Can evidence lead to belief in god(s)?

[Argenta]

Hello everyone. I’m Argenta and this is my first post.

I stopped believing in deities before I was old enough to buy cigarettes but I have ever since wondered why so many smart people do sincerely believe in one god or another. I have considered the evidence theists present to support their beliefs but have only been able to conclude there is no evidence. None at all. I have searched for the arguments theists present to justify their beliefs and found fallacies in them all.

Maybe I’ve missed something.

So my proposition for debate is that belief in gods serves to satisfy emotional needs and apologetics serve to post-rationalise such beliefs. Am I right or can any theists point to the evidence or arguments that genuinely converted them to belief in god(s)?

Argenta

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 130:

...if there is no way to determine whether there is an “ultimate reality� or not...

There is no way to make the determination on the basis of undisputed, objective evidence. This is the persistent chronic condition that faces us for the foreseeable future. If we are going to make any headway at all, it will necessarily be based on something other than undisputed, objective evidence. Otherwise, all we are left with is our own personal, subjective, emotional states.

It seems, for this topic, "headway" means "if we're to keep carrying on about the properties of something we can't show exists".

...no “evidence� other than conjecture, opinion, testimonials, and unverified tales...

We do have the option of assuming, for sake of argument, each of the two objective possibilities ("God" or "No god") and then following each respective argument through to its logical conclusion. When we do this, the "general theism" position emerges as the clear favorite.

Wouldn't the "clear favorite", in the absence of evidence, be, "Dang if I know"?

"Clear favorite" when "'if God' then we can continue talking about God" is only valid to those who insist a god exists.

...anyone is entirely justified in refusing to take a position for or against either the affirmative or negative options...

In the absence of undisputed objective evidence one way or the other, we are not justified in rejecting the greater strength of the theistic position (as outlined here).

Again, the "greater strength" of the theistic position seems to be "so we can keep carrying on about the properties of something we can't show exists".

Sophistry, whether intentional or not, is still sophistry.

[Zzyzx]

.

...if there is no way to determine whether there is an “ultimate reality� or not...

There is no way to make the determination on the basis of undisputed, objective evidence. This is the persistent chronic condition that faces us for the foreseeable future.

Those who propose there IS an "ultimate reality" make a positive claim -- and incur the burden of showing that they speak truth. If they cannot show that their claim is truthful and accurate, they have no business making the claim in debate (though it may be unquestioningly accepted in church or in "Christian friendly" environments).

If we are going to make any headway at all, it will necessarily be based on something other than undisputed, objective evidence.

This is similar to: "The good news is that we are making good speed, the bad news is that we have no idea where we are or where we are headed."

Otherwise, all we are left with is our own personal, subjective, emotional states (and these cannot really be subjected to proper debate).

What "evidence" EXACTLY and precisely do you propose that we accept? Can you answer that question openly and honestly without dancing or obfuscating?

...no “evidence� other than conjecture, opinion, testimonials, and unverified tales...

We do have the option of assuming, for sake of argument, each of the two objective possibilities ("God" or "No god") and then following each respective argument through to its logical conclusion.

One can ASSUME whatever they like -- personally. I do NOT agree to assume the "two objective possibilities" that you PROPOSE for debate.

It is more than apparent that you wish to limit discussion to "god" vs. "no-god" (and appear to be unable or unwilling to debate unless others accept your conditions).

I, among others, do not agree to your conditions for debate OR your proposed dichotomy.

When we do this, the "general theism" position emerges as the clear favorite.

"Clear favorite"???? That may be so in your mind. Can you cite evidence that "general theism" is a "clear favorite" among contributors to this thread?

...anyone is entirely justified in refusing to take a position for or against either the affirmative or negative options...

In the absence of undisputed objective evidence one way or the other, we are not justified in rejecting the greater strength of the theistic position (as outlined here).

"Greater strength of the theistic position" is an OPINION by a Theist.

Others are entitled to evaluate the information available and to make their own decisions (or not make decisions) based upon their evaluations.

That theism offers testimonials, opinions, conjectures and unverified tales by religion promoters does NOT contribute "strength" to their argument -- but only indicates its weakness and its LACK of verifiable information.

The most rational position, in my opinion (clearly stated as opinion), is that none of the above meet my personal standards as credible, verifiable information upon which to make a reasoned and intelligent decision. Others may wish to accept testimonials, opinions, conjecture and unverified tales as convincing evidence that donkeys converse with humans, water magically turns into wine, virgins are impregnated by spirits, dead bodies come back to life after days in the grave, that "gods" exist and influence human affairs (and proposed "afterlives"), etc.

I do not care to join them in believing such things based on the "evidence" presented.

[EduChris]

If we are going to make any headway at all, it will necessarily be based on something other than undisputed, objective evidence.

This is similar to: "The good news is that we are making good speed, the bad news is that we have no idea where we are or where we are headed."

It is more like this: you have been driving along a deserted road on your way from Cheyenne to Loveland, when you come to a fork in the road. You know that one road or the other will end up in Loveland, but you don't know which is the correct one. You try every means available to you to decide which road you should take, but to no avail. You have no objective evidence for either road, though you know one or the other is correct.

If you were to decide to try one road to gain some additional perspective, only to quickly find that this road is washed out and impassable, you would be justified in turning around and trying the other road. It may or may not be the correct one, but it is the only road which leads to somewhere (rather than nowhere).

[Cathar1950]

If we are going to make any headway at all, it will necessarily be based on something other than undisputed, objective evidence.

This is similar to: "The good news is that we are making good speed, the bad news is that we have no idea where we are or where we are headed."

It is more like this: you have been driving along a deserted road on your way from Cheyenne to Loveland, when you come to a fork in the road. You know that one road or the other will end up in Loveland, but you don't know which is the correct one. You try every means available to you to decide which road you should take, but to no avail. You have no objective evidence for either road, though you know one or the other is correct.

If you were to decide to try one road to gain some additional perspective, only to quickly find that this road is washed out and impassable, you would be justified in turning around and trying the other road. It may or may not be the correct one, but it is the only road which leads to somewhere (rather than nowhere).

There is a fork in the road and traffic is taking both and sometimes you see people coming back from both saying there is a mess up ahead on both roads and they are taking the other. You picked one you liked and the ones you have friends on already, besides you heard more about that road.
But each road as an unlimited number of paths and no one has got to the end you know but you have heard stories and some you even read for yourself.

[Zzyzx]

If we are going to make any headway at all, it will necessarily be based on something other than undisputed, objective evidence.

This is similar to: "The good news is that we are making good speed, the bad news is that we have no idea where we are or where we are headed."

It is more like this: you have been driving along a deserted road on your way from Cheyenne to Loveland, when you come to a fork in the road. You know that one road or the other will end up in Loveland, but you don't know which is the correct one. You try every means available to you to decide which road you should take, but to no avail. You have no objective evidence for either road, though you know one or the other is correct.

If you were to decide to try one road to gain some additional perspective, only to quickly find that this road is washed out and impassable, you would be justified in turning around and trying the other road. It may or may not be the correct one, but it is the only road which leads to somewhere (rather than nowhere).

If we use a hypothetical road trip to represent the "god hypothesis vs. no-god hypothesis", I view it differently than the dichotomy you attempt to present.

On a road trip through an area of natural beauty (the real world) there are many available routes, some more picturesque than others. At many of the junctures are buildings with signs reading "Free route advice". Stopping at one, we encounter a man inside who claims that his route leads to a beautiful place.

When asked if he has ever been there, he replies that he has not but that he has been told that it is really beautiful and he has a book that tells about the beauty. When asked if the writers of the book had been to the promised beautiful place he stutters and stammers, but when pressed he finally admits that he does not know if the writers had visited the beautiful place or not -- and that he does not know the identity of the writers.

I would consider myself very gullible and naive if I chose his route based on the information he provided (or failed to provide).


Edited to add: I have no quarrel with those who view life as "black or white" or any other dichotomy -- for themselves. However, I have a large quarrel if they attempt to impose their limitations (on thinking or decisions) onto me -- even hypothetically.

[EduChris]

...If we use a hypothetical road trip to represent the "god hypothesis vs. no-god hypothesis", I view it differently than the dichotomy you attempt to present...there are many available routes...

Here you are dragging specific theisms into the debate prematurely. You may do whatever you wish, but if you want to refute my position on general theism vs. general non-theism you will need to refute that position rather than some other strawman position that you devise and substitute.

...I have a large quarrel if they attempt to impose their limitations (on thinking or decisions) onto me -- even hypothetically.

In software lingo, the move to general theism (as opposed to general non-theism) is referred to as separation of concerns. And you are attempting to refute this legitimate and necessary practice by constantly making reference to the sort of spaghetti code that "separation of concerns" strives to eliminate. This is a good move on your part if you seek to obfuscate, but it is a bad move if you seek to debate at a higher level.

[mgb]

Your personal feelings have no merit in debate. Pardon me for being rather blunt, but this is a debate sub-forum. Other sub-forums are set aside for discussion of personal matters and religious “feelings� and various preaching (as opposed to debate), as is made clear in Forum Rules and sub-forum Guidelines

My post is a response to a request from Argenta.

[Argenta]

I struggle to understand what benefit a god would gain by having people believe without objective evidence? What could the reason be? The most obvious one, of course, is simply that there can be no objective evidence for non-existent gods.

God's benefit is that S/he does not end up with people who are intimidated into belief and obedience by the sheer weight of objective proof. If THE PROOF existed for us it would be psychogically unbearable. It would oppress (many of) us in a worse way than the most oppressive moslem extremism. Imagine what if would be like; a person might get it into their head to do something criminal or immoral: God is watching. There is no question about it because of THE PROOF. God is watching you every second.

mgb, you don’t offer any evidence for this assertion but a moment’s thought shows there is evidence that you are completely wrong.

You say proof of god’s existence would force people to behave in ways in which god approves because people would be aware that their every action is being watched.

If this were true we could expect that all humans today who honestly and sincerely believe that god exists (many people achieve this extraordinary state without needing proof—possibly including yourself) would behave only in ways in which god approves. Does this not conflict with Christian dogma that we are all sinners? Does this not conflict with the evidence that many inmates of our prisons are devout Christians? Indeed, some are incarcerated because their strong belief led them to kill doctors or refuse medical attention for their dying children.

Furthermore, can you show that those believers who do behave righteously do not do so because they believe god exists and is judging them?

We would never be able to feel that we had chosen goodness because it is what we want. We would feel that we had been bullied into it.

Are you claiming that those who sincerely believe in god today, despite there being no proof, are not in any way bullied? If you believe there is an afterlife of eternal fire awaiting you do you not feel this constitutes coercion or bullying?

So being convinced that god exists does not make humans behave perfectly and even without proof many people are bullied by Christian dogma. On the other hand some objective evidence of god's existence would be a great service to humankind. It would make it less tenable to worship other gods and thus reduce a major source of human conflict and it would mean the people like myself, who are moral and do good works but who cannot accept stories on faith alone, would not be headed for eternal torture.

Your proposition is clearly wrong. Unless, you have a better explanation for the lack of objective evidence of god’s existence, I’ll continue to believe the most probable explanation -- that there can be no evidence for a non-existent god.

Argenta

[Argenta]

Do I see God? Yes. Do I hear God? Yes. Is this [sometimes] a sensory experience? Yes.

What does it mean to see God? All of us see spiritual reality. But when we see reality our human minds translate our seeing into physical terms or terms we understand with our human minds. For me in the beginning it was as if God/spiritual reality shone through physical experience. Eventually this faded and I now to see 'above' the veil of materialism, to a degree. It is impossible to explain properly so my attempt will be feeble.

I see God as a person. There is a vague sense of physical form but the overwhelming experience is of light, life and love. Rather than speak in terms of form I should speak about God's countenance. It is a living presence. It is life beyond any normal human experience of life. It is life itself. When God is present like this I can feel life flowing into my mind. I don't like the word 'transcendence' because it has too many wrong connotations but it is the correct word. I feel, when I recieve God's grace that I transcend all the little things of the mundane world.

Is it a sensual experience? Yes, sometimes. When a person is depressed they feel their mental state in physical terms. They feel 'weighed down' by their mental state. When a person is happy they feel lighter and experience physical wellbeing. With God it is like this. All my senses feel a kind of splendour and I feel physically 'lighter', if that makes sense.

Sometimes my sense of God is continuous, sometimes intermittent.

As for the reality of my experience - is it delusion or 'magnetic fields'? No. How can I argue this? How do I know,for example, when I am awake, and experiencing reality? How do I know I am not dreaming? When I am awake I am fairly sure that I am. There is a vivid sense of the real. I have had a life of experience of waking states. All these states seem similar and when I am in a waking state I am fairly sure I am not dreaming. So I know by experience.

So it is with God. There is a sense of the real from God. God IS reality - the source behind all that is real to us. The sense of the real from God is like the sense of the real in a waking state.

Is this satan or Vishnu? No. It is pure goodness. I have a sense of benevolence and the sublime that utterly transcends human ideas of goodness. God is pure wisdom and virtue. The light of God is splendour beyond words.

You will understand that this is coming close to my personal feelings and I am only willing to go so far in what I say. You are welcome to ask more questions but please understand if my answers are short. I may talk a little bit more about this but only up to a certain limit. I hope you understand.

Thank you for this mgb. In trying to understand why an intelligent person such as yourself believes in god this is very important. This is truly subjective evidence. We have searched for objective evidence and have found none, so this is what we are left with. I can see experiences like this would have a profound effect on you.

Vijay Kumar reported the experience I quote below.

I was sleeping in my bedroom on first floor. At about 1.45 a.m., I felt choking and gasping for breath and an urge within to go out on the terrace. I was obeying commands from within as if in deep sleep.

When I reached the terrace of the first floor I was again instructed by "God, the Creator" to go back to the room and bring the collapsible easy chair (which I use for my reading) and go to the terrace on second floor. I brought the chair and sat on it looking upwards, towards the sky.

What was I seeing! Full vision of the cosmos ... A blinding spell of white light all around ... Something which can never be described in words. The "Ultimate Truth" dawned upon me and at 4 a.m. I was instructed to go down. I was then instructed to write down something. I started writing. When I reread those lines ... Every thing was clear to me.

No questions remaining unanswered I had realized Self ... I was one with "God, the Creator" ... More eager than ever to complete my journey on this Earthly plane and liberate myself (i.e. me as an "Atman") from the cycle of birth and death at the earliest.

I am a completely changed man now. Having realized the purpose of my Cosmic journey ... Life has a different meaning for me since that day. I can invoke willingly the mighty powers of the Universe after constant practice and take dictation's from "God, the Creator" for hours together.

See Vijay Kumar

Firstly, I have no reason to doubt your experiences and I accept that you were awake and not subject hallucinogens when these things happened. But here’s my problem, these experiences are not rare and they are not exclusive to those who believe in the Christian god. Vijay attributed his experience to Vishnu. Indeed, Persinger et al have shown that similar feelings can be invoked by magnetic fields and by drugs. So we know that a god does not have to be involved for a person to experience feelings like this. We even know which part of the brain is responsible for these experiences.

It is also true that when people have these experiences and when they attribute them to a god, in almost every case, they attribute them to a known god from their own culture.

You have kindly shared these experiences with us but, I hope you can see, you have a long way to go before you can be sure what you experience is actually from outside your brain rather than from within and, even further to go if you wish to make the case that Yahweh or Jesus is, in fact, responsible.

I wish I could recommend a test that would enable you to discern whether or not a god is involved but I can’t think of anything. Even if “god� told you one night how to unify the theories of quantum mechanics and gravity, there might still be a natural explanation. Perhaps you or others can suggest something?

In the meantime, I’ll just say, “Enjoy your experiences but don’t bet on any gods being involved.�

Argenta

[Zzyzx]

.

Your personal feelings have no merit in debate. Pardon me for being rather blunt, but this is a debate sub-forum. Other sub-forums are set aside for discussion of personal matters and religious “feelings� and various preaching (as opposed to debate), as is made clear in Forum Rules and sub-forum Guidelines

My post is a response to a request from Argenta.

I withdraw my objection / comment.