John Doe believes in god and you don't. Why do you think he is wrong and you are right?

Unveiled Artist said:

Huh?

Where's the evidence for the supernatural?

How does jesus' historical existence prove anything supernatural?

Take witnesses. How do you question the witnesses of the resurrection?

In any, say, criminal case police interview all witnesses to see that their claims are validated if they all saw the same event. How do we do that with the apostles?

Click to expand...

Miracles, Near Death Experiences, the experiences of those who see ghosts, the experiences of those who are written about in the Bible and other things. These are not scientific proof. Science is for the physical universe and is a scholarly discipline that requires other types of evidence. If anything science, which has a naturalistic philosophy at it's heart, would try to explain away the experiences of people, and people with the same sort of naturalistic philosophy would be happy with the naturalistic guesses of science.
We cannot interview witnesses to the resurrection to see if their cases are true, we can believe them or not. It is however evidence for the supernatural and for Jesus being whom He said He is.
J Warner Wallace, and ex police cold case investigator wanted to show the gospels were made up and came the conclusion, after studying them, that they showed signs of being genuine witness stories.
Basically it is a matter of faith, but it is not blind faith with no evidence. That is a lie of many atheists and sceptics about the Christian faith.

Twilight Hue said:

What's the evidence? An old book? The belief in an invisible friend with superpowers?

Click to expand...

An old book and travels with my invisible friend. But sceptics are sceptics and have a bent for non belief until there is something close to absolute proof,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,unless of course that belief is in a naturalistic explanation without proof, that is alright to believe and still remain PC as a sceptic.

What if John Doe were able to show you how a simple faith in a loving creator had changed his life for the better? Supposing he said he knew what was in his own heart, and that he was convinced God had enabled him to change his life in a way that was truly miraculous? Would you still try to deny him his faith then? And why?

We Never Know said:

Having faith and believing in a super natural god is above natural and science. God is supposed to be supernatural, something science doesn't study or understand. So technically there can be no scientific evidence for a god.

Click to expand...

None of that is factual.

If Joe believes in god why do you feel he is wrong and you are right by not believing?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't presume to believe that Joe is wrong simply because I don't believe.

That would be insane.

It actually seems to offend some that Joe believes in god. Why is that?

Click to expand...

People are easily offended.

Why do humans fight about what they believe?
Isn't what they believe a personal choice?

Click to expand...

That's why they fight.

RestlessSoul said:

What if John Doe were able to show you how a simple faith in a loving creator had changed his life for the better? Supposing he said he knew what was in his own heart, and that he was convinced God had enabled him to change his life in a way that was truly miraculous? Would you still try to deny him his faith then? And why?

Click to expand...

Are we talking about psychotherapy, or objective truth? Faith or knowledge?

Faith is unsupported belief. Any belief can, conceivably, be comforting: Santa Claus, Krishna, Jesus, Easter Bunny....
Drugs can be comforting, too, and video games. What's the difference?

Well evidenced belief -- knowledge, truth -- is superior to faith/fantasy. Fantasy may be comforting, but don't pretend it's truth.
Take the red pill.

Valjean said:

Are we talking about psychotherapy, or objective truth? Faith or knowledge?

Faith is unsupported belief. Any belief can, conceivably, be comforting: Santa Claus, Krishna, Jesus, Easter Bunny....
Drugs can be comforting, too, and video games. What's the difference?

Well evidenced belief -- knowledge, truth -- is superior to faith/fantasy. Fantasy may be comforting, but don't pretend it's truth.
Take the red pill.

Click to expand...

Your knowledge is superior to someone else’s lived experience? Okay.


Accepting what you call objective truth requires faith too btw.

Brian2 said:

An old book and travels with my invisible friend. But sceptics are sceptics and have a bent for non belief until there is something close to absolute proof,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,unless of course that belief is in a naturalistic explanation without proof, that is alright to believe and still remain PC as a sceptic.

Click to expand...

Absolute proof? No. I don't see any real evidence at all.

Noöne's asking for absolute proof; just good evidence.

RestlessSoul said:

Your knowledge is superior to someone else’s lived experience? Okay.

Accepting what you call objective truth requires faith too btw.

Click to expand...

Knowledge is superior to faith, yes.
Lived experience, emotion, comfort -- not evidence.

Everything requires faith, if you define it broadly enough. A round Earth, a Sun centered solar system, germs causing disease, relativity -- all unproved, but all, unlike God, well evidenced.

Valjean said:

Absolute proof? No. I don't see any real evidence at all.

Noöne's asking for absolute proof; just good evidence.

Click to expand...

And someone turning their life around, and sincerely stating the conviction that only a miracle enabled him or her to step back from the edge of the precipice, is not good evidence?

Possibly you don’t know anyone who has had this experience; and that’s fine. You are free to believe whatever you choose to believe. The question was, why would you try to impose your beliefs - or lack of them - on others?

We Never Know said:

Having faith and believing in a super natural god is above natural and science. God is supposed to be supernatural, something science doesn't study or understand. So technically there can be no scientific evidence for a god.
If Joe believes in god why do you feel he is wrong and you are right by not believing?
It actually seems to offend some that Joe believes in god. Why is that?
Why do humans fight about what they believe?
Isn't what they believe a personal choice?

Click to expand...

Your thread title struck a note with me because there was a poster on another forum and his screen name was John Doe, and he was a hard atheist. I was on that forum daily for several years before I came to RF and he chided me constantly about my beliefs. He was even mean to me at times but the forum owner who was also an atheist was very protective so he disallowed any personal insults.

I really liked John Doe because he was so honest and I always knew he would tell me what was on his mind, no holds barred. For him, it was all about the lack of evidence for God, or so he believed. He did not consider Messengers of God to be evidence as I do.

It never offends me that atheists do not believe God exists because that is just as much of a logical possibility as that God exists.... so it is pretty much a judgment call. I see evidence for God and they don't, but that is nothing to fight about.

RestlessSoul said:

And someone turning their life around, and sincerely stating the conviction that only a miracle enabled him or her to step back from the edge of the precipice, is not good evidence?

Possibly you don’t know anyone who has had this experience; and that’s fine.

Click to expand...

I know some former atheists who had this experience. I met one on Baha'i Forums and when he told his story it was obvious that he closer to God than I am and he was the most humble man I have ever met. He was raised as an atheist and at a certain point when he was in a very desperate life situation he cried out to God for help and God answered his call by giving him a sign and communicating to his mind. I was so impressed that I asked him to tell me his whole story in a private message and I still have that story.

The other man is a friend I met in other forums. He was raised Christian but dropped out and became an atheist as an adult, was very bitter and spent a lot of time chiding Christians on forums. The when he was having a crisis he called out to God and God answered his prayer. He has not been the same since. You see, he promised God that if God would answer his prayer he would never ask fro one more thing from God again. I think he has a great reverence for God although he has no religion. After that he stopped chiding Christians and he dropped out of forums and got a new lease on life. We are both cat lovers so that is one biding tie that we have. In many ways he has a better attitude towards God so sometimes I e-mail him when I am having a hard time and get advice. He alone knows the utter torment I go through when I lose a cat.

As the story goes, this man had a friend who had witnessed God answering his prayer and as a result he too became a believer. Both of these men are still my friends although I never met them in person.

RestlessSoul said:

And someone turning their life around, and sincerely stating the conviction that only a miracle enabled him or her to step back from the edge of the precipice, is not good evidence?

Click to expand...

No, it's not. You don't understand what real evidence is.

People all over the world had the sort of evidence you describe, and their 'evidence' led to wildly different conclusions. So, it was not really evidence, but emotion or familiarity. You're mistaking psychotherapeutic usefulness for evidence.
Evidence is testable, repeatable, falsifiable or objective.

Possibly you don’t know anyone who has had this experience; and that’s fine. You are free to believe whatever you choose to believe. The question was, why would you try to impose your beliefs - or lack of them - on others?

Click to expand...

I have had such an experience, and I regard anyone who believes me about it as an idiot.

Scientists don't have to impose their beliefs. Their beliefs stand on their own feet. They work, and everyone who researches or tests them agrees with them. That's why science, unlike religious doctrine, is universal.
Only those with unevidenced beliefs have to impose them.

Valjean said:

No, it's not. You don't understand what real evidence is.

People all over the world had the sort of evidence you describe, and their 'evidence' led to wildly different conclusions. So, it was not really evidence, but emotion or familiarity. You're mistaking psychotherapeutic usefulness for evidence.
Evidence is testable, repeatable, falsifiable or objective.
I have had such an experience, and I regard anyone who believes me about it as an idiot.

Scientists don't have to impose their beliefs. Their beliefs stand on their own feet. They work, and everyone who researches or tests them agrees with them. That's why science, unlike religious doctrine, is universal.
Only those with unevidenced beliefs have to impose them.

Click to expand...

With respect, I do understand what evidence is. That’s why I chose that word, rather than talking about proof.

Doesn’t the spirit of scientific enquiry generally involve the maintenance of an open mind?

Is there universal acceptance among the scientific community, for the existence of dark matter? Has it’s existence been proven? Certainly there’s evidence for it, but no one has seen it, or been able to identify it’s qualities. Yet most - certainly not all - physicists believe it exists because the effects it has on visible matter can be observed. As the effect of faith on human lives can be observed.

In other words, there’s evidence. The interpretation of that evidence can be disputed, but that doesn’t mean there’s no evidence.

I would be interested to hear about the experience you say you have had, even if you would consider me an idiot should I believe you.

Valjean said:

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

Through history many people, often millions at a time, have believed in many different sorts of gods and incorporeal beings -- without real evidence.

Many have believed in dragons moving underground causing earthquakes. Without evidence people make up all sorts of stories to "explain" things. What's annoying is that many cling to their cultural folklore even after the real, natural causes for X, Y, or Z are found and demonstrated. Are people just frightened by change or novelty? Do the real facts seem too complicated?

Reasonable people believe the evidence -- testable, repeatable, observable evidence. Reasonable people withhold b
elief in things unevidenced. Reasonable people can distinguish real evidence from opinion, feelings or folklore.

Click to expand...

I would love to believe in the power of human reason- but where is your evidence reason disproves the existence of God? Over the centuries many 'reasonable' regimes have attempted to build atheistic societies and have failed.
The evidence is that people are not frightened of change, but only change that is inflicted against their will.
Scientific evidence constantly changes our view of the world. 'Reasonable' theories put out even a few years ago can now be disproved and are now disregarded. That is the nature of science because our curiosity about the world is insatiable.

Science will not provide the unchangeable, immutable proof. Only God is the same, forever unchanging. What form God really takes is unknown,, which is where belief and the human imagination steps in. Without our stories what are we? Merely robots obeying changing theories someone else tells us, or animals on a spinning planet like worms and insects, just going about their business on instinct alone.

Brian2 said:

The only reason my beliefs are considered to be opinion is because of all the other BS beliefs around.

Click to expand...

Of course, that's exactly what the people who believe many of those "BS" beliefs would say about yours.

Valjean said:

Absolute proof? No. I don't see any real evidence at all.

Noöne's asking for absolute proof; just good evidence.

Click to expand...

Real evidence, good evidence. It's sounds like it is close to what science might want. How about "any evidence"? and there is that. And stepping forward with that leads to more evidence to keep you going.
But if you can't hear the call or don't want to accept the evidence there is, what can I say?

HonestJoe said:

Of course, that's exactly what the people who believe many of those "BS" beliefs would say about yours.

Click to expand...

Yes but they are wrong. It's odd that people can believe BS and not have a clue it is BS. Sigh

We Never Know said:

Having faith and believing in a super natural god is above natural and science.

Click to expand...

If by 'above' you mean 'superior to', then I disagree, and I know of nothing that would support the claim.

We Never Know said:

God is supposed to be supernatural, something science doesn't study or understand.

Click to expand...

My understanding of 'supernatural' is that it means 'outside of nature', 'not found in nature'.

'Nature' is the same thing as objective reality, the world external to the self.

If something is said not to exist in objective reality, then the only way it can exist is as a concept or thing imagined in an individual brain.

And no objective test can distinguish the 'supernatural', the 'spiritual' or the 'immaterial' from the purely conceptual / imaginary.

I suggest you'll find that this is close enough to science's understanding of the matter.

We Never Know said:

So technically there can be no scientific evidence for a god.

Click to expand...

Worse. There is no definition of 'God' appropriate to a being with objective existence ie a real being. Thus there's no objective test that could tell us whether any real candidate were God or not.

There isn't even any coherent concept of 'godness', the real quality a real god would have and a real superscientist who could create universes, raise the dead, travel in time &c would lack.

We Never Know said:

If Joe believes in god why do you feel he is wrong and you are right by not believing?

Click to expand...

If Joe lives a life of decency and respect and inclusion, what does it matter what Joe believes regarding gods? If Joe find it helpful, who's to argue?

But if the question is whether it's true that God is real, then barring something that will make very big headlines around the world, the answer is, no, God is not real, and exists purely conceptually or as a thing imagined.

Brian2 said:

But if you can't hear the call or don't want to accept the evidence there is, what can I say?

Click to expand...

Quite a lot so far....

We Never Know said:

Having faith and believing in a super natural god is above natural and science. God is supposed to be supernatural, something science doesn't study or understand. So technically there can be no scientific evidence for a god.
If Joe believes in god why do you feel he is wrong and you are right by not believing?
It actually seems to offend some that Joe believes in god. Why is that?
Why do humans fight about what they believe?
Isn't what they believe a personal choice?

Click to expand...

The scientific method cannot address a range of output from a class of natural phenomena. As an example, dreams are a common output of the human brain that everyone has experienced. There are tools that tell us if someone is dreaming. If I was to relate a specific dream, in detail, to a group of scientists, the science method cannot address this data, since my account of the original dream is not observable to the team nor is it reproducible. It would not be considered scientifically valid data even if it was real brain output data retold, perfectly.

Those who believe in the infallibility of science do so based on faith. There are a wide range of brain outputs that are not subject to the scientific method, as written. When the scientific method was written, it limited science to only what could be observed, from the outside, by the five senses and the tools that expand these five sense. It also had to be reproducible by others. This factors out human subjectivity, as well as any brain output data that is unique and not subject to the external senses of others. Dreams and visions would be two examples. The motivation of a person is also not subject to science if all we have is their word for it.

Science that deals with such data is called soft science. Soft science does not deny the data, but tries to deal with the reality of unique data, that is not subject to the philosophy of science. They need to find ways to analyze the account of the data and the source subject, to see if it is truthful and accurate.

The therapist may listen to dreams and over long periods of time recognize truth in terms of the patient's history of relating these dreams. They try to go the extra mile not required by the philosophy of science.

God type data appears within this range of natural phenomena. Atheists tend to accept the approach of the philosophy of science and they unscientifically assume this is all there is to reality. That takes faith in a dogma they have not taken the time to think through. They need to learn the limits of science.