Why the low bar for evidence of gods?

[oldbadger]

You're kind of illustrating my point: arguments for gods are never like "yeah, God exists - he's right over there;" it's always more like "here's a collection of indirect circumstantial evidence that we think points to God."

Thankyou for your reply.....
Now........ Nah! There's nothing indirect about the existence of all that we know about, this huge collection of enormous galaxies spinning away from each other.
And there is a reason for the existence of it all. Nothing indirect there. As clear to all as your wife is to you when in view.

No, I mean just about anyone I've ever encountered and any author I've ever read.
I use the term "theist" to describe anyone who believes in any sort of god or gods.
The word is kinda like "hockey:" you can use it for the game on ice specifically, but you can also use it to describe ice hockey, field hockey, floor hockey, etc. collectively.

Oh how shocking.......... to knit us Deists together with those Theists!
That's like calling Canadians 'Americans'!
I'm sure that wiouldn't suit either you or me......

Again: this is the sort of low bar I'm talking about. This is like trying to establish that I'm married by the characteristics of my house ("no single guy would need this many mugs! And look - there's a jar of teabags. I don't even like tea!") instead of direct evidence ("my wife is upstairs. I'll bring her down and you can talk to her while I get our marriage certificate and our photo ID").

You see? You didn't answer that simple question either. I am beginning to suspect that you might be an extreme atheist.
But please do try again. Can you tell us all if you accept (or not) that there is/was a reason for the initiation of our Universe.
Yes..... or No.

Again: "theism" includes deism. But you may have been so focused on that that you missed when I said "often."

That's horrible.
Theism is all about an involved and interested (in humans) God, or Gods.
Deism is about a disinterested God. My Deism is all about 'everything that is, is God'

It's so different. My Deism means that your wife is a part of God............ as well as you, of course. That's direct.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Thankyou for your reply.....
Now........ Nah! There's nothing indirect about the existence of all that we know about, this huge collection of enormous galaxies spinning away from each other.
And there is a reason for the existence of it all. Nothing indirect there. As clear to all as your wife is to you when in view.

I'm trying to decide if you think that galaxies are God or if you don't understand what "indirect" means.

Oh how shocking.......... to knit us Deists together with those Theists!
That's like calling Canadians 'Americans'!
I'm sure that wiouldn't suit either you or me......

I've made my meaning clear and confirmed that you know what I mean. At this point, any misinterpretation is on you.

You see? You didn't answer that simple question either. I am beginning to suspect that you might be an extreme atheist.
But please do try again. Can you tell us all if you accept (or not) that there is/was a reason for the initiation of our Universe.
Yes..... or No.

What do you mean by "initiation of our universe?"

Our understanding of physics breaks down near the Big Bang. Generally, people making claims about what happened before this breakdown point are talking out of their butts.

That's horrible.
Theism is all about an involved and interested (in humans) God, or Gods.
Deism is about a disinterested God. My Deism is all about 'everything that is, is God'

It's so different. My Deism means that your wife is a part of God............ as well as you, of course. That's direct.

Sounds like you're more of a pantheist than a deist. Of course, both are types of theist.

BTW: what term do you use for all the people who believe in some sort of god?

 

[PureX]

You can choose to live in a world of nothing as opposed to a world of something... but personally I find that terribly sad.

Who is deciding which is which? And by what criteria? That's what you need to be asking yourself.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

'Life Jim, but not as we know it'? That's a very useful assumption if you are writing plots for science fiction TV ! But it doesn't work so well in reality.

Not really an assumption so much as a "not yet ruled out" possibility. The "evidence" being life on Earth, the sheer number of planets and stars out there, a stark lack of knowledge as to how life came about in the first place (which I readily admit), as well as a good old dose of "Hmmm... what else is possible given the grand diversity of life we see here on Earth, in only the conditions of Earth?" I know I don't know for sure - but it is one hell of a lot easier to believe that life exists on other planets than to believe in God as He is described by most people.

And making the case that God is the cause of our universe you don't have a shred of evidence of God that comes from anything other than human accounts. None. Nada. You have only writing, secondhand (or third-hand, or fourth, or worse) "witness" accounts and "feelings." All of it from other human beings. And don't a lot of believers of the Christian God readily admit (or even condemn) human beings as entirely "fallible?" The belief set doesn't at all fit with the observable universe - grand ideas about another realm where a supernatural being has been sustained for all time and can be sustained for an eternity more without consuming anything, apparently. Or is there some kind of supernatural "juice" or something available in His realm? Or are those kinds of details just things you admit not to know anything about? So interesting that people claim to know anything about God. You don't know the answer to even the simplest questions about Him, and yet you are content to worship Him.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Just how does crystals form from nothing?

Did I say "from nothing?" No. Not at all.

Do you not realize that the same materials that make up the Earth are present throughout the universe? Crystals form by themselves out of the raw materials of the elements. You ever take a string and dangle it in a solution saturated with sugar? What happens? Rock candy happens. Crystals happen. And if the conditions were right elsewhere then all sorts of crystals we have on Earth would form. It doesn't take Earth-perfect conditions... all it takes is the right ingredients and element/compound-specific conditions and crystals simply grow. Just like snowflakes... snowflakes are crystals forms out of water. Symmetrical connection of water molecules as they drift through various low-temperature zones in the atmosphere. Do you honestly think it doesn't snow somewhere else in the universe? Heck... it is theorized that it might be raining diamonds on one of the planets in our own solar system. How about the hexagonal spot on Saturn? Symmetry, order, beauty... forming on its own. Not "from nothing"... obviously.

 

[oldbadger]

I'm trying to decide if you think that galaxies are God or if you don't understand what "indirect" means.

I've made my meaning clear and confirmed that you know what I mean. At this point, any misinterpretation is on you.

A tiny part............. all those galaxies, are a tiny part of the whole, and the whole is my Deity.

What do you mean by "initiation of our universe?"

Our understanding of physics breaks down near the Big Bang. Generally, people making claims about what happened before this breakdown point are talking out of their butts.

You see? Neither a Yes nor a No!
Ask a simple question and an atheist cannot bring self to give straight answer.
Now, either you cannot understand what 'initiation' means ( ), or you just don't want to give an answer. I'm not trying to make a claim about 'what happened' before the Big Bang, I'm simply asking you whether you believe that something caused it, started it, initiated it, a REASON for it's happening?
Yes, or No?

And who knows? Maybe there are as many Universes as we have galaxies? My Deity is rather grand, I suspect.

Sounds like you're more of a pantheist than a deist. Of course, both are types of theist.

Pantheist!!! ???? I'm not one of them!!!!!!

Have you ever heard of PanDeists?

BTW: what term do you use for all the people who believe in some sort of god?

Ummmm....... perceptives?
I've never thought about it, never needed to address the many differing kinds of believers out there.
But I'm not a Theist of any kind.

Which makes it a much easier step for you, imo...... if you would kindly just tell me whether you accept that there is a reason for the existence of 'all' then we could move forwards... ? ........ possibly? ....... even an outside chance?

 

[LuisDantas]

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?

Usefulness for devotion is not connected to the existence of any given conception of deity, let alone "evidence" of that presumed existence. If anything, those are competing roles that undermine each other.

That is has become so mainstream for apologists to overlook that fairly obvious fact shows how confused mainstream theology is. That is all.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Many of us have had

First, I think you have somewhat failed to grasp what I was trying to get at in my post, but I won't dwell on that.

Second, if you are genuinely interested in something a bit more sophisticated than the typical posts on RF...

I think we run into the same problem as organized religions or spiritual views organized into groups.

Most everyone, I think, has had several if not hundreds or more "experiences" which lead to different conclusions about those experiences. I certainly have had many. I may even have come up with my own possibilities about them and why they occure. But that probably shouldn't then lead me to jump on someone else's bandwagon about the causes of those experiences.

If one were to be completely honest with themselves, they could not state as fact why they had them or if there is indeed something behind them. But a lot of people tend to do that because there is comfort in numbers. But I bet every single "experience" people have had differs in some aspect from the next person who has had a "similar" experience. The conclusions, if one is determined to have a conclusion, differ for every person as well. Some are okay with believing their experience "proves" their presuppositions and join others with similar presuppositions. There are others who just enjoy the experiences without having to draw conclusions or believe there is something magical behind them and then state as fact this means a god is responsible.

I for one, would not go around stating conclusions about my experiences. It is just not reasonably possible to know. Conclusions would seem to create a stunt in further growth or possibilities.

 

[atanu]

I think you might be focusing a bit too much on that word. ...

Because that is the most crucial point. God, to us, is not out there somewhere.

It only bears the slightest resemblance to the thing being proven. To use my analogy again, it would be like me proving the existence of my wife by arguing that the taste in the decor in my house is too good for me to have done it on my own. It isn't the way who actually has a spouse would try to establish the existence of their spouse because it's just not that compelling.

To many of us, the proof of existence of a wife, or any other, is indirect -- through senses. The "I am" is direct.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because that is the most crucial point. God, to us, is not out there somewhere.

Again: I realize this. Please understand what I'm saying: the sorts of gods that people try to demonstrate through "proofs" are not the sorts of gods that anyone builds a worldview around. The ontological argument for the existence of God, for instance, doesn't deal with any of the real sunstance of actual theistic belief.

To many of us, the proof of existence of a wife, or any other, is indirect -- through senses. The "I am" is direct.

Of course, you understand that I reject this kind of rationalization as nonsense. It's also a good example of what I'm talking about with the "low bar" for theism. I'd bet good money that you wouldn't accept verbal hand-waving like this for any other claim besides God.

 

[atanu]

Of course, you understand that I reject this kind of rationalization as nonsense. It's also a good example of what I'm talking about with the "low bar" for theism. I'd bet good money that you wouldn't accept verbal hand-waving like this for any other claim besides God.

I understand your point of view, because not long ago I held the same POV. You think that my bar is low. That is acceptable and understandable.

I, OTOH, am sure that your sensitivity is dulled by being focussed on the so called sensual boundaries. You have no ability to discern the continuum beneath the apparent boundaries. This capacity to discern the 'non-dual' reality can only come from focussed concentration of mind and experience of dissolution of subject-object boundaries.

Let me use an easy analogy. I can never explain to you the taste of mango until you yourself taste it. Similarly, I can never explain to you that the so-called objective boundaries are apparent only.
...

So, I have no urgent need to prove that my theism is not "low bar". Let it be "low bar". I will however not go back to the illusion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I understand your point of view, because not long ago I held the same POV. You think that my bar is low. That is acceptable and understandable.

I, OTOH, am sure that your sensitivity is dulled by being focussed on the so called sensual boundaries.

I'm not, actually. I'm quite open to any method to learn about the world around us, provided there's good reason to think it's reliable.

You have no ability to discern the continuum beneath the apparent boundaries. This capacity to discern the 'non-dual' reality can only come from focussed concentration of mind and experience of dissolution of subject-object boundaries.

Sounds like you're saying that a personhas to put a lot of effort into convincing themselves before the method you describe starts to seem reasonable.

Let me use an easy analogy. I can never explain to you the taste of mango until you yourself taste it. Similarly, I can never explain to you that the so-called objective boundaries are apparent only.
...

Then you give me no reason to believe that what you describe is a pathway to truth.

BTW: you don't need to get me to taste a mango to get me to acknowledge that mangos exist.

 

[atanu]

I'm not, actually. I'm quite open to any method to learn about the world around us, provided there's good reason to think it's reliable.
Sounds like you're saying that a personhas to put a lot of effort into convincing themselves before the method you describe starts to seem reasonable.
Then you give me no reason to believe that what you describe is a pathway to truth.
BTW: you don't need to get me to taste a mango to get me to acknowledge that mangos exist.

I will try just once.

You are correct from your POV that my bar is low regarding 'theism' etc.. But thai is because I, in certain matters, may not give importance to 'high bar'.

Suppose, I have to write an essay titled 'Taste of Mango'. I will write many pages, employing descriptions, verbal reports, brain scans etc etc and try to maintain the bar high. OTOH, I may say "Let the essay go to hell. I will simply eat the mango and be blissed out".

That approximately explains the situation.

 

[serp777]

As I see it, it is a gamble, where one gambles one's whole life on believing, and the decision is essentially a binary one - does God exist or not? Once past that hurdle (in accepting that indeed there is a God), it usually necessarily follows to look for ways to deal with this decision, and hence the aptitude for believing in a particular religious belief. Of course it might be done differently, and especially where one is religiously indoctrinated as a child, such that other factors play a role, but essentially it boils down to thinking that a decision is necessary - when it might not be at all necessary - which is why I tend towards agnosticism. But, we all vary as to how we can handle doubt, some better than others I believe, such that it is hardly unusual to find so many firstly, believing in God, and secondly, in having a religion, but of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that the second follows the first.

And it appears to me that many just look at the world we have and just can't accept that it exists without some divine origin. Some of us perhaps can though.

The decision is not a binary one at all. This is the false dichotomy fallacy. How about multiple Gods? How about I don't know? How about not a God, but instead something close to a God like a universal super intelligence/ collective consciousness? So your gamble that you're making is a complete guess--maybe God really hates it when people believe things for no reasons/bad reasons.

 

[serp777]

I will try just once.

You are correct from your POV that my bar is low regarding 'theism' etc.. But thai is because I, in certain matters, may not give importance to 'high bar'.

Suppose, I have to write an essay titled 'Taste of Mango'. I will write many pages, employing descriptions, verbal reports, brain scans etc etc and try to maintain the bar high. OTOH, I may say "Let the essay go to hell. I will simply eat the mango and be blissed out".

That approximately explains the situation.

THe fallacy here is that you're conflating the facts of reality shared by all in it with your subjective experiences of eating the mango.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The decision is not a binary one at all. This is the false dichotomy fallacy. How about multiple Gods? How about I don't know? How about not a God, but instead something close to a God like a universal super intelligence/ collective consciousness? So your gamble that you're making is a complete guess--maybe God really hates it when people believe things for no reasons/bad reasons.

Well it is a binary decision, when one makes a decision based on nothing other than speculation - that is, choosing to believe something rather than not something. The God/many gods/universal intelligence, etc. are just subsets of something. One god or many, and all the rest, they all lead to the same conclusion - usually - that one then has to speculate as to the implications. If you don't do so - no further speculations and/or implications. The 'I don't know' is precisely what I say one should do. It is the default position in two ways - because it makes the most sense and also because it reflects reality - we just do not know. Many might claim they know but usually it is down to taking evidence from another or having a subjective experience that might make one believe one thing over another. The taking the word of others no doubt has led to so many different religions and the subjective experience is just that and not something that one can judge for oneself to have any real meaning. Unfortunately we are just not capable of stepping outside of ourselves to look objectively at what we experience. Perhaps some issues are just too big for humans - at the moment at least. That is my belief and why I tend to leave it all alone. I'm not happy with this but I can accept it.

 

[1137]

The irony of this coming from you is strong, Penguin .

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I will try just once.

You are correct from your POV that my bar is low regarding 'theism' etc.. But thai is because I, in certain matters, may not give importance to 'high bar'.

Suppose, I have to write an essay titled 'Taste of Mango'. I will write many pages, employing descriptions, verbal reports, brain scans etc etc and try to maintain the bar high. OTOH, I may say "Let the essay go to hell. I will simply eat the mango and be blissed out".

That approximately explains the situation.

I have no idea what your analogy has to do with the subject at hand.

You can confirm whether mangoes exist without tasting them. And there are plenty of possible ways someone who has never tasted a mango could be justified in saying "I believe you tasted something, but it wasn't a mango."

 

[atanu]

I have no idea what your analogy has to do with the subject at hand.

You can confirm whether mangoes exist without tasting them. And there are plenty of possible ways someone who has never tasted a mango could be justified in saying "I believe you tasted something, but it wasn't a mango."

Really? You are entirely on a wrong path. God is not an object but it is the subject that experiences all objects. The question is not about existence of mango. It is about the subjective experience of its taste.

You can set your bar very high, defining and or studying taste of mango to finest detail possible and yet know nothing of the actual taste of mango. Or you can simply taste a mango and close your eyes in delight. In the second case, there is no bar to raise or lower.
...

Some foolish guy may refuse to taste mango directly, preferring to study tomes on mango taste. Similarly, some guys will read, debate, or deny god but will not actually take steps to introvert the roaming mind to its source. Of course introverting the outgoing mind to its source is not easy like eating a piece of mango is.

Please consider the examples as examples only.

 

[sayak83]

I acknowledge my belief, faith as such, do you? I think God is the least improbable explanation yes.

Just as I can't be sure that HELP was not washed up by the waves, but if I am with the coast guard, I'm not going to make that my 'default assumption', simpler and easier as that may be

If I showed you a fully automated watch making factory, does that get you closer to, or further from, an ultimately self-automated explanation?

i.e. automated function ≠ automated origin, in fact the opposite argument can be made at least as well, far better I would argue.

If the automated watch factory is also making more factories by itself then there is no reason to suppose that any external intelligence is responsible for it.