Is there evidence your god beliefs are true while other god beliefs are false?

I guess I hear you saying that there is more evidence or more valid evidence for a belief in god than for a belief in demons. Beth says that too. I just never hear what it is... it sounds like semantic games. It sounds to me like people want to believe that whatever god they believe in however nebulously defined is morel likely to be true because of (insert lame evidence that they would never use to believe in demons or other invisible entities) while all those other gods and invisible things are false because (insert reason that would make their own god disappear if subject to the same scrutiny.)

Why would someone be on the fence about one brand of invisible immeasurable poorly defined entity and not all the others? They just disbelieve in those others... they are fine saying there is no evidence for those other things. Why do people only find evidence for the invisible immeasurable entity they were indoctrinated to believe in?

Why is evidence for god... whatever it is you are defining as evidence-- of better caliber than the evidence people use to prove demons are real or that reincarnation is real. I don't see the evidence for god being more valid or useful or warranting the conclusion of "god". You seem to think that it is.

I see the stuff you are calling "evidence" for god as "confirmation bias" of the type people use to prove to themselves that various things they've come to believe are true. I wouldn't call it evidence for god anymore than craziness is evidence of demon possession.

Do you think that the belief or evidence for god (however you define god or evidence) is better than the evidence for demons (however you define demons or evidence). If so why? Do you think that the evidence for "god" is more valid than the evidence that "some people are truly psychic". If so, why? If you are more skeptical of one claim than the other-- why? Based on what "evidence" or lack of it?

Are you responding to my post? Because I don't see what any of that has to do with what I wrote. What is your opinon of what I explained about evidence? Do you argree with it? Do you think the same definition and standards of evidence should apply regardless of whichever proposition we are considering, or can some "evidences" be dismissed out of hand because we already know the subject to be "woo"?

articulett said:

I guess I hear you saying that there is more evidence or more valid evidence for a belief in god than for a belief in demons.

Click to expand...

If you think I said that in this thread, you are greatly mistaken. You may be carrying over elements from the previous discussion we had, you may be reading elements into it from the previous discussion on this thread. Either way, the only topic my posts here addressed is the nature of what evidence is. Anything you think you see about gods and demons in my posts here isn't coming from me.

Beth says that too. I just never hear what it is... it sounds like semantic games.

Click to expand...

(semantic = trivial) => dismiss?
That's a fallacy.

It sounds to me like people want to believe that whatever god they believe in however nebulously defined is morel likely to be true because of (insert lame evidence that they would never use to believe in demons or other invisible entities) while all those other gods and invisible things are false because (insert reason that would make their own god disappear if subject to the same scrutiny.)

Why would someone be on the fence about one brand of invisible immeasurable poorly defined entity and not all the others? They just disbelieve in those others... they are fine saying there is no evidence for those other things. Why do people only find evidence for the invisible immeasurable entity they were indoctrinated to believe in?

I see the stuff you are calling "evidence" for god as "confirmation bias" of the type people use to prove to themselves that various things they've come to believe are true. I wouldn't call it evidence for god anymore than craziness is evidence of demon possession.

Click to expand...

This is a discussion you are having with someone else. It has no bearing on what I'm saying here.

Why is evidence for god... whatever it is you are defining as evidence-- of better caliber than the evidence people use to prove demons are real or that reincarnation is real.

Click to expand...

I didn't say any such thing. All "evidence"- or better, all data that leads to evidence- is, in science, subject to the same scrutiny.

I don't see the evidence for god being more valid or useful or warranting the conclusion of "god".

Click to expand...

I can see you don't. I asked you why. especially since you seem disinclined to consider it, dismissing it out of hand because it deals with "god", a concept with which you've already decided to disagree.

You seem to think that it is.

Click to expand...

Is that because I used the word "god" to describe something I thought was a real phenomenon in another thread? Does that word automatically taint any other arguement I make from now on? Are you going to read or address these questions, or the previous ones, or are you just going to write a couple of more paragraphs outlining your assertions? Do you think assertion is valid evidence?

Do you think that the belief or evidence for god (however you define god or evidence) is better than the evidence for demons (however you define demons or evidence). If so why? Do you think that the evidence for "god" is more valid than the evidence that "some people are truly psychic". If so, why?

Click to expand...

It depends on what that evidence is. I'm not going to prejudge it because I presently disagree with the hypothesis it purports to support.

If you are more skeptical of one claim than the other-- why?

Click to expand...

I'd like to think I'm equally skeptical of all claims, including my own.

Piscivore said:

If by

"SEMANTICS"

you mean

DEFINITONS, BECAUSE THEY MEAN TWO DIFFERENT THINGS

then yes, that's the difference.

"SEMANTICS"

gets bandied about frequently as if it were a synonym for "trivial", but it isn't. What it actually means is "the meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form." So yes, the difference between evidence and conclusion is the meaning or the interpretation of the words. But that's not a trivial difference.

Click to expand...

As a follower of the imortal Alfred Korzybsk and his seminal General Semantics of course I mean "the two symbols have different referents".

I'm getting confused. But I don't agree with anyone's god concept or evidence for the same reason I don't believe in demons or psychic powers of any sort. I know these are common ways people fool themselves. That there are always better explanations and if there ever were any actual evidence, we'd be refining it and honing it like we do with DNA. I mean what could be more important than knowing whether some invisible something wanted us to believe in him for the sake of our eternity? What could be more important that proving that you "exist" after your brain dies or that some consciousness can exist without a brain? I understand why people could believe this, but I also understand why none of what they consider evidence for their beliefs constitutes evidence of what they believe.

I don't think all possibilities are equally likely. If actual evidence becomes available, it should be available to everyone... just like information about gravity and DNA and mental illness and so forth... I can safely assume all the evidence is of the confirmation bias type which is good, because there is no way to tell one woo belief from another... and it's easy to be fooled.

I guess I'm more in line with skeptic girl. I don't care how many people really believe that aliens are visiting them and would swear their life on it... that is not evidence of alien visitation. It may well be evidence of hypnogognic dreams, schizophrenia, or something else--but it is not evidence of alien visitation. I would say that there is similarly no evidence for god-- just the same sort of "certainty" and anecdote and feeling and nebulous immeasurable conviction.

I guess I"m saying that what you are calling evidence for "god" is not what I consider evidence for god. I don't have to examine each and every person's evidence to reach my conclusion. In the same way, I don't need to examine all psychics to claim they are all frauds. One psychic who can pass a scientific test, is all that is needed to disprove my belief. One piece of measurable replicable evidence that consciousness could exist absent a brain would be enough to warrant looking at evidence... but until there's evidence for that... there can be no evidence for god.

This makes your horse/mammal/analogy a false analogy. All gods appear to be conscious entities that exist and have properties that we only know to exist in living brains (thinking, feeling, wanting, loving, etc.) but they don't have material brains. I don't know of any god definition that doesn't fit that category, and if so, it seems only to be doing so to avoid being negated by logic.

Perhaps it is better to say that I've never seen empirical evidence for any god and I don't expect to anymore than I expect to see empirical evidence for demons. It doesn't count as evidence to me, because unless it's measurable or objective in some way, it seems indistinguishable from bad evidence or no evidence or faulty inferences.

I would say, that per the OP, nobody has presented a valid reason for believing in whatever god they believe in while disbelieving in other gods or other invisible entities. I don't understand why the evidence they use to believe in their god isn't also applied to the gods or supernatural notions they disbelieve. And I don't understand why the reasons they use to explain away other peoples delusions or cults or false belief aren't used to erase their own gods.

I think it is a semantic argument and cognitive dissonance that makes people believe that the god they believe in or hold out belief for is more likely to be true than all the woo they dismiss. I think they have a much looser standard of evidence for what they want to be true than they do for the things they don't.

I'd like to think someone had good evidence or a good reason for god belief... I try and read and understand what they are saying... but to me, all the evidence does sound like semantics... a way to convince themselves that the god they want to exist-- does.

Maybe I'm not following you. I understand skepticgirl. I understand why I wouldn't consider someone's evidence of god as actual evidence of god. I can't really tell what you are saying, but it sounds like you are more willing to examine evidence for god (however you define that) and hold the door open to that belief... than to examine the evidence for "miracles" or alien visitation or fairies. Yet, you've not been clear as to how or why. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you would consider all such evidence equally or you think the evidence is of different caliber or would require different levels of interpretation to count as "evidence".

When it comes to evidence as to what is objectively true--rather people believe it or not-- I don't think the god hypothesis has any more evidence going for it than the demon hypothesis or the reincarnation hypothesis. If so, I can't tell what the heck it is and it doesn't count as evidence as far as I can tell.

But I feel like I'm getting tangled in definitions. I understand skepticgirl. I don't agree that there is any evidence that some sort of god exists outside the human imagination. I didn't agree on the other thread, and I don't agree here. I think all gods are entirely human creations. I know you think this too... or I believe you do. I guess I would say that the evidenced you might call evidence for god, I'd call evidence that people are very good at fooling themselves.

Yes, as a skeptic, I feel very confident in dismissing all supernatural claims, because I know that I'd be amongst the first to hear if there were actual evidence... I don't need to waste my time on that which people claim is evidence. I've spent enough of my life on that. I'm interested in what is objectively true. Is there any reason or evidence I should take the god that Beth is "on the fence about" any more seriously than the demons she is not "on the fence about". And as far as I can tell, the answer is no. The evidence she has is equally useless as far as understanding whether some invisible entity or supernatural something exists.

I don't even know where you and I differ. As I said, I understand skepticgirl. I understand what is and isn't evidence for what and why. I don't believe I've heard a logical reason or actual evidence that warrants being more on the fence about "gods" than "demons"-- my mind or brain is equally open to all empirical evidence and evidence for both... like the MDC-- tell me what you are claiming and then prove it. But so far people just make claims. They never provide evidence and so it's all "woo" to me. It's all equally "wooish" and unsupported by evidence. None of it is what I would consider evidence for any being I would interpret as "god".

I can't respond to your arguments because I don't really understand them. I do, however, understand skepticgirl. And I agree with her. I might be agreeing with you too, but I'm not really sure where we differ or what you are saying.

I know you think I'm not trying... , but maybe if you summed up your answer to the question in the OP along with what you perceive as your differences with skepticgirl it would help. Or maybe I just can't get it. Or maybe you aren't conveying what you think you are conveying. Clearly there is no direct evidence for god... I suppose you count some stuff as circumstantial evidence that I don't think meets that criteria.

To me the the default presumption is not to believe in something so big as an invisible form of consciousness until or unless the evidence becomes incontrovertible-- you know... -extraordinary claims.... it's much easier to conclude that each god belief is as delusional as all the god beliefs the believer finds delusional or mythical. All religions are "scientology" as far as objective truths go... as far as I'm concerned. I don't recognize or respect the evidence of one over any other and still don't understand why anyone logically could.

articulett said:

I'm getting confused.

Click to expand...

That's fine. Nothing to be ashamed of there.

All gods appear to be conscious entities that exist and have properties that we only know to exist in living brains (thinking, feeling, wanting, loving, etc.) but they don't have material brains.

Click to expand...

I offered that they have ours, but that's a different converstaion, one you don't seem to be ready for yet.

I don't know of any god definition that doesn't fit that category, and if so, it seems only to be doing so to avoid being negated by logic.

Click to expand...

that's because neither you nor skepticgirl can look past the old, parochial definitons yet. Again, there was another thread for it.

I would say, that per the OP, nobody has presented a valid reason for believing in whatever god they believe in while disbelieving in other gods or other invisible entities.

Click to expand...

I haven't even read the OP. Skepticgirl invited me to bring our discussion of "evidence vs. conclusions" here trom the Radical Skeptic thread.

I think it is a semantic argument...

Click to expand...

Indeed so, but that doesn't make it trivial. If we are not using the same words the same way, then understanding is not possible. Neither is objectivity. Skepticgirl and I are clearly not using the words under discussion the same way.

Maybe I'm not following you. I understand skepticgirl. I understand why I wouldn't consider someone's evidence of god as actual evidence of god.

Click to expand...

Why?

I can't really tell what you are saying

Click to expand...

Clearly. You seem to be way too wrapped up in an emotional need for "god" to be wrong because you don't seem to be able to write about anything without inserting paragraphs restating and restaing your assertions that it is wrong. TRY and forget about god for just a moment and consider the notion of "evidence"- any evidence, for anything- by itself. What do you think it is?

Maybe you would consider all such evidence equally or you think the evidence is of different caliber or would require different levels of interpretation to count as "evidence".

Click to expand...

All evidence should be treated the same. All evidence is interpretation of data. All evidence should be considered valid as far as it stands up to scientific scrutiny.

When it comes to evidence as to what is objectively true--rather people believe it or not-- I don't think the god hypothesis has any more evidence going for it than the demon hypothesis or the reincarnation hypothesis.

Click to expand...

I know this. Everyone knows this. You restate it ad nauseum at every opportunity, whether it is relevant or not. Let it go, assertions are not evidence.

But I feel like I'm getting tangled in definitions. I understand skepticgirl. I don't agree that there is any evidence that some sort of god exists outside the human imagination. I didn't agree on the other thread, and I don't agree here. I think all gods are entirely human creations. I know you think this too... or I believe you do. I guess I would say that the evidenced you might call evidence for god, I'd call evidence that people are very good at fooling themselves.

Click to expand...

That's because your emotional bias has kept us from even getting past the first step.

Yes, as a skeptic, I feel very confident in dismissing all supernatural claims, because I know that I'd be amongst the first to hear if there were actual evidence...

Click to expand...

That's a bit arrogant.

I don't need to waste my time on that which people claim is evidence.

Click to expand...

Congratulations, you are Claus Larsen:

CFLarsen said:

Why should people waste time finding out if skeptics tell the truth or not? Aren't people wasting enough time doing that with the woos?

Click to expand...

CFLarsen said:

When your audience has to ferret out the truth for themselves each time you say something, you are not teaching them that skepticism is a good method, but a useless method that only wastes people's time. You don't speak with the authority from knowledge, but with the ever-present uncertainty that nobody knows if you are telling the truth or telling a lie.

Click to expand...

He thinks examining evidence is a waste of time too, and we are better off just assuming we know the truth and should get busy combating those that disagree.

I don't even know where you and I differ.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm aware of that.

I understand what is and isn't evidence for what and why.

Click to expand...

Great. Care to share that information?

I can't respond to your arguments because I don't really understand them. I do, however, understand skepticgirl. And I agree with her. I might be agreeing with you too, but I'm not really sure where we differ or what you are saying.

Click to expand...

Yet, you don't seem to be at a loss to respond at length. That's lecturing, or preaching, if you will. Not discussion. I'm happy to repeat or clarify whatever it is you don't understand, but it's not going to help if you don't listen to what I say.

I know you think I'm not trying... , but maybe if you summed up your answer to the question in the OP

Click to expand...

Like I said, I've not even read the OP.

along with what you perceive as your differences with skepticgirl it would help.

Click to expand...

I did so, here.

Or maybe I just can't get it. Or maybe you aren't conveying what you think you are conveying.

Click to expand...

That's possible. It took me a few minutes just to explain what we were talking about to my wife, and she's not emotionally invested in it.

...it's much easier to conclude that each god belief is as delusional as all the god beliefs the believer finds delusional or mythical.

Click to expand...

"Easier", certainly. Just like it is "easier" for a theist to believe all his enculturated assumptions and "evidence" about god are correct and all others, including atheism, are delusional. Easy makes neither choice correct.

As I have told my daughter from the time she was a small child, if you are trying to figure out what is right (in terms of both reason and morality), the easy choice is probably the least correct.

Pointing to the influences of demonic activities as evidence of their existence overlooks the reality that humans need nothing like a demon's influence to perform demonically!
History shows this.
Sloughing off heinous activities to some supernatural influence is merely passing the buck for the human responsibility.
The existence and acceptance of demons does predicate the existence of the other side.
There has to be something to be "bad" in relation.
Once human fraility gets its proper place in who did what to whom and why, then the need to invoke demons or angelic intervention goes away and praise/blame can be properly assigned to a real person or persons, good or bad.

If I'm trying to find out whether there's a reason to believe in anything supernatural... I think it's safe to wait for empirical evidence. To do otherwise, seems to be a recipe for fooling oneself.

I'm sorry Piscivore... I'm trying to understand... I tried on that other thread too. I understand that you see god as a concept that people create that causes them to do things and build things and so forth... and that you see the things they do and build as evidence of some sort of "realness" of their god.

I understand how you can extract that to be sort of "real" or to exist separate from human thought as a kind of zeitgeist or symbol or primal longing or metaphor. But I don't understand the rest, and I'm not sure if anyone else is or does. Moreover, Claus has an opposite point of view... he thinks if no one is claiming evidence for their god we can't judge whether it exists. I'm of the camp that until something is proven to actually exist, it's safe to "believe" that it does not-- from fairies to psychic powers to demons to gods... especially when it comes to supernatural claims. We know believing in such leads to magical thinking which humans are particularly prone too. Believing in god is like believing in "the matrix" to me. And the "evidence" is similar. I imagine my view on god is similar to Randi or most skeptics. Let me know if there is any actual evidence. I can see why people believe that Sylvia Browne is a real psychic and I can also see why she's not and it's unlikely that there are any real psychics. I feel the same way about god. I feel the evidence is of the same kind for psychic powers. We don't sit on the fence for things that are unlikely to be true.

I don't think anyone who is actually interested in whether god objectively exists would find the evidence people claim for god existing convincing unless it was a belief they already wanted to have. I think that when something is real or true, the evidence accumulates. I agree that god exists as a concept or ideal... but nobody thinks of their god as a concept or ideal or as coming from their head and as far as I can tell, there is no evidence that any god is more than that... which I think is something you agree with.

Does someone else understand what you are saying here? Yes, lots of things can be "evidence"... but the real question is what is it evidence for? Maybe it's evidence for the conceptual god that you were talking about on piggy's thread. Do you understand BDZ? Do you think you are talking about the same thing?

Most of your posts I find I understand just fine. But when it comes to god and evidence for god... I can't make sense of what you are saying. Maybe it is me. Maybe someone else can explain. But maybe you aren't being as clear as you think. I don't understand the essence of what you are saying... only that you think it's something that I'm lacking and not an error in your communication. I don't think you are actually interested in a discussion on this topic or having anyone answer your questions. I think you have opinions that you think you are conveying but no one may be getting.

Nobody is advocating combating those that disagree... just trying to figure out how people come to believe so strongly and so surely in something so unsupported. When I was a kid, I figured it was an important question to try and find the right belief and believe it-- I believed my eternity was at stake. I have come to the conclusion that people mostly don't know what they believe or why when it comes to god, and none has any reasons that make me think they have found any divine truth.

I don't think that's closed minded. I wish I'd come to that conclusion a lot earlier. It would have kept me from worrying that I might not believing in the right faith with enough fervor to please the invisible nebulous creator of the universe that everyone appeared to believe in.

I think it's very smart for skeptics to without belief in things until there is evidence to warrant belief in such things. And the words people use to justify otherwise just sound like special pleading to me. Or like you you are trying to judge people for not understanding whatever "divine thing" you are trying to explain. How is that different than what woo do? When you insult me, I feel like you are trying to make me feel bad about not understanding instead of taking responsibility for the fact that you might not be conveying information. I do understand most of the people most of the time, you know. I'm not stupid. And I do understand skepticgirl.

articulett said:

When you insult me, I feel like you are trying to make me feel bad about not understanding instead of taking responsibility for the fact that you might not be conveying information.

Click to expand...

I have not insulted you, if it seems I have it's probably just frustration. I feel like I am answering your questions but when I ask any back all I get is more lecturing on what you think about god and how you don't think it's possible. I'm sorry, articulett, I like you, but that just not what I've been talking about in this thread.

And I have admitted that what I was trying to explain about my god idea is not easy for me to illustrate, or someone else to get. It is something counterintuitive and completely at odds with most people's earliest enculterations. But that's not what I was talking about in this thread. I showed you where I explicitly laid out what skeptigirl and I were discussing, at your request, and you completely ignored it and just restated (again) your assertions about how god can't exist and the evidence isn't evidence.

I do understand that you feel that way. You can stop now.

Piscivore:

The object cannot be evidence if it is not oberved

Click to expand...

and

The observation is an element of the evidence.

Click to expand...

and

you seem to have switched from the scientific usage of the word "evidence", to which you linked and which you also declared you wished to use- to the legal sense of the word.

Click to expand...

I'm trying to get at the semantic problem here, Piscivore because I see what it is but I'm not sure you do.

You are including some action or purpose in your definition of evidence and I am not. You are adding the preposition, of, which is fine, but it isn't what I'm talking about. You objected to my calling evidence, "'the thing' one based the conclusion on", and tried to change that definition. But 'the thing' is what I am talking about.

You are saying one must use the intent, "evidence of" while I am using the word, evidence, as "'the thing' one bases a conclusion on". I see what you are getting at but it limits the definition of evidence to a specific circumstance "evidence of" and doesn't allow a discussion of the characteristics of evidence as a thing. In other words while you are arguing about what you think the term evidence is limited to, you leave no means of discussing the example of the issue with Beth which is her claiming the conclusion is evidence.

So rather than trying to convince me what you believe the word evidence means, how about trying to understand the concepts here instead? We can debate whether evidence is the 'thing' or evidence requires one add the preposition, of, as in "evidence of". That is a semantic argument and does nothing to further the issue at hand.

Evidence, whether it be something an individual uses to draw a conclusion, whether it is used in a court of law, or whether it is used to draw a scientific conclusion is "the thing" which one bases a conclusion upon.

Bear with me here, and don't try to answer this sentence by sentence. Let me go back to the original issue which was: Conclusions are not evidence of the conclusion. The conclusion is based on the evidence it isn't the evidence. The body has its neurosensory input. One looks at a red thing. One draws a conclusion it is red. The thing is the evidence. The conclusion is it is red.

So forget your semantic sidetrack for the moment, how would you discuss the problem that a conclusion is not evidence?

For example, is a wrong conclusion evidence that it is right? Of course not! Take the checkerboard illusion where two squares that appear to be different colors are really the same color. If you draw the conclusion that they are different colors does that change the evidence? Of course not!

So explain how you would explain that? I would say the conclusion is not evidence. What would you say?

skeptigirl said:

So forget your semantic sidetrack for the moment, how would you discuss the problem that a conclusion is not evidence?

Click to expand...

A conclusion is not evidence of or for itself, no. A conclusion may be evidence for something else. I don't know exactly how this is a problem.

skeptigirl said:

For example, is a wrong conclusion evidence that it is right? Of course not! Take the checkerboard illusion where two squares that appear to be different colors are really the same color. If you draw the conclusion that they are different colors does that change the evidence? Of course not!

So explain how you would explain that? I would say the conclusion is not evidence. What would you say?

Click to expand...

I would say, and did:

The error correcting mechanism for perception error is repeatability and reproducability, not stipulating that what you think (or are told) something is is the evidence. Which you seem to imply- how does one discover in this case that what is perceived is in error? Appeal to authority? Or observation by other means?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

skeptigirl said:

The body has its neurosensory input. One looks at a red thing. One draws a conclusion it is red. The thing is the evidence. The conclusion is it is red.

Click to expand...

skeptigirl said:

Take the checkerboard illusion where two squares that appear to be different colors are really the same color. If you draw the conclusion that they are different colors does that change the evidence? Of course not!

So explain how you would explain that?

Click to expand...

I'm going to put this another way.

We have two squares on the checkerboard. Because of the context of the squares, most people, using their ordinary vision unaided by equipment, will percieve them as being different colours- reflecting light in different wavelengths or degrees of brightness. Measuring with a machine not subject to the same type of perception error, or removing the confusing context, it will be seen as the squares reflecting the same ratio of wavelengths and degree of brightness.

Now, the person looking at it with unaided vision in the confusing context is going to come to the conclusion that the squares are different colours. He's using the evidence available to him to come to that conclusion.

The person using a machine to observe the squares, or the person removing the squares from the confusing context, will come to the conclusion that the squares are the same colour. They are using the evidence available to them to come to that conclusion.

What is the difference, if the squares don't change? The difference is in the perception. The man viewing the squares in the confusing context does not percieve the squares the same as the man who does not view them in the confusing context. When you change the variable, in this case, the confusing context, the perception of the object changes, but not the object. When the percetion of the object changes, the conclusion drawn from it changes. This suggests that the object is not influencing the conclusion, but the perception.

You want to eliminate perception from the equation (for some reason) so the only difference you can see is in the conclusion. Therefore, using the evidence available to you, you conclude that somehow the ones who have come to a different conclusion than you have are confusing their conclusion with their evidence. This just isn't the case.

Repeatability, reproducability, and eliminating the variables are all part of the scientific method, a method derived at and intended to eliminate, or at least reduce, observational error- not to set a orthodoxy as to what objects "really" are, what evidence is acceptable and what conclusions must be drawn. Which is the only conclusion I can come to with regards to what you're saying- that the object has some trancendant truth to it that will override somehow errors in perception, or even somehow render perception unecessary at all.

I would say the conclusion is not evidence. What would you say?

Click to expand...

I would say that's obvious from their definitions, a non-sequitor, and does not explain how the same "evidence" can lead to different conclusions.

Piscivore said:

...

Now, the person looking at it with unaided vision in the confusing context is going to come to the conclusion that the squares are different colours. He's using the evidence available to him to come to that conclusion.

The person using a machine to observe the squares, or the person removing the squares from the confusing context, will come to the conclusion that the squares are the same colour. They are using the evidence available to them to come to that conclusion.

What is the difference, if the squares don't change? The difference is in the perception. The man viewing the squares in the confusing context does not percieve the squares the same as the man who does not view them in the confusing context. When you change the variable, in this case, the confusing context, the perception of the object changes, but not the object. When the percetion of the object changes, the conclusion drawn from it changes. This suggests that the object is not influencing the conclusion, but the perception.....

Click to expand...

In this example, the evidence stays the same, the conclusion changes and one conclusion is correct, one is an error. We can say that because when properly examined, even the person making the error will recognize the illusion and realize the squares are the same color.

The facts do not change, the opinion does. "You are welcome to your own opinion, not your own facts", is a way of describing the fact that the evidence is the reality, the perception is subject to distortions of many types. No matter what influences how you perceive the evidence (again with the exception of quantum phenomena) the evidence is not changed by whatever influences your perception.

I understand what you are saying, but you are in essence trying to claim that perception influences reality. If that were true we would be in at least some kind of Matrix where reality was in out minds. But reality is not in our minds. Reality exists and we observe and interpret it.

In Beth's example it is even more clear than the squares. She claims if you feel god that is evidence gods exist. But it is not. It is only evidence people have some sensation they believe is evidence. That belief is not evidence of anything except a belief which is a mental process. Again, dreaming something is not evidence of reality, it is evidence of brain activity and nothing more. By your reasoning, dreaming would be evidence of the things in the dream actually existing. That alone should tell you your reasoning is flawed.

skeptigirl said:

In this example, the evidence stays the same, the conclusion changes and one conclusion is correct, one is an error. We can say that because when properly examined, even the person making the error will recognize the illusion and realize the squares are the same color.

The facts do not change, the opinion does. "You are welcome to your own opinion, not your own facts", is a way of describing the fact that the evidence is the reality, the perception is subject to distortions of many types. No matter what influences how you perceive the evidence (again with the exception of quantum phenomena) the evidence is not changed by whatever influences your perception.

Click to expand...

This all agrees with what I said, only you are changing the names of the terms.

I understand what you are saying, but you are in essence trying to claim that perception influences reality.

Click to expand...

No, I'm claiming that perception influences how we percieve reality. And we cannot get past peception, all we can do is limit the errors in perception as best we can. Which is what science is for. But there is no way for a human being to remove that layer of perception between him and the universe. Trying to ignore that can only lead to error.

In Beth's example it is even more clear than the squares. She claims if you feel god that is evidence gods exist. But it is not.

Click to expand...

Right. It is only evidence that something exists. We need additional evidence to know what it is.

It is only evidence people have some sensation they believe is evidence. That belief is not evidence of anything except a belief which is a mental process.

Click to expand...

It is evidence, they are just jumping to a conclusion about what it means. That makes them wrong, but it does not mean that the evidence is the conclusion. Or that they are confusing the evidence with the conclusion.

Again, dreaming something is not evidence of reality, it is evidence of brain activity and nothing more.

Click to expand...

Right. It is evidence the dream- the pattern of neuronal activity- exists.

By your reasoning, dreaming would be evidence of the things in the dream actually existing.

Click to expand...

You are mistaken, my reasoning does not inidicate that. The dream exists, but not the content of the dream.

Piscivore said:

Right. It is only evidence that something exists. We need additional evidence to know what it is.

Click to expand...

Actually, I said something very similar to this pages ago and added in that people usually call that unknown something 'god'. In fact this entire conversation you're having with sg is giving me deja vu. Good luck!

Piscivore, what the hell are you going on about? I've been following this thread, but I can't follow you. Since many people throught history have variously seen faries, nixies, pixies, sprites, leprechauns, kami, loa, valkeries, angels, demons, gods, God, Jesus, aliens, muses, and Elvis - and attributed all sorts of feelings, involuntary actions, and artistic creativity to those beings you conclude that such things constitute evidence for God? Just God, then? Not faries, nixies, pixies, sprites, leprechauns, kami, loa, valkeries, angels, demons, gods, aliens, muses, and/or Elvis?

Or, are you saying that because we don't fully understand the human brain, those mysterious feelings and drives we have are evidence of a supernatural entity? That's just a god of the gaps, and it nonetheless fails to prove one religion as true while disproving all others.

So, what the hell are you getting at?

ImaginalDisc said:

Piscivore, what the hell are you going on about? I've been following this thread, but I can't follow you. Since many people throught history have variously seen faries, nixies, pixies, sprites, leprechauns, kami, loa, valkeries, angels, demons, gods, God, Jesus, aliens, muses, and Elvis - and attributed all sorts of feelings, involuntary actions, and artistic creativity to those beings you conclude that such things constitute evidence for God? Just God, then? Not faries, nixies, pixies, sprites, leprechauns, kami, loa, valkeries, angels, demons, gods, aliens, muses, and/or Elvis?

Or, are you saying that because we don't fully understand the human brain, those mysterious feelings and drives we have are evidence of a supernatural entity? That's just a god of the gaps, and it nonetheless fails to prove one religion as true while disproving all others.

So, what the hell are you getting at?

Click to expand...

I was actually thinking the same. The god-concept seems to be so diluted that one cannot soon recognize it from having some sensations of the initial stages of a fart. What’s the deal here? If god is some kind of personal relation with the universe, then it’s not meaningful to talk about god in the first place – just settle for ‘a weird feeling’, or something.

ImaginalDisc said:

Piscivore, what the hell are you going on about? I've been following this thread, but I can't follow you. Since many people throught history have variously seen faries, nixies, pixies, sprites, leprechauns, kami, loa, valkeries, angels, demons, gods, God, Jesus, aliens, muses, and Elvis - and attributed all sorts of feelings, involuntary actions, and artistic creativity to those beings you conclude that such things constitute evidence for God?

Click to expand...

No.

Just God, then? Not faries, nixies, pixies, sprites, leprechauns, kami, loa, valkeries, angels, demons, gods, aliens, muses, and/or Elvis?

Click to expand...

None of them, including supernatural versions of "god".

Or, are you saying that because we don't fully understand the human brain, those mysterious feelings and drives we have are evidence of a supernatural entity?

Click to expand...

No. I do not believe there is any evidence for anything supernatural, nor, baring some radical reassesment of our current understanding of how the universe works, can we reasonably expect any evidence for anything supernatural to be forthcoming.

That's just a god of the gaps,

Click to expand...

Indeed so.

and it nonetheless fails to prove one religion as true while disproving all others.

Click to expand...

Quite so.

So, what the hell are you getting at?

Click to expand...

The only thing I was discussing in this thread was the nature of what "evidence" is.

As for what my ideas were in the other thread about "god"- honestly, I'm sick to death of trying to explain it. It is all in the "Ask a Radical Atheist" thread. If you have some specific questions I'd be happy to discuss them in PM, but I'm getting tired of the clusterhumping it generates from the anti-theists who won't bother to comprehend anything past "god = bad".

Piscivore said:

The only thing I was discussing in this thread was the nature of what "evidence" is.

Click to expand...

That which can be independently examined. I don't think that's a contentious definition.

As for what my ideas were in the other thread about "god"- honestly, I'm sick to death of trying to explain it. It is all in the "Ask a Radical Atheist" thread. If you have some specific questions I'd be happy to discuss them in PM, but I'm getting tired of the clusterhumping it generates from the anti-theists who won't bother to comprehend anything past "god = bad".

Click to expand...

Don't make the mistake of lumping me in with other people with whom you have had previous disagreements, I just don't undersrtand the thrust of your arguement at all. Perhaps it's a failing on my part.

ImaginalDisc said:

That which can be independently examined. I don't think that's a contentious definition.

Click to expand...

You wouldn't think so. Yet apparently there's a whole cadre of people on this forum with their own bizzare, private dictionary of English.

Don't make the mistake of lumping me in with other people with whom you have had previous disagreements.

Click to expand...

Oh, I'm not. I'm just not inclined to bring it up in public right now.

I just don't undersrtand the thrust of your arguement at all. Perhaps it's a failing on my part.

Click to expand...

No, I doubt it's your fault. I need to find a better way to clearly communicate it.

I am going to take a stab at this via analogy, as I think I understand where Pisci is coming from (at least in regards to the topic of evidence).

Let's assume we are back in the time before the circulatory system was clearly understood. Hopefully, most of you have heard the sound of your own pulse in your ears, either when exercising strenuously, or when you are alone in a very quiet room. If you didn't know how your circulatory system could make this happen, it could be seen as a mysterious sound with no apparent source. Most people could hear it and describe it clearly, as well as recognize the sensation when someone else describes it, but those same people could only hear their own pulse, never anyone else's, so independent verification of the sound in your own ears is impossible.

And yet, the sound exists, it is evidence of something happening. Not knowing the source, someone might start labeling it as unicorn hoofbeats. The label is as good as anything else when further knowledge is unavailable. Of course, it would have to be an invisible, intangible unicorn.

Now, let's say some smart person finds out about the heart, blood vessels, and all that, and realizes that the sound really does have an internal source that is completely consistent with the physical laws of the universe as they are understood. So instead of labeling the sound "unicorn hoofbeats", they label it "your pulse". Same sound, different root causes.

Now let's say that the unicorn lovers do not want to lose their faith in their intangible unicorn (what the heck, let's make her pink). When confronted with the evidence that the sound is generated by the heart, these people may start to claim, "OK, the sound is generated by my heart. But why does it sound like unicorn hoofbeats? I believe the unicorn is making it sound like that just to show me that she is really there." What can you say against an argument like that? Does the sound of your pulse really need a reason to exist as the sound of hoofbeats in your ears, or is this just anthropomorphizing (sp?) the circulatory system?

I really think this is the state of the "feelings of god" argument today. There is plenty of evidence that these feelings are generated by the brain. Some people still want to believe that these feelings need a reason to exist, others don't. YMMV.

As far as I can tell, Pisci is simply arguing that the sound/feeling is evidence, just not the kind of evidence that can be independently verified, other than by agreeing that yes, I have heard that sound/felt that feeling before. I can't hear your sound/feel your feeling, but I know what you talking about. I do not think Pisci is arguing for the existence of gods/unicorns. As to Beth, I am not so sure. Maybe she can clarify when she is feeling less sore.