What Would Evidence for God's Existence Be Like?

[bhsmte]

But its not enough. It will never be enough, because God chose it to be so.

If it is enough for you, why do you need other people to agree with you?

It would appear, you are uncomfortable with people disagreeing with you and when they do not put the same credibility into your support for your position.

 

[kristina411]

That would be "no", then? Perhaps you should revise your assertion.

Are you familiar with Agrippa’a trilemma?

If not let me sum it up so you can understand how your line of questioning and probing is not helpful.
Agrippa’a trilemma says that there are three ways to an answer.
Essentially speaking one way would be regressive argument in which the person keeps asking for proof of the proof of the proof. For instance:
How do I know I love my husband? Because he makes me happy. But how do I know that he makes me happy and I'm not just imagining it? Because I smile around him more than anyone else. But could I be smiling more around him because he is just funny? And it never stops. The questions never end.

The circular argument has no ending because you continue in circles. How do I k ow I love my husband? Because he makes me happy. How do I know he makes me happy? Because I smile more. Could I be smiling more because he's funny? I smile more because I love my husband. But how do I know I love my husband? And it keeps going.

The only preferred argument is the axiomatic argument where you decide after so long that you will make an assessment with what evidence you have. You pick a point and end. Make a decision.

There has to be a point where you say "ok. I will accept it for what it is."

I tried to simplify the best I could, my references may not be perfect and only serve to give an idea.

Now that we have cleared that up, once you are ready to have a productive/axiomatic discussion, I am here.

 

[kristina411]

If it is enough for you, why do you need other people to agree with you?

It would appear, you are uncomfortable with people disagreeing with you and when they do not put the same credibility into your support for your position.

I need to go back and see where I confused you with another poster..

 

[kristina411]

When did I say you condemned me, do you have a post #?

I see the confusion.
When everyone wants to be involved in anothers discussion things get confusing. If we could stick to quote replies of responses to us that would be great, in effort to keep everyone straight. Since you know, there are quite a few skeptics in this section.

And aliens dont have to be a "yay or nay" life is not so black and white.

I dont know if there are "aliens" but even if there were I could see how it could fit with Christianity since heaven was said to be in the stars.
I dont give it much thought because it does not effect me. So undecided is my vote.

 

[bhsmte]

Since you know, there are quite a few skeptics in this section.

You mean like your skepticism towards UFO's and aliens?

 

[kristina411]

You mean like your skepticism towards UFO's and aliens?

Lol I never said my belief in them until my last post where I said I was unsure, not skeptical. And I'm not to believe we are arguing for arguments sake?

 

[bhsmte]

Lol I never said my belief in them until my last post where I said I was unsure, not skeptical. And I'm not to believe we are arguing for arguments sake?

This is what you said in post 651:

Because I have always assumed most of the reports were government air crafts.

That sounds to me that you were skeptical of the reports.

 

[kristina411]

This is what you said in post 651:

Because I have always assumed most of the reports were government air crafts.

That sounds to me that you were skeptical of the reports.

That shows I used my brain.
Government crafts are often secret, there for likely a fair account of reporting's. I live by an air station. Not hard to figure that much out.

 

[JGG]

Lol I never said my belief in them until my last post where I said I was unsure, not skeptical. And I'm not to believe we are arguing for arguments sake?

That shows I used my brain.
Government crafts are often secret, there for likely a fair account of reporting's. I live by an air station. Not hard to figure that much out.

What exactly do you think a skeptic is? What do you think skepticism is? What does it mean to be skeptical?

 

[bhsmte]

What exactly do you think a skeptic is? What do you think skepticism is? What does it mean to be skeptical?

Precisely my thoughts and more contradictions.

 

[kristina411]

Skep•tic
\ˈskep-tik\
noun

: a person who questions or doubts something (such as a claim or statement) : a person who often questions or doubts things


I do not question or doubt UFOs, as I have said. It does not effect me at the time so I do not question I just accept it for what it is. A possibility. Saying I figured the government was responsible for a large portion of "sightings" only shows I use common sense when absorbing information.

When I reference skeptics it is clearly religious skeptics that are my focal point.

It would be nice if you could show where I have contradicted myself and not where you have mistakenly assumed I said something?

 

[Davian]

Are you familiar with Agrippa’a trilemma?

If not let me sum it up so you can understand how your line of questioning and probing is not helpful.
Agrippa’a trilemma says that there are three ways to an answer.
Essentially speaking one way would be regressive argument in which the person keeps asking for proof of the proof of the proof. For instance:
How do I know I love my husband? Because he makes me happy. But how do I know that he makes me happy and I'm not just imagining it? Because I smile around him more than anyone else. But could I be smiling more around him because he is just funny? And it never stops. The questions never end.

The circular argument has no ending because you continue in circles. How do I k ow I love my husband? Because he makes me happy. How do I know he makes me happy? Because I smile more. Could I be smiling more because he's funny? I smile more because I love my husband. But how do I know I love my husband? And it keeps going.

The only preferred argument is the axiomatic argument where you decide after so long that you will make an assessment with what evidence you have. You pick a point and end. Make a decision.

There has to be a point where you say "ok. I will accept it for what it is."

I tried to simplify the best I could, my references may not be perfect and only serve to give an idea.

I do not see how that applies to what I said. I did not ask for proof, or evidence, for anything in that post.

Now that we have cleared that up, once you are ready to have a productive/axiomatic discussion, I am here.

You said, "That skeptics will find fault no matter what the evidence shows."

It was to that statement I took exception. You are making a blanket statement about how a group of people think.

Do you appreciate blanket statements said about theists, or Christians, about what they believe, or think, or would do?

Unless you have some keen mind-reading apparatus, or many examples of where "skeptics" have turned their nose up at some independently verifiable evidence, presented in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, with robust definitions, I do not see any issue with calling you out on it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, using the variation of the reports of others is just an excuse not to find God on your own.

How do you suggest I go about finding a God on my own? The "spiritual method" you alluded to earlier? Well, you haven't even bothered to elucidate what that spiritual method requires, beyond "self-validating" extant faith.

Yes, that's right, If Archaeopteryx truly sought God on his own he could find him without the substantiation of others.

What about those individuals who have "truly sought God on [their] own" and come away without a belief in him? It doesn't appear to be the case that the mere act of searching guarantees that one will become a theist.

 

[kristina411]

I do not see how that applies to what I said. I did not ask for proof, or evidence, for anything in that post.

You said, "That skeptics will find fault no matter what the evidence shows."

It was to that statement I took exception. You are making a blanket statement about how a group of people think.

Do you appreciate blanket statements said about theists, or Christians, about what they believe, or think, or would do?

Unless you have some keen mind-reading apparatus, or many examples of where "skeptics" have turned their nose up at some independently verifiable evidence, presented in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, with robust definitions, I do not see any issue with calling you out on it.

I do believe I am constantly being told what I believe because i am a Christian, so blanket statements seem welcome on this board.
Is is obvious that there are exceptions to every group.

You want proof that skeptics would not take video evidence? That they would not believe the testimonies of millions before them? That hearing from God, although for everyone else they would be institutionalized but to the skeptic they would believe it?
You can be your own evidence of this. There are numerous miracle videos online that show miraculous prayers being answered. Do you accept this as evidence? If not you have your answer.

Now read on testimonies, there are millions upon millions online right now, more books as well. Read them. Do you accept this as evidence? You have your answer.

Now think about every story you have heard about another person who said they spoke to God. On TV or in real life. Thought they needed mental help or do you accept this as evidence? You have your answer.

You (and the others) are my evidence. You are my "testable, falsifiable hypothesis"

If you are the exception than I apologize because it does not appear that way when you do not aknowledge the evidence at your fingertips.

There already is evidence and it is ignored, it shows that no amount of evidence will be enough for the ones who are determined to ignore it.""

 

[JGG]

Skep•tic
\ˈskep-tik\
noun

: a person who questions or doubts something (such as a claim or statement) : a person who often questions or doubts things


I do not question or doubt UFOs, as I have said. It does not effect me at the time so I do not question I just accept it for what it is. A possibility. Saying I figured the government was responsible for a large portion of "sightings" only shows I use common sense when absorbing information.

But when people made claims about sightings, you clearly did not believe them, doubted them and questioned their claims. That's skepticism. And look, you were right. Welcome to the Skeptics' club. In fact, that you view UFOs as a possibility, and not true beyond question or doubt makes you a skeptic.

When I reference skeptics it is clearly religious skeptics that are my focal point.

Why is there a difference? Why is it permissable to be skeptical about claims about UFOs, but not claims about religion? Or is it that people can only be skeptical of things you are skeptical of? Is there a list somewhere of what we are allowed to be skeptical of and what we are not?

It would be nice if you could show where I have contradicted myself and not where you have mistakenly assumed I said something?

"I do not question or doubt UFOs..."

"Saying I figured the government was responsible for a large portion of "sightings" only shows I use common sense when absorbing information."

 

[kristina411]

But when people made claims about sightings, you clearly did not believe them, doubted them and questioned their claims. That's skepticism. And look, you were right. Welcome to the Skeptics' club. In fact, that you view UFOs as a possibility, and not true beyond question or doubt makes you a skeptic.



Why is there a difference? Why is it permissable to be skeptical about claims about UFOs, but not claims about religion? Or is it that people can only be skeptical of things you are skeptical of? Is there a list somewhere of what we are allowed to be skeptical of and what we are not?



"I do not question or doubt UFOs..."

"Saying I figured the government was responsible for a large portion of "sightings" only shows I use common sense when absorbing information."

Lol that was not contradicting, would you care to explain how?
I hear what people say about aliens and I leave it at that. If someone who lived near me saw one I may give it more thought but that has not happened. Then again I may not give it much thought because like I said, I live near a air station. It doesn't matter to me. I dont k ow how I can be more clear that I really am not interested in the idea of aliens?
Since we are on a site called "christianforum.com" and in a discussion involving religion, and my aim has clearly been to the religious topics, it is evident that when I said skeptics I was referencing religious skeptics.

 

[JGG]

Lol that was not contradicting, would you care to explain how?

You said that you do not question or doubt that UFOs exist. That means you believe without question or doubt the claims that UFOs really do visit Earth and abduct people. But you proclaim that you doubted that sightings of UFOs.

I hear what people say about aliens and I leave it at that. If someone who lived near me saw one I may give it more thought but that has not happened. Then again I may not give it much thought because like I said, I live near a air station. It doesn't matter to me.

Definitive answer: Do you unquestionably believe in UFOs with no doubt whatsoever, or not?

I dont k ow how I can be more clear that I really am not interested in the idea of aliens?
Since we are on a site called "christianforum.com" and in a discussion involving religion, and my aim has clearly been to the religious topics, it is evident that when I said skeptics I was referencing religious skeptics.

My question has not been answered: Why is it okay to be skeptical of UFOs, but not of religion?

 

[kristina411]

You said that you do not question or doubt that UFOs exist. That means you believe without question or doubt the claims that UFOs really do visit Earth and abduct people. But you proclaim that you doubted that sightings of UFOs.



Definitive answer: Do you unquestionably believe in UFOs with no doubt whatsoever, or not?



My question has not been answered: Why is it okay to be skeptical of UFOs, but not of religion?

As I originally said and continue to say. I do not know if aliens exist. I don't think enough about it to come to any conclusion.

People do often apply common sense when they absorb information, like a "ufo" sighting near a major air port or military station. Common sense, not skepticism.
I do not "question" because I dont find it particular interesting co.pared to so many other things. I do not doubt because i do not have reason to doubt. I do not confirm because I have no reason to confirm. I am simply neutral. It is possible.
And your skepticism is of no importance to me, I am merely pointing out the common traits of a skeptic in religious aspects.

Take care. From this moment further I will be making a real attempt at avoiding such discussions.

A philosophy discussion gets no where when it becomes regressive, when it is left to trivial nit picking, when it is unaccepting of pertinent evidence.

I never said you had to believe from the evidence, but if you can not accept the evidence and aknowledge it as evidence, no evidence will ever be enough. It is out there, you just have to find it.

 

[JGG]

As I originally said and continue to say. I do not know if aliens exist. I don't think enough about it to come to any conclusion.

Well think about it now. Do you believe in the existence of UFOs or not?

People do often apply common sense when they absorb information, like a "ufo" sighting near a major air port or military station. Common sense, not skepticism.

Think about that. I live nowhere near an air port or military station. What "common sense" would prevent me from believing these mistaken claims?

I do not "question" because I dont find it particular interesting co.pared to so many other things. I do not doubt because i do not have reason to doubt. I do not confirm because I have no reason to confirm. I am simply neutral. It is possible.

I am well aware. But if you are unable to confirm that something is true, do you believe it is true nonetheless? Do you not still have doubts? Choose: do you believe in UFOs or not? If you say "I don't know" then you do not believe.

And your skepticism is of no importance to me, I am merely pointing out the common traits of a skeptic in religious aspects.

Yes it is, because your skepticism is no different from mine. You are agnostic toward UFOs. You are a-UFO-ist.

Take care. From this moment further I will be making a real attempt at avoiding such discussions.

A philosophy discussion gets no where when it becomes regressive, when it is left to trivial nit picking, when it is unaccepting of pertinent evidence.

Have you considered that maybe the problem is with you. That maybe if you listened to others, communication might be better?

I never said you had to believe from the evidence, but if you can not accept the evidence and aknowledge it as evidence, no evidence will ever be enough. It is out there, you just have to find it.

You have presented evidence?

 

[Davian]

I do believe I am constantly being told what I believe because i am a Christian, so blanket statements seem welcome on this board.

Does this excuse your behaviour?

Is is obvious that there are exceptions to every group.

Why, thanks. A little late.

You want proof that skeptics would not take video evidence?

Are you not aware that video and photographic evidence can be faked?

That they would not believe the testimonies of millions before them?

That millions believe something does not make it reality. What of the millions that believe differently, in the case of religions? They cannot all be right.

That hearing from God, although for everyone else they would be institutionalized but to the skeptic they would believe it?

There are neuroscientific explanations for why people 'hear voices'. We are no longer limited to blaming gods and demons.

You can be your own evidence of this. There are numerous miracle videos online that show miraculous prayers being answered. Do you accept this as evidence? If not you have your answer.

I do accept this as evidence. It is evidence that with selection and confirmation bias, one can perceive the statistically random as having agency. As evidence for gods, it is lacking.

Michael Shermer » Agenticity

Now read on testimonies, there are millions upon millions online right now, more books as well. Read them. Do you accept this as evidence? You have your answer.

I do accept this as evidence. It is evidence that religions are well-tailored to take advantage of our story telling - and story accepting - nature. It is evidence that religions have evolved along with culture, as a "meme".

Now think about every story you have heard about another person who said they spoke to God. On TV or in real life. Thought they needed mental help or do you accept this as evidence? You have your answer.

I do not see religiosity as a sign of mental weakness. Religion has evolved to take advantage how our brains work, and is perfectly normal - although, I would say, not necessary.

Evolutionary origin of religions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You (and the others) are my evidence. You are my "testable, falsifiable hypothesis"

It is not evident that you have a clear understanding of those terms.

If you are the exception than I apologize because it does not appear that way when you do not aknowledge the evidence at your fingertips.

I do acknowledge the evidence that you allude to. I am just not convinced that it points to the same conclusion that you work from.

There already is evidence and it is ignored,

No, it is not. It has been examined, and found lacking. That you find it convincing and feel that it comports with your beliefs does not make it so for everyone.

it shows that no amount of evidence will be enough for the ones who are determined to ignore it.""

No, it does not. I have no such determination. As I have said elsewhere in these forums, why would I not want to believe that there is something more to a human's existence than this relatively brief biological stint on Earth?