Did you see God?

[Guy Threepwood]

I have my own personal experiences as reasons for believing in God, but I would never trot them out as if they were empirical experimental evidence of the existence of God.

That would be my point yes; your own personal experience is the most empirical evidence you have- I think we agree?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But if you had a personal experience wouldn't I just have to take your word for it?

That is what I saying, don't take mine, go get your own!

 

[Axe Elf]

That would be my point yes; your own personal experience is the most empirical evidence you have- I think we agree?

It is the most empirical, yes; but it is also the most subjective--and as I was saying originally, when unbelievers ask for evidence of God, they are usually referring to objective, replicable scientific evidence, not unsubstantiated personal internal states.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It is the most empirical, yes; but it is also the most subjective--and as I was saying originally, when unbelievers ask for evidence of God, they are usually referring to objective, replicable scientific evidence, not unsubstantiated personal internal states.

personal experiences can sometimes be replicable.. but I do take your point, it's a matter of perspective.

Then again some truths inherently are best verified by personal experience, and I think this is one of them.

not to say there is no objective scientific evidence also..

 

[Axe Elf]

personal experiences can sometimes be replicable.. but I do take your point, it's a matter of perspective.

Then again some truths inherently are best verified by personal experience, and I think this is one of them.

not to say there is no objective scientific evidence also..

Well, that's what I was saying to the OP when you joined in to champion the empiricism of subjective personal experience--I was saying that if they have objective scientific evidence, then reveal it to the world--we are all most anxious to see it.

Saying that some truths inherently are best verified by personal experience is just another way of saying that in some matters, there is legitimate room for a difference of opinion (as to what IS the truth). In the absence of objective, rational evidence, the existence of God is one such matter, but the OP is claiming that there IS such evidence.

So... let's see it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well, that's what I was saying to the OP when you joined in to champion the empiricism of subjective personal experience--I was saying that if they have objective scientific evidence, then reveal it to the world--we are all most anxious to see it.

Saying that some truths inherently are best verified by personal experience is just another way of saying that in some matters, there is legitimate room for a difference of opinion (as to what IS the truth). In the absence of objective, rational evidence, the existence of God is one such matter, but the OP is claiming that there IS such evidence.

So... let's see it.

em·pir·i·cal
əmˈpirik(ə)l/
adjective

1. based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
   
   synonyms: [] firsthand, hands-on;
   observed, , seen,[]

Yes, I think first hand experience is the most empirical, but of course only for oneself.

I can't speak for Gerry but he/she seems to agree with me, that this personal experience is available to all. But, like many experiences, it can take some effort on your behalf to expose yourself to it first,- or you will miss it.

I would go further and say there is plenty more objective evidence also, but that still leaves room for for it being misinterpreted...

Ultimately, it's only logical that God does not appear to prove himself to everybody each day in the sky with a megaphone, that he would wish to be found, by those who wish to find him

 

[Axe Elf]

em·pir·i·cal
əmˈpirik(ə)l/
adjective

1. based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
   
   synonyms: [] firsthand, hands-on;
   observed, , seen,[]

I'm not sure why you're harping on this. You're the only one who has touted the empiricism of personal experience, but no one has disagreed with you in any way.

Personal experience is indeed the most purely empirical evidence there is--but it is also the most subjective and unreliable. So it doesn't really count as the sort of evidence that the OP (Gerry) claims.

I can't speak for Gerry but he/she seems to agree with me, that this personal experience is available to all.

Gerry said, "I have heard it said by some people that they would believe in God if there was only some evidence.

I propose that there is evidence."

I pointed out that people who say that are typically referring to objective, rational evidence.

Unreliable subjective evidence of the sort provided by personal experience does not qualify as the objective, rational evidence requested by those who request it.

I would go further and say there is plenty more objective evidence also

Ok, so I'm still requesting... let's see it.

Ultimately, it's only logical that God does not appear to prove himself to everybody each day in the sky with a megaphone, that he would wish to be found, by those who wish to find him

It's really a little more complicated than that. God reveals Himself to those whom He has chosen to reveal Himself--but only because He has chosen to reveal Himself to them. Any "wish" or "effort" to find God was predestined by God from the dawn of time, and not really a choice by the person to whom God has chosen to reveal Himself.

But of course none of that rises to the level of objective, scientific evidence.

 

[ArtieE]

personal experiences can sometimes be replicable.. but I do take your point, it's a matter of perspective.

Then again some truths inherently are best verified by personal experience, and I think this is one of them.

not to say there is no objective scientific evidence also..

Personal experience is of course worthless when trying to establish objective truth and says nothing about reality. It doesn't matter how many people have personal experiences where they say they have been abducted by aliens if no objective evidence can be found. It doesn't matter how many people have personal experiences where they say they remember many previous lives if no objective evidence of reincarnation can be found. It doesn't matter how many Indians have Near Death Experiences where they say they meet Yama the Hindu god of the dead if there's no objective way to establish whether this god actually exists or not.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm not sure why you're harping on this. You're the only one who has touted the empiricism of personal experience, but no one has disagreed with you in any way.

Personal experience is indeed the most purely empirical evidence there is--but it is also the most subjective and unreliable. So it doesn't really count as the sort of evidence that the OP (Gerry) claims.

Gerry said, "I have heard it said by some people that they would believe in God if there was only some evidence.

I propose that there is evidence."

I pointed out that people who say that are typically referring to objective, rational evidence.

Unreliable subjective evidence of the sort provided by personal experience does not qualify as the objective, rational evidence requested by those who request it.



Ok, so I'm still requesting... let's see it.

as above
Your first hand observation is more reliable than a mere account of someone else's. Seeing v taking someone's word for it. No way around that

Gerry was specifically talking about meeting God yourself as evidence, not taking someone else's word for it

It's really a little more complicated than that. God reveals Himself to those whom He has chosen to reveal Himself--but only because He has chosen to reveal Himself to them. Any "wish" or "effort" to find God was predestined by God from the dawn of time, and not really a choice by the person to whom God has chosen to reveal Himself.

But of course none of that rises to the level of objective, scientific evidence.

free will..

faith, love has to be a choice- or it has no meaning. That's why we always have to option to reject God

I believe there very much is objective scientific evidence apart from the personal experience, but that the personal experience is the most compelling evidence, a confirmation of what can be deduced logically, academically, as the least improbable explanation for our existence.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Personal experience is of course worthless when trying to establish objective truth and says nothing about reality. It doesn't matter how many people have personal experiences where they say they have been abducted by aliens if no objective evidence can be found. It doesn't matter how many people have personal experiences where they say they remember many previous lives if no objective evidence of reincarnation can be found. It doesn't matter how many Indians have Near Death Experiences where they say they meet Yama the Hindu god of the dead if there's no objective way to establish whether this god actually exists or not.

Unless you are actually abducted by aliens, then your experience trumps any academic opinion on the 'subjectivity' of personal experience.

Likewise Neil Armstrong ultimately has better evidence that the moon landing was real, than anyone who didn't actually go, no way around that.

seeing for yourself v being told about it- that's what makes it empirical

 

[ArtieE]

Unless you are actually abducted by aliens, then your experience trumps any academic opinion on the 'subjectivity' of personal experience.

Likewise Neil Armstrong ultimately has better evidence that the moon landing was real, than anyone who didn't actually go, no way around that.

seeing for yourself v being told about it- that's what makes it empirical

"Empirical evidence is information that verifies the truth ( which accurately corresponds to reality) or falsity (inaccuracy) of a claim. In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when based on empirical evidence (although some empiricists believe that there are other ways of gaining knowledge)." Empirical evidence - Wikipedia
Having experienced what you believe to be alien abduction hardly qualifies as empirical evidence verifying the truth about what happened to you.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It is the most empirical, yes; but it is also the most subjective--and as I was saying originally, when unbelievers ask for evidence of God, they are usually referring to objective, replicable scientific evidence, not unsubstantiated personal internal states.

Perhaps that is what they ask for. But when they seek for themselves and find incontrovertible evidence for God, it usually is a very personal experience.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"Empirical evidence is information that verifies the truth ( which accurately corresponds to reality) or falsity (inaccuracy) of a claim. In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when based on empirical evidence (although some empiricists believe that there are other ways of gaining knowledge)." Empirical evidence - Wikipedia
Having experienced what you believe to be alien abduction hardly qualifies as empirical evidence verifying the truth about what happened to you.

em·pir·i·cal
əmˈpirik(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: empirical

1. based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
   
   synonyms: [] firsthand, hands-on[]
   
   antonyms: theoretical

 

[ArtieE]

em·pir·i·cal
əmˈpirik(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: empirical

1. based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

And if you see a pink normal size elephant in your living room and other people don't see it you seeing the elephant is not empirical evidence for the existence of the elephant.

 

[ArtieE]

Perhaps that is what they ask for. But when they seek for themselves and find incontrovertible evidence for God, it usually is a very personal experience.

Which is worthless unless one can provide verifiable objective evidence.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And if you see a pink normal size elephant in your living room and other people don't see it you seeing the elephant is not empirical evidence for the existence of the elephant.

It is for you, you saw it.

other people claiming to see things like canals on Mars, unquestionable evidence for Piltdown man or macro evolution, that is not empirical evidence

You never saw anything anyone else would have trouble believing? you need to get out more!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Which is worthless unless one can provide verifiable objective evidence.

My personal experience is worthless to you, as yours is to me. To ourselves, our first hand experience is the most reliable evidence we have of anything

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Any "wish" or "effort" to find God was predestined by God from the dawn of time, and not really a choice by the person to whom God has chosen to reveal Himself.

Source?

 

[ArtieE]

It is for you, you saw it.

other people claiming to see things like canals on Mars, unquestionable evidence for Piltdown man or macro evolution, that is not empirical evidence.

You never saw anything anyone else would have trouble believing? you need to get out more!

"Empirical evidence is information that verifies the truth ( which accurately corresponds to reality) or falsity (inaccuracy) of a claim." Empirical evidence - Wikipedia

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"Empirical evidence is information that verifies the truth ( which accurately corresponds to reality) or falsity (inaccuracy) of a claim." Empirical evidence - Wikipedia

exactly, and personal experience can be the best way to verify truth

em·pir·i·cal
əmˈpirik(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: empirical

1. based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
   synonyms: [] firsthand, hands-on[]