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

[SalixIncendium]

And people have 'personal awakenings' all the time and most of them are false.

How do I determine if mine is valid?

Research, hypothesis, experimentation, analysis, and conclusion.

 

[Sheldon]

Tell you that there are many people in counseling trying to get to the root causes of why they feel the way they do including hatred, unforgiveness, guilt etc. Probably years of counseling, God did this through His Word by the Holy Spirit in 5 minutes.
I see what your counsel would look like and the fruit would be more confusion and no solutions.

A sweeping unevidenced claim, just how many case studies of people in counselling have you researched, and how are you allowing for variations in say personalities and in what they are being counselled for, or the qualifications and efficacy of the counsellors?

You simply asserted what you want to believe, it's not a very compelling argument.

Lastly, as has been explained before, the efficacy of religious belief to motivate someone to change their lives, does not in any way objectively evidence those core religious beliefs, indeed there might be any number of reasons for its efficacy. Though of course you only offer anecdotal claims for this efficacy. This is also a common claim from competing religions, claiming the existence of different deities, what do you think one could reasonable infer from that fact?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The simple idea that it is necessary to guard against error and that the easiest person to fool is yourself is fundamental.

Taking *any* idea on faith is likely to lead to error. And, without testing, you can't recognize your error.

That seems, to me, to be the opposite direction from that of wisdom.

No, sorry. That is too simple. To claim something is with objective evidence but is not, can lead to error. To have existential faith and keep that as subjective is not like to lead to error in your sense of testing.

 

[Polymath257]

Research, hypothesis, experimentation, analysis, and conclusion.

In particular, testing to see the limits of my ideas.

That *is* the scientific method.

And yet, people want to exclude that method from religious discussion.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
Logic is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation, it has nothing to do with how one's arguments, claims or beliefs look. Instead of lashing out at people who disagree with you, you might learn some of the most basic principles involved, or even look up a list of common logical fallacies, and see if you can manage a post without resorting to one.

You might also want to grasp, that this forum is a public debate forum, there are many others on this site that will give you the kind of echo chamber your posts are now suggesting you'd prefer. Participation in debate is not mandatory, but getting annoyed when others point out flaws in your reasoning and arguments, is pretty pointless.

And your point being?

The points are manifest in the post? So that's a pretty bizarre response.

 

[SalixIncendium]

In particular, testing to see the limits of my ideas.

That *is* the scientific method.

And yet, people want to exclude that method from religious discussion.

I certainly won't speak for others, but personally, I've found the scientific method to be quite useful in testing the validity of my own experiences.

 

[Polymath257]

Tell you that there are many people in counseling trying to get to the root causes of why they feel the way they do including hatred, unforgiveness, guilt etc. Probably years of counseling, God did this through His Word by the Holy Spirit in 5 minutes.
I see what your counsel would look like and the fruit would be more confusion and no solutions.

First of all, I am glad you made your breakthrough with your dad. it seems to have been a positive step for both of you.

Again, why attribute this to God? It seems to me that you did it yourself, with some help from your dad and a bit of focus. Such breakthroughs happen all the time and don't need to be religiously based.

 

[Spirit of Light]

The points are manifest in the post? So that's a pretty bizarre response.

I ask again, and your point is?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In particular, testing to see the limits of my ideas.

That *is* the scientific method.

And yet, people want to exclude that method from religious discussion.

Well, you can't test all your ideas using natural science, because you can't test your personal evaluations using science.
That is this: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

But you properly already know that.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, you can't test all your ideas using natural science, because you can't test your personal evaluations using science.
That is this: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

But you properly already know that.

Yes, I *can* test my ideas with the scientific method.

'Natural' science is just *one* application of that method.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, I *can* test my ideas with the scientific method.

'Natural' science is just *one* application of that method.

Okay, please explain.

 

[Polymath257]

Okay, please explain.

The scientific method: hypothesis formation, deduction of consequences, testing, reformulation, etc, is generally applicable.

I can use it to determine whether my internal views hold up to testing or not.

'Natural' science is simply the application of the general method to those things in the 'natural world'.

But there is no reason the method itself couldn't apply to theology *if* theology were an actual area of study that allowed for testing *in some fashion*.

All that is required is a way to recognize mistakes reliably. In the natural sciences, that is done (by fiat) by observation.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The scientific method: hypothesis formation, deduction of consequences, testing, reformulation, etc, is generally applicable.

I can use it to determine whether my internal views hold up to testing or not.

'Natural' science is simply the application of the general method to those things in the 'natural world'.

But there is no reason the method itself couldn't apply to theology *if* theology were an actual area of study that allowed for testing *in some fashion*.

I think you are conflating 2 contradictory versions of testing, but I don't know.
So please give an example of testing internal views.

 

[Polymath257]

I think you are conflating 2 contradictory versions of testing, but I don't know.
So please give an example of testing internal views.

Well, I hypothesis that I like a certain type of food. I try it by actual tasting (observation and testing) and find that I do not. My hypothesis was shown to be wrong and I learned something about myself.

Or, I hypothesize that my sluggishness in the morning can be remedied by doing certain mental tasks before getting out of bed. I use the subjective amount of sluggishness later in the day to test that hypothesis.

Or, I hypothesize that a certain set of ideas leads to more efficient memory of certain other ideas. I try it and see what happens.

 

[Luchito Prays]

I’ve been reading through a couple of threads, and I see that it is said that there is no evidence for a god, it’s an unfalsifiable idea. We all agree on this? If you don’t, care to explain the evidence there is for god?
I’m in agreement. I used to believe my personal experiences to be subjective evidence for god, but I know now that’s not the case. I am not a theist anymore because I recognize I was a Christian thanks almost completely to my environment. That’s why I believed. I was brought up in it. Wasn’t because of any proof or anything,
So, theists, why do you believe? Is it mainly because of your environment and geographical location? There is no proof for god (right?), so what logically keeps you believing? Or is logic not supposed to be a factor when it comes to faith? Is it too jarring, the idea of leaving the comfort that religion and belief in a god brings?
I am curious about personal evaluations on why you believe. It can’t be because of logic, as there is no proof of god, right?

Because... faith?

Science is based on evidence

Religion is based on faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because... faith?

Science is based on evidence

Religion is based on faith.

Hey!!! He gets it.

The theory of evolution is based upon evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Spiritual practice is to end the attachments a person holds to this physical existence, one do that by practicing spiritual teachings.

This is again not an answer to the question asked.
I shall repeat the question:

How, if not through reason and logic, do you distinguish "true spiritual practice" from "false spiritual practice"?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, I hypothesis that I like a certain type of food. I try it by actual tasting (observation and testing) and find that I do not. My hypothesis was shown to be wrong and I learned something about myself.

Or, I hypothesize that my sluggishness in the morning can be remedied by doing certain mental tasks before getting out of bed. I use the subjective amount of sluggishness later in the day to test that hypothesis.

Or, I hypothesize that a certain set of ideas leads to more efficient memory of certain other ideas. I try it and see what happens.

Okay, but then I could get different results, because my brain is different than yours in these cases. So it has not the same general application as natural science. But yes, it is science, just social, psychological/mental and human science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hey!!! He gets it.

The theory of evolution is based upon evidence.

You do know the limits of evidence, right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You do know the limits of evidence, right?

I am not sure if there is one. It is a tool, which means that people can misuse it.

And I see that I am not on the thread that I thought that I was on. We were discussing evolution elsewhere.