What are the alternatives to evidence?

[Flail]

Question for debate:

If your 'God' and your 'God beliefs' contain no amount of credible, verifiable evidence, is there anything left but conjecture and speculation upon which to stake your truth claims?

Argument and opinion:
Some here claim to profess 'modern Christianity' as a more palatable, intelligent version of fundamental Christian beliefs. Refreshingly they admit to having no proofs, no objective, verifiable evidence to support their beliefs.

I contend,however, that once a believer abandons the ground of fundamentalism from which their original beliefs arose, that they have necessarily entered into the realm of abject speculation and conjecture. At least the 'fundamentalist' has a Holy Book from a 'God' to follow. At least a fundamentalist Christian can point to his Bible. But once a believer begins to pick and choose from Biblical text or to find 'truths' on his own, has he not entered upon the flimsy ground of mere possibility?

I have no problem with modern interpretations of Christianity so long as adherents admit the speculative nature of their conjured beliefs and refrain from supporting with money and ritual practices the fundamentalist Christian ideas and institutions they profess to reject. In particular IMO, the 'modern Christian' should clarify their non-support for the fundamentalist judgment that others in differing traditions are 'hell bound' and evil.

[scourge99]

Question for debate:

If your 'God' and your 'God beliefs' contain no amount of credible, verifiable evidence, is there anything left but conjecture and speculation upon which to stake your truth claims?

Argument and opinion:
Some here claim to profess 'modern Christianity' as a more palatable, intelligent version of fundamental Christian beliefs. Refreshingly they admit to having no proofs, no objective, verifiable evidence to support their beliefs.

I contend,however, that once a believer abandons the ground of fundamentalism from which their original beliefs arose, that they have necessarily entered into the realm of abject speculation and conjecture. At least the 'fundamentalist' has a Holy Book from a 'God' to follow. At least a fundamentalist Christian can point to his Bible. But once a believer begins to pick and choose from Biblical text or to find 'truths' on his own, has he not entered upon the flimsy ground of mere possibility?

I have no problem with modern interpretations of Christianity so long as adherents admit the speculative nature of their conjured beliefs and refrain from supporting with money and ritual practices the fundamentalist Christian ideas and institutions they profess to reject. In particular IMO, the 'modern Christian' should clarify their non-support for the fundamentalist judgment that others in differing traditions are 'hell bound' and evil.

I have asked something similar several times. The typical response is to "challenge the solidity of your own evidentiary epistemological model" (such criticisms are known and accepted) and then to proclaim an arbitrary worldview in support of the unverifiable, unsupported, or contradicted claims the believer espouses.

Tidbits can be found here: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 683#329683
And here: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 713#326713

Note: I have not provided a response to these posts but plan to in the future.

[JehovahsWitness]

If your 'God' and your 'God beliefs' contain no amount of credible, verifiable evidence, is there anything left but conjecture and speculation upon which to stake your truth claims?

God is a spirit. There will be no physical proof of his person. What physical evidence could one find of a dimension that does not exist in the physical? This is like asking to see a colour that does not exist within the scope of colour in our universe and cannot be seen by the human eye. If such 'evidence' could be seen it would no longer be spiritual now would it. The demand for "empirical evidence" of a spiritual realm, it's totally illogical. It should also be remembered that Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. That having been said...

H O W E V E R ...Although god is a spirit and cannot be seen this doesn't mean he hasn't left enough "physical clues" or "evidence" of his existence.

Since none of us (atheist or theist) was present at the begining of the universe, we are all forced to use our powers of deduction in this regard. Thus only by asking the question "what are the chances of something happening WITHOUT outside intervention or intelligence", can we take the physical and make an 'educated guess' about there being something that can never be detected other than by that reasoning.

If you came across a painting of Van Goghs sunflowers in the middle of the desert, unsigned. You may have no DNA traces, no other empirical evidence that an artist existed other than, of course, the painting itself; What would you deduce? Logic demands that it wasn't there as a result of an explosion in a paint factory and the paint slowly coming together over millions of years onto the canvas to form a picture of flowers.

Where there is a painting there had to be a painter. The more complex the painting; the less doubt (if there ever had been) that the painter existed. Would a reasonable man, hold the paining and say "prove to me that there is 'a painter' go on! produce empirical evidence!!!!" Surely you would think the individual at best mentally deficient and at worst a raving lunatic. The evidence you see, is in his hand.

In a similar way, the reasonable person takes the universe itself as conclusive evidence of an unseen creator.

[cnorman18]

If your 'God' and your 'God beliefs' contain no amount of credible, verifiable evidence, is there anything left but conjecture and speculation upon which to stake your truth claims?

God is a spirit. There will be no physical proof of his person. What physical evidence could one find of a dimension that does not exist in the physical? This is like asking to see a colour that does not exist within the scope of colour in our universe and cannot be seen by the human eye. If such 'evidence' could be seen it would no longer be spiritual now would it. The demand for "empirical evidence" of a spiritual realm, it's totally illogical. It should also be remembered that Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. That having been said...

H O W E V E R ...Although god is a spirit and cannot be seen this doesn't mean he hasn't left enough "physical clues" or "evidence" of his existence.

Since none of us (atheist or theist) was present at the begining of the universe, we are all forced to use our powers of deduction in this regard. Thus only by asking the question "what are the chances of something happening WITHOUT outside intervention or intelligence", can we take the physical and make an 'educated guess' about there being something that can never be detected other than by that reasoning.

If you came across a painting of Van Goghs sunflowers in the middle of the desert, unsigned. You may have no DNA traces, no other empirical evidence that an artist existed other than, of course, the painting itself; What would you deduce? Logic demands that it wasn't there as a result of an explosion in a paint factory and the paint slowly coming together over millions of years onto the canvas to form a picture of flowers.

Where there is a painting there had to be a painter. The more complex the painting; the less doubt (if there ever had been) that the painter existed. Would a reasonable man, hold the paining and say "prove to me that there is 'a painter' go on! produce empirical evidence!!!!" Surely you would think the individual at best mentally deficient and at worst a raving lunatic. The evidence you see, is in his hand.

In a similar way, the reasonable person takes the universe itself as conclusive evidence of an unseen creator.

Sorry. I DO believe in God, and the "argument from design" doesn't hold much water here. LOTS of reasonable people, including myself, do NOT take the universe itself as "conclusive evidence" of anything, other than of its own existence. It isn't even evidence of its having a beginning.

See, that was what we call an "unsupported claim."

[stlekee]

I also believe in God, but I don't try to pigron hole him into a particular religion. There is no physical proof, not a subatomic particle nor the entire universe is proof of a design or creator. I refuse to fall into the trap of having to physically prove something that isn't physical.

Its the same as trying to prove that you love your wife or girlfriend or dog. I can't show any physical proof, its the experience itself. The proof is how I feel and my actions toward them. Its attitude, which I can't show you.

My belief in God grew into faith and trust through my experience with God, my relationship. Seek and ye shall find, ask and it will be given. But if you choose not to seek or ask, don't expect much.

[Flail]

Jehovah'sWitness wrote:

God is a spirit. There will be no physical proof of his person. What physical evidence could one find of a dimension that does not exist in the physical?

...and yet some believe that the omnipotent, omniscient BibleGod was capable to and did appear in person once upon a time...

Jehovah'sWitness wrote:

If you came across a painting of Van Goghs sunflowers in the middle of the desert, unsigned. You may have no DNA traces, no other empirical evidence that an artist existed other than, of course, the painting itself; What would you deduce? Logic demands that it wasn't there as a result of an explosion in a paint factory and the paint slowly coming together over millions of years onto the canvas to form a picture of flowers.

I would look for evidence of the signature on the painting. But without that evidence, one could assume that 'Allah did it' I suppose.

Jehovah'sWitness wrote:

Where there is a painting there had to be a painter. The more complex the painting; the less doubt (if there ever had been) that the painter existed. Would a reasonable man, hold the paining and say "prove to me that there is 'a painter' go on! produce empirical evidence!!!!" Surely you would think the individual at best mentally deficient and at worst a raving lunatic. The evidence you see, is in his hand.

But with paintings, my experience with human paintings, and having painted myself, I would go with that evidence and presume a human did it. On the other hand, having no experience with or evidence of 'God', I can't begin to figure out how the universe came to be, and I don't think it is wise to guess at 'Gods' or to adopt the hearsay concoctions of the ancients. Remember, they thought the earth flat and at the center of the universe. Upon that evidence, I wouldn't take their word for BibleGod.

Jehovah'sWitness wrote:

In a similar way, the reasonable person takes the universe itself as conclusive evidence of an unseen creator.

I am not an atheist and do not claim that there are no 'Gods'. As an Ignostic, I have no coherent idea of what a 'God' would be, let alone attempting to guess at any particular, popular human invention of 'one'.

[Flail]

I also believe in God, but I don't try to pigron hole him into a particular religion. There is no physical proof, not a subatomic particle nor the entire universe is proof of a design or creator. I refuse to fall into the trap of having to physically prove something that isn't physical.

Its the same as trying to prove that you love your wife or girlfriend or dog. I can't show any physical proof, its the experience itself. The proof is how I feel and my actions toward them. Its attitude, which I can't show you.

My belief in God grew into faith and trust through my experience with God, my relationship. Seek and ye shall find, ask and it will be given. But if you choose not to seek or ask, don't expect much.

I am confident that you have and love your wife and your dog. I too have a dog and a wife and experience what others have described as 'love' toward them. We have ample evidence of wives and dogs and reciprocal love relationships with them. I can point to my wife and my dog. Since neither of us can point to your particular 'God', we speculate, we imagine, we concoct. I am not saying there are not 'Gods', but I have no coherent manner of discerning what they would be or where they would be or what they are about until and unless I have credible evidence. The point of the OP is demonstrated by those who speculate without such evidence.

[Goat]

If your 'God' and your 'God beliefs' contain no amount of credible, verifiable evidence, is there anything left but conjecture and speculation upon which to stake your truth claims?

God is a spirit. There will be no physical proof of his person. What physical evidence could one find of a dimension that does not exist in the physical? This is like asking to see a colour that does not exist within the scope of colour in our universe and cannot be seen by the human eye. If such 'evidence' could be seen it would no longer be spiritual now would it. The demand for "empirical evidence" of a spiritual realm, it's totally illogical. It should also be remembered that Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. That having been said...

Isn't it amazing your description of God is the exact same as something that does not exist.

In the realm of imagination, you can make up any characteristics you want for anything you want.

[Slopeshoulder]

Caveat: Whatever I write here will be inadequete, plus I just woke up a few minutes ago.
Here are a few point that speak to the OP:

- I absolutely and axiomatically, on day one, utterly reject and condemn the idea that anyone who fails to give notional assent to a self-defeating and meaningless set of propositions, based on the circular application of presuppositions, is going to hell (which I also reject as a place). To me that is the equivalent of reaching a remote town and being told "we cook and eat babies"; a sane person walks away and sounds the alarm. The violent divinsized exclusivity of fundamentalism (as well as other ultra-orthodox schools that like to self-define as non-fundamentalist) delegitimizes itself and identifies itself as a movement that is at its core violent.

- As I've said repeatedly, I have no beliefs, only a faith. This faith is a lens, an orientation, a leaning into. It is less about content (beliefs, doctrine) than it is a way of listening and framing. It is fluid. Christianity has something to do with it and is (slightly) priviledged because it is my root tradition and the language with which i am most familiar. But I glaze over the moment a "conversation partner" in the christian community abandons metaphor for propositions. But the orientation and vision, the aesthetic sense, the psychology, art, ethic, insights, and conversation of the great religions appeals to me in a way that is decisive. In real life, this ends up being about art, love, courage to take risks to preserve ones integrity, and a certain maturity in the face of suffering and death. The alternatives strike me as young, thin, callow, and boring. Although physics and cosmology show promise, but I don't have the mind for them.

- I was reading last night that Zoroastrians believed that "getting into 'heaven'" was not a function of doing good, or of affirming belief in a set of propositions, but rather a result of simply choosing to orient oneself in the direction of heaven and be part of that energy. If we redefine this to mean being religious, this then overcomes belief vs. works vs. luck vs. nihilism and replaces it with the kind of existential orienting that I espouse.

- Identifying as religious, and living in a christian place while loving to travel, gives me a toolkit to have the very kind of conversations we have here, to navigate a broad world of ideas while standing in an orienting place, and to make decisions and have courage and wisdom that I believe I personally would not have elsewhere. Worked through well and properly understood, I find that the great religious thinkers are my favorite companions. I just like them a lot. And I treasure meeting people from other places and learning from them. I'd move if I could, but I'm too old and own my house so to speak.

- The above is all I can muster to recommend religion; I have no interest in apologetics other than this: I am convinved that religious people should be very circumspect about making magical truth claims, making superiority claims, or assuming divine favor (or existence). But I am likewise convinced that scientism (as opposed to science), rationalism (as opposed to reason) and positivism (as opposed to logic) do not have the credibility and therefore the warrant to prevent me from following my heart and my hunches in order to craft a metanarrative that is informed by religion. Is it speculative? Absolutely. Conjured? Well, that's not very polite. I think of it as poetic or aesthetic.

- Lastly, I read in today's New York Times that only 4.6% of the universe is made up of of the kind of matter we know anything about. Also, we only percieve 4 of the 11 dimensions that surround us. If everything is perspectival, as the hindus and buddhists remind us, surely while this huge unperceivable reality does NOT give us not the warrant to make fact claims about God(s), it MUST (IMO) give us leave to orient toward religious frameworks that include wonder and supernaturalism and endless wisdom and sublime insights as we confront our day to day lives viz. love, beauty, ethical choice, risk, courage, etc. if we choose to do so.

[Flail]

Caveat: Whatever I write here will be inadequete, plus I just woke up a few minutes ago.
Here are a few point that speak to the OP:

- I absolutely and axiomatically, on day one, utterly reject and condemn the idea that anyone who fails to give notional assent to a self-defeating and meaningless set of propositions, based on the circular application of presuppositions, is going to hell (which I also reject as a place). To me that is the equivalent of reaching a remote town and being told "we cook and eat babies"; a sane person walks away and sounds the alarm. The violent divinsized exclusivity of fundamentalism (as well as other ultra-orthodox schools that like to self-define as non-fundamentalist) delegitimizes itself and identifies itself as a movement that is at its core violent.

- As I've said repeatedly, I have no beliefs, only a faith. This faith is a lens, an orientation, a leaning into. It is less about content (beliefs, doctrine) than it is a way of listening and framing. It is fluid. Christianity has something to do with it and is (slightly) priviledged because it is my root tradition and the language with which i am most familiar. But I glaze over the moment a "conversation partner" in the christian community abandons metaphor for propositions. But the orientation and vision, the aesthetic sense, the psychology, art, ethic, insights, and conversation of the great religions appeals to me in a way that is decisive. In real life, this ends up being about art, love, courage to take risks to preserve ones integrity, and a certain maturity in the face of suffering and death. The alternatives strike me as young, thin, callow, and boring. Although physics and cosmology show promise, but I don't have the mind for them.

- I was reading last night that Zoroastrians believed that "getting into 'heaven'" was not a function of doing good, or of affirming belief in a set of propositions, but rather a result of simply choosing to orient oneself in the direction of heaven and be part of that energy. If we redefine this to mean being religious, this then overcomes belief vs. works vs. luck vs. nihilism and replaces it with the kind of existential orienting that I espouse.

- Identifying as religious, and living in a christian place while loving to travel, gives me a toolkit to have the very kind of conversations we have here, to navigate a broad world of ideas while standing in an orienting place, and to make decisions and have courage and wisdom that I believe I personally would not have elsewhere. Worked through well and properly understood, I find that the great religious thinkers are my favorite companions. I just like them a lot. And I treasure meeting people from other places and learning from them. I'd move if I could, but I'm too old and own my house so to speak.

- The above is all I can muster to recommend religion; I have no interest in apologetics other than this: I am convinved that religious people should be very circumspect about making magical truth claims, making superiority claims, or assuming divine favor (or existence). But I am likewise convinced that scientism (as opposed to science), rationalism (as opposed to reason) and positivism (as opposed to logic) do not have the credibility and therefore the warrant to prevent me from following my heart and my hunches in order to craft a metanarrative that is informed by religion. Is it speculative? Absolutely. Conjured? Well, that's not very polite. I think of it as poetic or aesthetic.

- Lastly, I read in today's New York Times that only 4.6% of the universe is made up of of the kind of matter we know anything about. Also, we only percieve 4 of the 11 dimensions that surround us. If everything is perspectival, as the hindus and buddhists remind us, surely while this huge unperceivable reality does NOT give us not the warrant to make fact claims about God(s), it MUST (IMO) give us leave to orient toward religious frameworks that include wonder and supernaturalism and endless wisdom and sublime insights as we confront our day to day lives viz. love, beauty, ethical choice, risk, courage, etc. if we choose to do so.

Notwithstanding your caveat and your sleepiness, this is perhaps the best post of 'beliefs' I have ever encountered from a theist. If the belief system you describe had a name and a definitive identity, but 'no particular 'God', no place of worship, no Holy books or places, and no ritual practices, I might join.

That said, I continue to think you would send a better message and set a better example to your fellows and family members were you to renounce Christian membership altogether. You might become a Buddhist or just refuse all labels/memberships and be nothing other than an individual 'citizen of the universe'.