There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[Kenny]

I tend to think millions of years of change might well do it. Plus, such change might have been hypothetically guided, right?

Again, my view, it would have to be guided! As I learn more about the body and its intricacies, not only guided but rushed through for it would have to be more than just millions of years to fulfill all its capacity. (again, in my limited knowledge and whatever thought process I can muster up in my age)

 

[ppp]

Character is the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual.

Their words and deeds are separate from their character. Their words and deeds are how we can know their character.

You are simply repeating me.

 

[Kenny]

I got your point. Did you get mine? We have academic standards for evaluating evidence. They're the ones used in scientific peer review and in courtrooms. They are not arbitrary or subjective, although there is a degree of individual subjectivity in judging the soundness of an argument that drops to near zero when there is consensus among qualified opinions (interobserver agreement).

Great… and I got your point too!

But does science actually involve itself in “God”? My understanding is that it does not. So, basically, we are asking to apply what is used in one field to one that doesn’t use it.

So, obviously in my view, two different animals. I look at creation and see God. Someone else looks at creation and sees processes. Maybe both are right?

Those who want to bring their own rules to the table can claim that any evidence they offer points to any conclusion they choose, and the religious do this continually telling us that their scriptural prophecies imply divine prescience, or that the words of a messenger or the world itself all point to a god for them, and when their fallacies are pointed out, they say, "That's not how I see it. The evidence convinces me." OK, but I don't actually believe that they got to that conclusion using that or any other evidence. They got there by faith and grabbed something to call evidence because some people don't want to say that they have no or insufficient evidence for their beliefs.

Again… this simply supports what I am trying to say. Both people sees the same thing, one is convinced and the other is not. Even your last sentence seems very subjective to me.

No problem. I thought you might be interested. The basic architecture of the motor system comprises upper and lower motor neurons. The uppers exit the brain, cross in the cord in what's called the pyramidal tract, and descend to enervate lower motor neurons, which synapse on muscle and glands.

When upper motor neurons are damaged, the affected muscles become spastic (abnormally contracted, spastic paralysis) and the patellar reflex becomes amplified (hyperreflexia, big kick). In lower motor neuron disease, the muscle atrophies (shrinks), is weak (flaccid paralysis), and the patellar reflex is dampened or absent. Polio is a lower motor neuron disease. Weakness following a cortical stroke is upper. Lou Gehrig's disease is both.

Thanks, I have learned more!

 

[ppp]

Character is the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual.

Their words and deeds are separate from their character. Their words and deeds are how we can know their character.

BTW, you are acknowledging here that you do not have access to the "mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual." You only have access to their words and deeds and the conclusion you draw about their "mental and moral qualities"

 

[Trailblazer]

You are simply repeating me.

Then I am glad we agree. We are just describing the same thing differently.

 

[Trailblazer]

BTW, you are acknowledging here that you do not have access to the "mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual." You only have access to their words and deeds and the conclusion you draw about their "mental and moral qualities"

Not true. I have access to the "mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual" by looking at their words and deeds.
First I have access to their words and deeds and then I draw a conclusion about their "mental and moral qualities."

 

[ppp]

Not true. I have access to the "mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual" by looking at their words and deeds.

Did you intend for those statements to be unquestionable and unmistakable? Unequivocal?

How much access do you actually have?
What is the quality of the access?
What is the quality of your assessments?
How much is lost due to your cultural biases?
They cultural biases?
Translation errors?
Linguistic drift?
Your self perception?
Their self perception?
Incomplete access to their words?
Incomplete access to their deeds?
False information from them?
False information from others?
Human error in transmission?

I think that the level of certainty expressed regarding the "mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual" from history is overly exuberant.

 

[Trailblazer]

Did you intend for those statements to be unquestionable and unmistakable? Unequivocal?

No.

How much access do you actually have?
What is the quality of the access?
What is the quality of your assessments?
How much is lost due to your cultural biases?
They cultural biases?
Translation errors?
Linguistic drift?
Your self perception?
Their self perception?
Incomplete access to their words?
Incomplete access to their deeds?
False information from them?
False information from others?
Human error in transmission?

That's a good list. Yes, there is room for mistranslation, misinterpretation, and other human errors.
Whenever humans are involved there are going to be some issues since humans are fallible.
All we can do is our best with what we have, and then draw our conclusions.

I think that the level of certainty expressed regarding the "mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual" from history is overly exuberant.

Some Baha'is might be overly exuberant but I am not one of them. We are all different.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

does science actually involve itself in “God”?

Science is in the business of investigating how discernible reality behaves. So far, no gods have been identified, nor any aspect of reality that requires a conscious, deliberate agent to explain.

My understanding is that it does not. So, basically, we are asking to apply what is used in one field to one that doesn’t use it.

"Doesn't use it"? If religion is detached from empirical investigation, then it has no value in understanding or navigating reality.

people sees the same thing, one is convinced and the other is not

Yes, but their opinions aren't equal if only one has applied critical thought successfully. There is no wiggle room for improvisation or rogue "logic" in these matters. Recall the addition example. If I see 2+2 and conclude 4, and somebody else says that he sees the same two digits but concludes 5, they can both be wrong, but they can't both be right, and we have an empirical test to decide which if either is correct. We can combine two apples with two more and count them when combined.

“Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says, "Well, that's not how I choose to think about water."? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn't share those values, the conversation is over. If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?” - Sam Harris

 

[Audie]

Again, my view, it would have to be guided! As I learn more about the body and its intricacies, not only guided but rushed through for it would have to be more than just millions of years to fulfill all its capacity. (again, in my limited knowledge and whatever thought process I can muster up in my age)

See " limited knowledge".

 

[Sargonski]

Science is in the business of investigating how discernible reality behaves. So far, no gods have been identified, nor any aspect of reality that requires a conscious, deliberate agent to explain.

"No Gods" -- defined as what ? how are we defining Gods - is the wind a God ? how about a tornado ? -- and yes there are aspects of reality that required a conscious deliberate agent to explain .. Welcome to your mirror -- you are that agent friend .. the vessel in which consciousness can live .. is this not a construction of one of the Primordial Gods driving the Universe ?

 

[Kenny]

So we are back to square one… we approach things differently and come to different conclusions. The question would be “why the fixation on God if one doesn’t believe in one”.

Science is in the business of investigating how discernible reality behaves. So far, no gods have been identified, nor any aspect of reality that requires a conscious, deliberate agent to explain.

“Discernible realities” with a God has room for differences in quantifying. Not that you identify a particular god but rather I identify that there is a God whereas you wouldn't

"Doesn't use it"? If religion is detached from empirical investigation, then it has no value in understanding or navigating reality.

Again… your empirical, apparently, is different to my empirical. It is all in ones interpretation of what one sees.

You have a cancer that spontaneously disappears. You don’t know the mechanism and you view it as simply “spontaneous”. I could view it as a God intervention.

Yes, but their opinions aren't equal if only one has applied critical thought successfully. There is no wiggle room for improvisation or rogue "logic" in these matters. Recall the addition example. If I see 2+2 and conclude 4, and somebody else says that he sees the same two digits but concludes 5, they can both be wrong, but they can't both be right, and we have an empirical test to decide which if either is correct. We can combine two apples with two more and count them when combined.

“Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says, "Well, that's not how I choose to think about water."? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn't share those values, the conversation is over. If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?” - Sam Harris

Again… you are using the natural and believing that it applies to spiritual as if quantum physics react exactly as physics.

So I don’t agree with the analogy.

 

[Kenny]

See " limited knowledge".

YES! I think you got it! That is what man has… limited knowledge as compared to what has yet to be discovered.

 

[ppp]

No.

That's a good list. Yes, there is room for mistranslation, misinterpretation, and other human errors.
Whenever humans are involved there are going to be some issues since humans are fallible.
All we can do is our best with what we have, and then draw our conclusions.

Some Baha'is might be overly exuberant but I am not one of them. We are all different.

I am not merely talking about Baha'i,, @Trailblazer. Nor even limiting it to religions. It is a phenomenon is politics, cultures and urban legends. The magical qualities and stunted revolutions attributed to Nikolai Tesla are ridiculous.

You say that you are not one of them. But you literally think that someone's self declarations about their nature is sufficient to conclude that they are correct.

 

[Trailblazer]

you literally think that someone's self declarations about their nature is sufficient to conclude that they are correct.

No, I do not base my beliefs on anyone's self declarations.

 

[ppp]

No, I do not base my beliefs on anyone's self declarations.

Really? So if all of Bahá’u’lláh's verbal and written words have never, ever, existed, then you would be convinced of all of the same exact things that you are convinced are true at this moment? You would be Baha'i?

 

[Trailblazer]

Really? So if all of Bahá’u’lláh's verbal and written words have never, ever, existed, then you would be convinced of all of the same exact things that you are convinced are true at this moment? You would be Baha'i?

If all of Bahá’u’lláh's verbal and written words had never, ever, existed, I would not be a Baha'i because there would be no Baha'i Faith.

 

[ppp]

If all of Bahá’u’lláh's verbal and written words had never, ever, existed, I would not be a Baha'i because there would be no Baha'i Faith.

Bahá’u’lláh's verbal and written words are self declarations.

 

[Trailblazer]

Bahá’u’lláh's verbal and written words are self declarations.

That is only a very small part of what He said and wrote.

 

[ppp]

That is only a very small part of what He said and wrote.

Fine. Toss out all of the self-declarations. Including the "small" part that includes everything about being a messenger. Would you still be Baha'i?