in the natural and physical world, they go to metaphysical as if it's natural. It's hypocrisy at it's worst. It's just different philosophies, worldview, cosmology, religion and science. Why can't you accept that?

 

[Father Heathen]

It has been a proven fact, that it wouldn't matter how much evidence there is, unto which there is evidence in the supportive of Christ Jesus
But yet it's the Same O, Same O, thing with Atheists, can you prove this or that.
It doesn't matter how much evidence to a Atheist you will have, They will still refuse to accept the evidence provided.

See, this is the "low hanging fruit" that the OP was talking about.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I don't think you have any however since from the Bible prophecy thread fiasco, it's unclear to most if you understand the concept of evidence at all.

My evidence may not be the kind of evidence that your looking for, But none the less, it's my evidence, but if most can not handle the evidence that I put forth,Oh well, I don't know what to say for you or them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

See, this is the "low hanging fruit" that the OP was talking about.

I wasn’t the one to say “low-hanging fruit.” The issues I was talking about in the OP apply to everything from arguments on RF to Aquinas and Anselm.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Considering the importance that gods play in people's lives, why is the bar so low when we're talking about evidence for them?

There is a strong tendency on the part of people to believe what they want to believe. For many, if they have to lower the bar to accomplish this, so be it.

 

[Sunstone]

There is a strong tendency on the part of people to believe what they want to believe. For many, if they have to lower the bar to accomplish this, so be it.

I agree. So long as my beliefs don't result in unjustified harm to anyone, what's the difference? That's why I feel quite confident in regarding myself as a Hawlings level genius on the sole grounds my mother said I was "smart" that day she was a bit feverish.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Considering the importance that gods play in people's lives, why is the bar so low when we're talking about evidence for them?

I can't count the number of times that I've seen a theist respond to an atheist with some version of "yeah? Well, you don't know that God doesn't exist!" ... as if not being able to completely reject the possibility that gods might exist somewhere in some form justifies them devoting their lives to their God.

And the typical arguments for gods don't do much better. Think of the classical arguments for God: cosmological arguments, teleological arguments, ontological arguments, etc.: even if you set aside their logical problems, if they actually did what they set out to do, all they'd be really saying, effectively, is something like "if you take this set of factors into account, then you should conclude that there's a god out there somewhere."

But theistic-based religion is more than just the intellectual acceptance of the idea that a god exists; it's often full-blown devotion of a person's life to the existence of a god or gods and ideas that flow from it (e.g. living your life the way your god(s) want you to live it, or giving up significant time and money for worship of the god(s) and support of his/her/its/their church/clergy/etc.).

For many theists, their devotion to their god is akin to the devotion of a marriage. I don't know about other people, but if someone asks me to show that my wife exists, I can show them all sorts of evidence: pictures, stories of things she did, eyewitnesses who have also seen her, etc... I could even produce her herself and you could hear her say personally that yes, she really is my wife.

What I wouldn't do if I was asked to prove that my wife exists is make arguments like "well, sometimes when I wake up, the cats have already been fed, so it stands to reason someone lives in my house with me." And even that argument for the existence of my wife meets a higher bar than what theists typically shoot for when they try to prove their gods.

So what gives? Based on the level of discourse that I see around gods, even if I granted every one of the theists' arguments for the existence of their god(s), I'd only be at "okay - I can intellectually assent to the idea that God is possible"... or maybe with a really good argument get to "God is probable." I certainly wouldn't be anywhere near "I accept with my heart and soul that God exists, and that this is how he wants me to live my life, and I should give up a year of my life to go on a mission trip to convince other people that he exists."

Why the disparity? If the existence of gods is really an open question - and the level of discourse that I see suggests it is - then how is devotion to a theistic religion ever justified?

Why is evidence of god so important? Is there not something to be said of the experience of god?

Let's say hypothetically that you have an experience...a dream for the sake of this discussion. You create a post on this forum about it, describing the setting, your involvement, and all of the details of this dream. But you have no evidence that you had this dream or evidence of any of the events you describe. Does your inability to provide evidence of this dream somehow negate your experience?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I agree. So long as my beliefs don't result in unjustified harm to anyone, what's the difference? That's why I feel quite confident in regarding myself as a Hawlings level genius on the sole grounds my mother said I was "smart" that day she was a bit feverish.

With all due respect to your mother, one should never lower the bar so low that it becomes a tripping hazard.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why is evidence of god so important? Is there not something to be said of the experience of god?

Let's say hypothetically that you have an experience...a dream for the sake of this discussion. You create a post on this forum about it, describing the setting, your involvement, and all of the details of this dream. But you have no evidence that you had this dream or evidence of any of the events you describe. Does your inability to provide evidence of this dream somehow negate your experience?

There's a difference between an experience and the attribution of that experience.

You may have had some experience, but without some sort of justification - i.e. evidence - you can't reasonably make the jump from "I had an experience" to "I had an experience of a god." To justifiably make that leap, you'd need to be able to answer - at least for yourself - questions like "how do I know it was a god?" and "how do I know it wasn't something else?" Answering those questions still needs some sort of evidence.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The old analogy- rocks on the deserted island beach spelling 'help', you deduce an intelligent agent despite there being no direct evidence, because the mere possibility clears the bar far better than the random action of the waves.

This is no good, and you know it. What is the difference between the formulated rocks and those that might be cast up on the beach by the waves? Why did you choose the rocks formed into words and not the rocks that wash up on shore due to the waves? in your opinion isn't God as responsible for BOTH? And yet... why do you not EVER use the rocks that wash up on shore in your analogy? Why isn't that good enough for the analogy? I believe it is because even you understand the difference enough to know that rocks being randomly strewn on a beach PROVES NOTHING.

 

[sealchan]

Considering the importance that gods play in people's lives, why is the bar so low when we're talking about evidence for them?

I can't count the number of times that I've seen a theist respond to an atheist with some version of "yeah? Well, you don't know that God doesn't exist!" ... as if not being able to completely reject the possibility that gods might exist somewhere in some form justifies them devoting their lives to their God.

And the typical arguments for gods don't do much better. Think of the classical arguments for God: cosmological arguments, teleological arguments, ontological arguments, etc.: even if you set aside their logical problems, if they actually did what they set out to do, all they'd be really saying, effectively, is something like "if you take this set of factors into account, then you should conclude that there's a god out there somewhere."

But theistic-based religion is more than just the intellectual acceptance of the idea that a god exists; it's often full-blown devotion of a person's life to the existence of a god or gods and ideas that flow from it (e.g. living your life the way your god(s) want you to live it, or giving up significant time and money for worship of the god(s) and support of his/her/its/their church/clergy/etc.).

For many theists, their devotion to their god is akin to the devotion of a marriage. I don't know about other people, but if someone asks me to show that my wife exists, I can show them all sorts of evidence: pictures, stories of things she did, eyewitnesses who have also seen her, etc... I could even produce her herself and you could hear her say personally that yes, she really is my wife.

What I wouldn't do if I was asked to prove that my wife exists is make arguments like "well, sometimes when I wake up, the cats have already been fed, so it stands to reason someone lives in my house with me." And even that argument for the existence of my wife meets a higher bar than what theists typically shoot for when they try to prove their gods.

So what gives? Based on the level of discourse that I see around gods, even if I granted every one of the theists' arguments for the existence of their god(s), I'd only be at "okay - I can intellectually assent to the idea that God is possible"... or maybe with a really good argument get to "God is probable." I certainly wouldn't be anywhere near "I accept with my heart and soul that God exists, and that this is how he wants me to live my life, and I should give up a year of my life to go on a mission trip to convince other people that he exists."

Why the disparity? If the existence of gods is really an open question - and the level of discourse that I see suggests it is - then how is devotion to a theistic religion ever justified?

In all epistemologies you have unproven axioms and you have truths derived from them via some communal process for determining truth based on the former.

Axioms are self-evident and the attempt to prove them results in self-reference issues and mutual misunderstandings. But all truth systems have them.

Gods provide deep subjective value to a person who finds reward in such investments. Science is about objective truths which are truths that come with steps to reproduce. It is notoriously difficult to create steps to reproduce for subjective truths.

Those who try to prove their faith are really running against a grain of truth, one which some religions would even warn against. The biggest symptom of this misstep is literalism. Spiritual truths run deepest and bwgin to show their objectivity when they are understood metaphorically. But in their application to an individual life we cannot help but nurture a personal, non-symbolic feeling-value toward those spiritual ideas.

 

[QuestioningMind]

For the positive value derived from doing so.
Only those that are likely, and are likely to effect us, matter to us. Only those that pose an effect bear reasonable consideration.

Interesting. So apparently truth is of secondary concern to you. You don't mind deluding yourself as long as you can see some positive value in doing so. Personally I prefer to face reality head on. I'd rather learn how to deal with my fears of the unknown instead of making up comforting fairy tales to ease my fears.

 

[james bond]

Let me close my comments on this topic by saying how can something as important as my soul and spirit be a low bar?

"We struggle to believe in the spiritual world, but which world existed first, the physical of the spiritual world?" Answer in Job 38:4-7

Don't mess with Job. We can't compare ourselves to him.

And yet we face a battle with a real enemy and that is Satan and his demons. Is there a picture that comes into your mind when you think of him? Does he want you to fear him or embrace him?

Satan leads us away from God in order to have his power and influence over us. He is very real and a danger in our world.

"Why does the nature of the world stand opposed to God?" Answers in 1 John 2:15-17; James 4:2-4

"Why is Satan able to use it so effectively against us?" Answers in 1 John 5:19; Luke 4:6; Ephesians 2:1-2

 

[Jumi]

I think it's the same as with any belief, it depends on the person and their preferences, what level of evidence they desire for it.

 

[atanu]

Funny picture. We all need a reminder once in awhile, not to take ourselves TOO seriously.
Thanks!

I think he is ready to explode because he likes the cute Young Earth Creationist sitting next to him.

No. He is holding fart.

 

[SalixIncendium]

There's a difference between an experience and the attribution of that experience.

You may have had some experience, but without some sort of justification - i.e. evidence - you can't reasonably make the jump from "I had an experience" to "I had an experience of a god." To justifiably make that leap, you'd need to be able to answer - at least for yourself - questions like "how do I know it was a god?" and "how do I know it wasn't something else?" Answering those questions still needs some sort of evidence.

By what does one measure what is justifiable (or even what to look for as evidence) as it relates to a "god experience" if one has never had such an experience?

 

[atanu]

... then you should conclude that there's a god out there somewhere."..

Are you sure that theists say that? Do they say "there's a god out there somewhere"?

I do not say this. I can show that my scripture does not teach this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you sure that theists say that? Do they say "there's a god out there somewhere"?

They don’t say this; that was my point: it’s not what any theist says about their own beliefs, but it’s the best that arguments for theism - e.g. Aquinas’s Five Ways - seem to be able to do.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

By what does one measure what is justifiable (or even what to look for as evidence) as it relates to a "god experience" if one has never had such an experience?

The “if one has never had such an experience” is irrelevant... and begging the question a bit. How does a person even know that they’ve had a “god experience” if we can’t decide what would qualify as a “god experience?”

I’ve raised this before, but attributing an experience to a particular cause is really a three-step process:

1. I experienced something.
2. The experience is external to my mind... i.e. it’s not a hallucination or a delusion.
3. The best explanation for my experience is external cause _____.

The only step that the person experiencing the experience is the best judge of is step 1 - I can’t climb into your head and confirm that you’re seeing what you claim to see.

It’s often the case that someone else (e.g. a mental health professional) is a better judge of step 1 than the experienced.

Absolutely anyone should be able to judge step 3 by starting with what the experiencer says happened in step 1, pull in any other relevant evidence, and make a logical deduction of the cause. They can never be absolutely certain that it’s true because there’s no way to confirm that the experiencer isn’t lying, but they can point out errors of logic: “you say that you experienced A, B & C because of cause X, but you can’t logically get to X from A, B & C”

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This is no good, and you know it. What is the difference between the formulated rocks and those that might be cast up on the beach by the waves? Why did you choose the rocks formed into words and not the rocks that wash up on shore due to the waves? in your opinion isn't God as responsible for BOTH? And yet... why do you not EVER use the rocks that wash up on shore in your analogy? Why isn't that good enough for the analogy? I believe it is because even you understand the difference enough to know that rocks randomly strewn on a beach PROVES NOTHING.

So if you see HELP written in rocks on the beach, even if deserted, no sign of any person ever being there before- you default to the random action of the waves as the best explanation?

why not? you don't need me to answer the question for you