Can evidence lead to belief in god(s)?

[Argenta]

Hello everyone. Im 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 Ive 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

[Argenta]

...a false dichotomy because there are more than two options:

Option 1: I assert [God] exists
Option 2: I have no idea whether [God] exists
Option 3: I doubt whether [God] exists
Option 4: I assert [God] does not exist

These are each distinct options...

Regardless of what you subjectively assert or doubt or ideate, the fact remains: either there is an Ultimate Reality to which we matter, or there isn't. There is no false dichotomy here. The attempt to put the cart before the horse (by attempting to specify some particular God) is a debating tactic which obfuscates rather than clarifies.

I dont know whether you are intentionally being slippery to avoid addressing this issue (and the inevitable conclusion) or whether you do not understand it. Ill give you the benefit of the doubt and take some time to explain it step-by-step for you.

Yes it is true that a specific god either exists now or does not. That is indeed a simple dichotomy.

But the question we are addressing here is whether the beliefs held by EduChris are warranted. EduChris can choose from more than two possible beliefs. At the very least he can choose any one of the four listed above. If EduChris asserts that a specific god exists, such as Yahweh, then he has selected one from an almost an infinite number of choices"he could have chosen from any of the 10,000 or so known gods or any permutation of 10,000 or could have invented his own god. So it is very clearly false to claim he has only two possible choices.

...Lets assume...a simple dichotomy:

A is true or B is true but A and B cannot both be true and there are no other options.

And lets assume there is no positive or negative evidence for either A or B...

If your purpose is to believe things that are true, is it reasonable to believe A?...

The two choices are equally unevidenced, and there is no reasonable prospect of additional evidence on the horizen.

OK, Ill accept that for now, although I consider there is evidence for the non-existence of specific gods, such as Yahweh. We can discuss that later.

One option (option B in your example) leads to the apparent conclusion that ultimate reality is nothing more than a meaningless vortex of illusory particles, all destined for oblivion and purposelessness.

The other option (option A in your example) maintains that there is an Ultimate Reality which cares about us, which grants us our own reality (as opposed to mere illusion).

Given the situation, it would be foolish in the extreme to discount option A before giving it serious thought and attention.

True, but we have given it serious thought and have found no evidence to support the idea.

Option A (the "God" hypothesis) gives up nothing as compared to option B (the "no-god" hypothesis); but the converse is not true: choosing option B vacates any hope for ultimate meaning. Furthermore, many people who investigate option A do in fact find subjectively convincing experience of this Ultimate Reality.

I wont accept your subjective evidence unless you can show convincing evidence that your experiences are caused by your god. I have a question on this thread inviting you to do that. So Ill await your response.

In the end, either you find subjective experience of Ultimate Reality, or you don't find subjective experience of Ultimate Reality. Neither case is more "rational" than the other, though the failure to investigate both options seems highly irrational.

This is not true. It is not rational to attribute your experiences to a god simply because you prefer to believe that. I think you will have to concede non-existent gods can deliver completely convincing religious experiences. In other words, people can create their own religious experiences. (Indeed, they can also be induced by entirely artificial means.)

If belief in a god were a simple dichotomy you would be wrong to believe provided your objective is to believe things that are true. But belief in god is not a simple dichotomy and thus your entire argument is spurious. Now you should retract or come up with a new argument.

Argenta

[EduChris]

...it is true that a...god either exists...or does not. That is indeed a simple dichotomy...

Agreed.

...But the question we are addressing here is whether the beliefs held by EduChris are warranted...

I am comparing the "No-god hypothesis" with the "God hypothesis." Belief in some specific God is a distinct and separate matter, and therefore falls outside the scope of my present argument.

...So it is very clearly false to claim he has only two possible choices...

It would be false if we were comparing non-theism with this or that particular "god," but that is not the comparison that interests me at the moment. We need to compare beliefs which are comparable, and the "No-god" vs. "God" hypotheses constitute the most reasonable comparison. Questions pertaining to specific God(s) can be addressed after the primary issue has been clarified.

...I consider there is evidence for the non-existence of specific gods, such as Yahweh. We can discuss that later...

Fine. But remember that theism is a general belief which is separate and distinct from the more specific belief in any particular God(s). There are numerous examples where general beliefs underwrite specific beliefs. Take evolution--you can be committed to the general idea of change over time without necessarily committing yourself to any specific theory of precisely how the mechanism worked (e.g., gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium vs. acquired genomes, etc).

...we have given it serious thought and have found no evidence to support the idea...

There is no objective, undisputed evidence for either position (and no definite prospects for such evidence seems forthcoming). Nevertheless, one or the other must be true, and so we have to proceed on grounds other than objective evidence if we are going to have any support for any belief whatsoever. The grounds which I am proposing are to assume, for the sake of argument, each position separately, and then follow that position through to its logical conclusion. In doing so, we find that the "No-god" hypothesis leads to an epistemological dead end; if the "No-god" hypothesis were true, then nothing else would matter in any objective sense, and one could therefore adopt (without further justification) whatever subjective beliefs one wished (including, ironically, a belief in some specific god). Thus, theism is shown to be the stronger of the two mutually exclusive positions.

...I wont accept your subjective evidence unless you can show convincing evidence that your experiences are caused by your god. I have a question on this thread inviting you to do that. So Ill await your response...

We can proceed to questions of specific God(s) once we understand that theism is at least as reasonable (if not more so) than non-theism. Once that is established, then we can proceed to ask, "Is there any specific understanding God which seems preferable (in terms of internal coherence and explanatory scope) to other understandings?" If so, the theist is justified in adopting that understanding over and against any other specific understanding (and of course theism will in any event remain no less justified than non-theism).

...you will have to concede non-existent gods can deliver completely convincing religious experiences. In other words, people can create their own religious experiences. (Indeed, they can also be induced by entirely artificial means.)...

Yes, just about any sort of belief or non-belief can be induced artificially (which raises the question of whether any or all of our beliefs might be "artificially" induced). Yes, people always interpret their experiences through the filter of their preconceptions, presuppositions, pre-understandings. Since this applies equally to everyone, theist or non-theist alike, it is a red-herring here.

...belief in god is not a simple dichotomy and thus your entire argument is spurious...

Belief in a particular God is not a simple dichotomy, but the discussion of some particular God cannot commence until after we have at least tentatively decided the primary matter of "God" vs. "No god," theism vs. non-theism. All of this is to insist that, logically speaking, we need to keep the horse in front of the cart.

[mgb]

There is no indication that non-theists are any less moral than theists or that there is one moral point of view for theists.

I agree with this. In the gospels Jesus says "It is not those who call 'Lord, Lord', but those who do my Father's Will..."

The essence of spirituality and religion is belief in goodness and virtue. For me God is virtue and to be virtuous is to believe in God, even if the person in question would not see it as God.

[EduChris]

...a false dichotomy because there are more than two options:

Option 1: I assert [God] exists
Option 2: I have no idea whether [God] exists
Option 3: I doubt whether [God] exists
Option 4: I assert [God] does not exist

These are each distinct options...

Regardless of what you subjectively assert or doubt or ideate, the fact remains: either there is an Ultimate Reality to which we matter, or there isn't. There is no false dichotomy here. The attempt to put the cart before the horse (by attempting to specify some particular God) is a debating tactic which obfuscates rather than clarifies.

...the question we are addressing here is whether the beliefs held by EduChris are warranted. EduChris can choose from more than two possible beliefs. At the very least he can choose any one of the four listed above...

By way of summary, I am justified in preferring Option #1, above, by virtue of the fact that theism is at least as justified (and probably more justified) than non-theism.

If this point is granted, per the argument in my previous post, then we can proceed to the matter of the specific God in which I believe. My claim is that I am justified in preferring the Christian Triune God on the grounds of: 1) personal subjective experience, and 2) greater internal coherence and explanatory scope in comparison to other specific understandings of God.

[Cathar1950]

...a false dichotomy because there are more than two options:

Option 1: I assert [God] exists
Option 2: I have no idea whether [God] exists
Option 3: I doubt whether [God] exists
Option 4: I assert [God] does not exist

These are each distinct options...

Regardless of what you subjectively assert or doubt or ideate, the fact remains: either there is an Ultimate Reality to which we matter, or there isn't. There is no false dichotomy here. The attempt to put the cart before the horse (by attempting to specify some particular God) is a debating tactic which obfuscates rather than clarifies.

...the question we are addressing here is whether the beliefs held by EduChris are warranted. EduChris can choose from more than two possible beliefs. At the very least he can choose any one of the four listed above...

By way of summary, I am justified in preferring Option #1, above, by virtue of the fact that theism is at least as justified (and probably more justified) than non-theism.

If this point is granted, per the argument in my previous post, then we can proceed to the matter of the specific God in which I believe. My claim is that I am justified in preferring the Christian Triune God on the grounds of: 1) personal subjective experience, and 2) greater internal coherence and explanatory scope in comparison to other specific understandings of God.

The point should not be granted!
She has not put any cart before any horse while you have clamed the goods have already been delivered before any inventory was taken to see what was needed to make a list to order from the store so they can hook the horse up to the cart and fill the cart.

It is still a false choice as there are an unlimited number of theistic conceptions of God as well as an unlimited number of non-theistic conceptions. You want to start out as if none of this were true going from the less known to the more known.

Beside creating a false dichotomy you also create best case scenario for your pet view while making a straw man and worse case one for the other false choice. Only the worse reductionism and pathological views would look at the universe and even hold a child and not fall into your pessimism.

Another possible concept is that everything including each of us is remembered and enjoyed by God forever while the individual perishes yet is remembered eternally. The you that walks around with your limited (two) notions will perish but be remembered by God. After all it is God which is the one that benefits forever and there is no reason to think you as an individual should live forever except in the memory of God. Unless you think you are the center of the Universe and God which seems to be another choice further showing the problems with your dichotomy.

[mgb]

It seems both EduChris and mgb agree that they cannot justify a belief in God in any objective way but both feel they experience God. I would be interested to explore whether personal experience could be a reasonable way to determine that God exists.

Perhaps we could do this in two parts: firstly EduChris and mgb could explain what having a relationship with God feels like. Do you see God? Do you hear God? Are there any other sensory inputs? How often does it happen and under what circumstances?

Secondly, Id like to understand how you know that God is responsible for these sensations. How can you definitively rule out all other possibilities? For example could it be:
1. An illusion created by your own brain?
2. Associated with foods or other substances you have been exposed to?
3. Associated with magnetic fields?
4. Associated with fatigue, anxiety or other emotions?
5. Another entity (such as Satan or Vishnu) posing as Yahweh?
6. Etc, etc

In asking these questions I am conscious that religious experiences are quite commonplace. In particular, I am aware of Hindus describing profound religious experiences that they are certain come from Vishnu or other Hindu gods. If these gods do not exist then we could conclude that humans are quite capable of having deep, meaningful relationships with non-existent gods.

So my question to EduChris and mgb is how can you be certain what causes the feelings you experience?

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.

[EduChris]

...How can you definitively rule out all other possibilities? For example could it be:

1. An illusion created by your own brain?
2. Associated with foods or other substances you have been exposed to?
3. Associated with magnetic fields?
4. Associated with fatigue, anxiety or other emotions?
5. Another entity (such as Satan or Vishnu) posing as Yahweh?
6. Etc, etc

We can't rule these out any more than you can rule out similar reasons (e.g., childhood attachment issues, developmental disorders, brain damage, etc, etc) for your inability to subjectively experience God.

Essentially, your question here is a red herring, since equivalent questions could be directed toward theists and non-theists alike.

[Zzyzx]

.

..a false dichotomy because there are more than two options:

Option 1: I assert [God] exists
Option 2: I have no idea whether [God] exists
Option 3: I doubt whether [God] exists
Option 4: I assert [God] does not exist

These are each distinct options...

Regardless of what you subjectively assert or doubt or ideate, the fact remains: either there is an Ultimate Reality to which we matter, or there isn't.

However, if there is no way to determine whether there is an ultimate reality or not (and no evidence other than conjecture, opinion, testimonials, and unverified tales), anyone is entirely justified in refusing to take a position for or against either the affirmative or negative options.

There is no false dichotomy here.

A false dichotomy exists whenever one presents only two choices when other alternatives are available. Options #2 and #3 are VALID positions for individuals to hold.

The attempt to put the cart before the horse (by attempting to specify some particular God) is a debating tactic which obfuscates rather than clarifies.

...the question we are addressing here is whether the beliefs held by EduChris are warranted. EduChris can choose from more than two possible beliefs. At the very least he can choose any one of the four listed above...

By way of summary, I am justified in preferring Option #1, above, by virtue of the fact that theism is at least as justified (and probably more justified) than non-theism.

Agreed " you are entitled to choose #1 option of the four presented (or a different alternative that is not listed if you so choose) " as is everyone else.

All that has been "established" with all the rigmarole is that you believe in god and that it is your OPINION that belief is as justified (or more justified) than not believing in god.

Is a word salad necessary to make a simple position statement of belief and opinion?

If this point is granted,

Granted. You are entitled to believe in god if you so choose.

I will also grant that the god hypothesis and a no-god hypothesis positions are equally "justified" or unjustified since neither can present evidence other than conjecture, opinion, testimonials, and unverified tales by ancient storytellers writing of their thinking about "gods". However, I will NOT grant that those are the only two choices available " and do not agree to disregard #2 and #3 options listed.

The dichotomy "god hypothesis" vs. no-god hypothesis" exists ONLY in the minds of those who do not recognize other alternatives such as "none of the above" or I have no idea if any of the thousands of proposed gods exist or not since insufficient evidence has been presented upon which to make a reasoned decision.

I realize that an Apologist attempting to defend a god hypothesis might attempt to gain an advantage by maneuvering debate into their chosen dichotomy and attempt to coerce opponents into taking a no-god position (or a god denial position).

Rather than accept the dichotomy, I prefer to state my position very clearly as, I have no idea whether any of the thousands of proposed gods exist or not " and will not be coerced into making a decision to suit someones preferences or argument.

Can you NOT argue you case without insisting that your false dichotomy be accepted?

per the argument in my previous post, then we can proceed to the matter of the specific God in which I believe.

You may proceed to the matter of the specific god in which [you] believe, but without the dichotomy.

My claim is that I am justified in preferring the Christian Triune God on the grounds of: 1) personal subjective experience, and 2) greater internal coherence and explanatory scope in comparison to other specific understandings of God.

I will grant #1 applied to you personally, but do not recognize that as having any merit in debate. Scratch #1 for debate.

I will not accept #2 because "other specific understandings of god" have NOT been exhaustively explored / compared in this thread.

There are over two thousand gods and associated understandings to be considered. A claim that ones preference has greater internal coherence and explanatory scope than ANY of the competing understandings WITHOUT knowledge of the internal coherence and explanatory scope of competing understandings of god is an INVALID claim.

ANY claim to possess more of anything than others WITHOUT knowing what others possess is foolish to say the least.

[Zzyzx]

.

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

This is a personal testimonial that is unverifiable and is inadmissible as evidence in debate.

What does it mean to see God? All of us see spiritual reality.

Correction: SOME of us claim to see god and to see spiritual reality and to project the latter onto others.

But when we see reality our human minds translate our seeing into physical terms or terms we understand with our human minds.

Agreed. When we see the real world that we inhabit, we do so within our human ability to understand.

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.

Testimonial.

I see God as a person. There is a vague sense of physical form but the overwhelming experience is of light, life and love.

Testimonial

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.

Opinion

Is it a sensual experience? Yes, sometimes.

Testimonial

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.

Agreed. A persons mental state can affect their physical state " and vice versa.

With God it is like this. All my senses feel a kind of splendour and I feel physically 'lighter', if that makes sense.

Testimonial

Sometimes my sense of God is continuous, sometimes intermittent.

Testimonial

As for the reality of my experience - is it delusion or 'magnetic fields'? No.

Opinion. How can you KNOW that what you think or experience is not delusional OR that it is not affected by environmental conditions?

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.

Testimonial. Personal experiences and interpretations are not valid as evidence in debate. They are unverifiable.

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.

Testimonial plus opinion

Is this satan or Vishnu? No. It is pure goodness.

How do you KNOW which god you experience? Many of the thousands of proposed gods can be said to be pure goodness.

How can you KNOW that Satan, billed as a master deceiver of supernatural stature, is not involved in what you experience?

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.

Can you verify any of these descriptions with something more substantial than personal testimonials and opinions?

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.

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.

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.

Readers will evaluate the merits of what is presented. Those who wish to promote or defend god concepts often seem oblivious of the discernment and judgment of readers.

[EduChris]

...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 (and these cannot really be subjected to proper debate).

...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.

...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).