Evidence

[Colter]

Let's try something else...

See, I don't like the way you act here. I only have these interactions with you here to make an assessment of your character, and while I may be wrong in this, it is all the "relationship" that I have to "understand" you.

But it is not required that we become friends. We can still try to have a reasonable conversation.

So...

You say that, if I had a relationship with God, I would understand. Well, I do not have a relationship with God.

How do I get one?

All things considered, at this point in your life, you will need to truly desire to find God, be willing to throw out everything you think you know about why God doesn't exist and sincerely desire to find God and to do his will. In essence, you must become thoroughly dissatisfied with yourself and abandon yourself to the embrace of you heavenly Father. ........and no, it's not a requirement that you first understand him.

 

[bhsmte]

All things considered, at this point in your life, you will need to truly desire to find God, be willing to throw out everything you think you know about why God doesn't exist and sincerely desire to find God and to do his will. In essence, you must become thoroughly dissatisfied with yourself and abandon yourself to the embrace of you heavenly Father. ........and no, it's not a requirement that you first understand him.

Some would call this, getting your "mind right".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oudNoKfNUfs

 

[Davian]

All things considered, at this point in your life, you will need to truly desire to find God, be willing to throw out everything you think you know about why God doesn't exist and sincerely desire to find God and to do his will.

Could I do the same for extraterrestrial aliens, that they are here on Earth? That would be so cool (the friendly ones, of course!). I'd do anything for a ride in one of their spaceships.

 

[kristina411]

Could I do the same for extraterrestrial aliens, that they are here on Earth? That would be so cool (the friendly ones, of course!). I'd do anything for a ride in one of their spaceships.

This is precisely the useless insulting talk I was speaking of. The poster this^ comment is aimed at said nothing short of his belief, when questioned. And this is his response. Instead of a legitimate discussion the poster is met with mockery.
No discussion is productive with this behavior.

 

[Freodin]

All things considered, at this point in your life, you will need to truly desire to find God, be willing to throw out everything you think you know about why God doesn't exist and sincerely desire to find God and to do his will. In essence, you must become thoroughly dissatisfied with yourself and abandon yourself to the embrace of you heavenly Father. ........and no, it's not a requirement that you first understand him.

I am not asking for understanding yet.

But I do have my reasons for "knowing about why God doesn't exist", as you put it.

I have these reasons, but no reasons for the opposite.

So how do I "truly desire" to find God, if I do not believe that God exists? Kristina here might think this is "mocking"... but consider how that would work for anything else. I don't think you believe it works for all the imaginary gods we were talking about before.

How is it going to work here?

Ok, step two: we have established that in order to have a relationship with God, I need to "truly desire" it.

How do I "truly desire" it?

 

[kristina411]

I am not asking for understanding yet.

But I do have my reasons for "knowing about why God doesn't exist", as you put it.

I have these reasons, but no reasons for the opposite.

So how do I "truly desire" to find God, if I do not believe that God exists? Kristina here might think this is "mocking"... but consider how that would work for anything else. I don't think you believe it works for all the imaginary gods we were talking about before.

So how is it going to work here?

This is clearly not mockery, the poster two posts above yours, however, was mocking. There is a clear distinction.

 

[Freodin]

This is clearly not mockery, the poster two posts above yours, however, was mocking. There is a clear distinction.

To be honest, I was writing something about it working in regard to aliens first.

That is the problem with the "mocking". On the one hand, it presents the point clearly - the comparison with something that even the believer thinks is ridiculous. On the other hand, it might offend people who think they are laughed at.

But consider the other problem: we are openly talking about our beliefs here. That includes criticism and doubt and thinking that your opposites position is ridiculous and wrong.

If you think carefully, you might see that a lot of people find the things you believe very offensive. It is just the polite agreement that you don't say these things that makes the difference.

But it takes two to take offense. We both know that we all hold positions that the other considers offensive. We don't intend to offend the other. We only want to talk about these things.

Don't be offended by them... this is within your own power.

 

[kristina411]

To be honest, I was writing something about it working in regard to aliens first.

That is the problem with the "mocking". On the one hand, it presents the point clearly - the comparison with something that even the believer thinks is ridiculous. On the other hand, it might offend people who think they are laughed at.

But consider the other problem: we are openly talking about our beliefs here. That includes criticism and doubt and thinking that your opposites position is ridiculous and wrong.

If you think carefully, you might see that a lot of people find the things you believe very offensive. It is just the polite agreement that you don't say these things that makes the difference.

But it takes two to take offense. We both know that we all hold positions that the other considers offensive. We don't intend to offend the other. We only want to talk about these things.

Don't be offended by them... this is within your own power.

Being offended and pointing out offensive behavior are completely different and I apply the differences. If I did not I would have many not so kind words to retaliate against, or I would ignore a user all together. Preferably the later because I dont like to apologize but will because... It is within our power to offend and I do not make that choice if I can help it for productivity and happiness sake. For myself and others.

Philosophy and debate are not mockery Subjects and both require a large degree of rational thought. Making a snide comment about aliens being likened to God, merely because one does not agree, is mockery. Asking a legitimate question, even if it included aliens, is what should be expected in a debate/philosophy forum.

Perhaps this is the very reason Christian apologetics was banned. It gets you no where when one side exhaustingly is on repeat while the other side continues to demand proof of the proof of the proof and mockery judgement and anger chime in.

Seems like somewhere there aught to be an actual philosophical thread that touch on the most common of questions (i.e. the meaning of life).
This forum has a way of making me waste a whole day lol. On to cook dinner.

ETA, my first paragraph is not meant to sound so... Intense I guess you would call it? My husband is always telling me to "lighten up" when I start talking lol. I'm perfectly mellow, I just guess I come off more intense than intended.

 

[Colter]

I am not asking for understanding yet.

But I do have my reasons for "knowing about why God doesn't exist", as you put it.

I have these reasons, but no reasons for the opposite.

So how do I "truly desire" to find God, if I do not believe that God exists? Kristina here might think this is "mocking"... but consider how that would work for anything else. I don't think you believe it works for all the imaginary gods we were talking about before.

How is it going to work here?

Ok, step two: we have established that in order to have a relationship with God, I need to "truly desire" it.

How do I "truly desire" it?

You must become born again, born of the spirit. This would entail a change of heart. When the pupil is ready, the teacher will appear. It's a gift of grace.

 

[Freodin]

You must become born again, born of the spirit. This would entail a change of heart. When the pupil is ready, the teacher will appear. It's a gift of grace.

So how do I get a change of heart? And to what?

 

[Davian]

This is precisely the useless insulting talk I was speaking of. The poster this^ comment is aimed at said nothing short of his belief, when questioned. And this is his response. Instead of a legitimate discussion the poster is met with mockery.

That was not mockery, but a rhetorical device:

"In rhetoric, a rhetorical device or resource of language is a technique that an author or speaker uses to convey to the listener or reader a meaning with the goal of persuading him or her towards considering a topic from a different perspective, using sentences designed to encourage or provoke a rational argument from an emotional display of a given perspective or action."

Rhetorical device - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rather than pointing out the poster's requirement that I jettison my intellectual integrity in pursuit of his "truth", I chose this tool to, in effect, hold a mirror up to him for him to see his position from a different perspective.

No discussion is productive with this behavior.

This discussion cannot be productive if you or he considers their position beyond reproach. Is that the case here?

 

[Loudmouth]

Just chiming in, if another made a claim that seemed too far fetched I would ask at least what their personal evidence was. I would take it, for what it was, personal evidence. I won't necessarily agree but it would at least be considered.

Perception is individual. One can not convince me to perceive things a certain way, unless I allow it. I make the decision based on my own experience and experience of trustworthy sources. Everyone should do this.

I will be back later to continue our discussion from earlier

As a rule of thumb, I define evidence as something that would be needed to convince me that I am wrong, or cause me to believe in something I currently don't believe in.

If you are frustrated that people are not accepting your evidence as evidence, ask yourself a simple question. If that same evidence were presented by someone else as evidence for a deity you currently don't believe in, would you find it compelling? If not, then you need to work on that evidence.

A good official definition of evidence is "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." Do personal beliefs indicate whether something is true or valid? Not really. Most of us require evidence to be independent of the person making the claim. For example, we wouldn't trust forensic evidence if only the prosecution were allowed to gather and test the evidence. That is why all DNA evidence is required to be made available to the defense for their own independent testing.

We also tend to not consider circular arguments as evidence. This is the problem with many biblical arguments. We are told that the Bible is true because it was written by God, and God can't lie. A claim can't be its own evidence.

So overall, you need to consider how compelling a type of evidence is, and how that evidence is independent of your beliefs and claims. Those are the rough outlines of what makes good evidence.

Added in edit: If you want to "get inside the head" of atheists, Carl Sagan wrote a good essay called "The Dragon in My Garage" that tends to reflect my own view of evidence as it is given for deities. I also get the impression that it is quite popular amongst other atheists as well. Here is a boiled down version written by Sagan:

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage" Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin[3]) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
The Dragon in My Garage - RationalWiki​

 

[Loudmouth]

You must become born again, born of the spirit. This would entail a change of heart. When the pupil is ready, the teacher will appear. It's a gift of grace.

We don't consider empty platitudes to be evidence. If I told you that you need to see with the eyes of your ulna in order to see the kingdom of Marklars, would you be convinced? Probably not, right?

 

[Colter]

We don't consider empty platitudes to be evidence. If I told you that you need to see with the eyes of your ulna in order to see the kingdom of Marklars, would you be convinced? Probably not, right?

I was answering Frodin's question, it didn't involve you.

 

[Colter]

So how do I get a change of heart? And to what?

I answered the first part of your question already in my own words "In essence, you must become thoroughly dissatisfied with yourself and abandon yourself to the embrace of you heavenly Father. ........and no, it's not a requirement that you first understand him."

You will become a spirit born child of the living God. Such is only understood by experiencing it. Saul experienced a conversion which bought about a radical change in his personality.

 

[quatona]

One minute I was one way, the next minute as was a new person.

So you have not always been that way?

 

[Freodin]

I answered the first part of your question already in my own words "In essence, you must become thoroughly dissatisfied with yourself and abandon yourself to the embrace of you heavenly Father. ........and no, it's not a requirement that you first understand him."

How do I abondon myself to the embrace of something I do not believe exists?

You will become a spirit born child of the living God. Such is only understood by experiencing it. Saul experienced a conversion which bought about a radical change in his personality.

So it is claimed. (And can be doubted. Claims are cheap )

I can at least partially agree with you that experiencing something is a way to further understanding.

But I didn't have this experience. I had other experiences. And thus my understanding differs from yours.

If all we have to find out the truth is our differing experiences, we are stuck. That's were this pesky concept of evidence comes in.

 

[Colter]

How do I abondon myself to the embrace of something I do not believe exists?


So it is claimed. (And can be doubted. Claims are cheap )

I can at least partially agree with you that experiencing something is a way to further understanding.

But I didn't have this experience. I had other experiences. And thus my understanding differs from yours.

If all we have to find out the truth is our differing experiences, we are stuck. That's were this pesky concept of evidence comes in.

I've answered your insincere line of questioning designed to arrive at the predetermined answer you were looking for. But I would still give the same answer to one who truly sought God. With the spirit birth comes the gift of faith in God that the person did not previously believe in. I thank God for that gift.

 

[TillICollapse]

I've answered your insincere line of questioning designed to arrive at the predetermined answer you were looking for. But I would still give the same answer to one who truly sought God. With the spirit birth comes the gift of faith in God that the person did not previously believe in. I thank God for that gift.

I don't see where he was insincere.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, I remember that, you are a critic of the game rather than a player.

I'm not convinced that there is a game to play. The rules of this "game" allow you to play it however you want to. You can pretend to have "won" the game, if you want. The rules allow that.

And the UB doesn't claim to be the last revelation of truth, in fact it concedes that revelation is relative to the age and the audience. Science changes as well, It would be like saying that because science grows and evolves we shouldn't have it or participate in it.

Yes, science grows in knowledge. What does religion grow in?