Got a bible? Grab it and look at this.

That is a very clear definition of your belief structure.

Do you see any single aspect of this world or the world within ourselves (for fans of the Upanishads) that makes you question if you might be wrong?

To be honest, when I see pain and suffering or even hear of concept of hell I have been confused by the seeming contradiction of benevolence.
Im not trying to change your mind, seriously, or start a conversation on the topic of hell, I am just curious about a paradigm that is very different from my own.

Personally, I think if I wasnt a theist, I would be an atheist.

It seems logical for someone like my self to stay on the outside and come to resolutions. The only question I ever had was whether God existed how I pegged Him to be or if I had been missing the mark right from the beginning. \
Thoughts?

I never stated anything was illogical. Nor did I state superiority in the belief of a God or not. To be honest, your "belief" (and please try to ignore this word, it simply means what you accepted for yourself at this moment) seems safe in comparison to my own set of accepted values.

The question I had was if any part of what you accepted to be your stance on the subject, which as we all know is "I DO NOT KNOW IF THERE IS A GOD...also...I DO NOT KNOW IF THERE ARE NO GODS" is ever changed. Like this, do you ever wake up and say, "gee, i feel like s**t today, I dont believe in God."

That is all. I dont believe for a second that anyone's personal judgements are changed by a bad morning, but rather, do you ever doubt yourself on the topic of agnosticism?

On the topic of belief structure: why dont you believe this is belief?

Your belief in God, it seems, is that you do not know if there is or isnt a higher diety/pantheon. Why isnt this a belief. You beliefe that you dont know...

One last thing, I never stated that you were illogical. I do however feel that it would be impossible for myself to live comfortably under the umbrella of "I dont know". Again, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT, it just isnt for me. At my age and understanding, I would drive myself crazy in the search for answers.

This is what I know about myself.
Stay on the outside means my binary brain can only understand 1 or 0, or God/Gods exist or dont exist. This is the way I am.

Neither of us are inferior, just different.

I could wake up every morning and say "I do not believe in God."

If I thought you could handle humor on this subject...I probably say that is not so much a drive as it is a chip...

but I'm not sure you can handle it, so I won't.

Argue for you limitations...and they are yours.

Get yourself to the point where you can deal with things other than 1 or 0...or black or white.

Man, tough crowd this morning...

Quote:

I could wake up every morning and say "I do not believe in God."

I thought you were agnostic? How can you be partial to disbelief? Or are you an Athiest???
Well, could you wake up every morning and say "I do believe in God.", or are you agnostic.
And with that phrase alone "I do not believe in God."... you dont have belief, but you can not believe in God??? Im not trying to harp, this seems completely contradictory.

Quote:

If I thought you could handle humor on this subject...I probably say that is not so much a drive as it is a chip...

A fine joke, and a funny one. I did handle it. A chip would be to prove your point at the expense of everyone else, a drive is a desire to find out something you dont know. Why not call every university "Chip U". I would expect a learned man such as yourself to be compeled by the topic of education and a passion for learning.

Quote:

but I'm not sure you can handle it, so I won't.

But you did.

Quote:

Argue for you limitations...and they are yours.

Get yourself to the point where you can deal with things other than 1 or 0...or black or white.

Why exactly is this a limitation? What is the benefit of neutratilty?

In the end when we die we will all find out if there is a god or if there isnt. This is binary. I choose to try and find now.

Tell my why the idea of God either existing or not existing is absurd.

It is not binary...it is absurd.

If there is no god...you ain't gonna find out shyt. You will be dead...and that is the end of it.

If there is a God...then you may or may not find out. It really would depend on what they God has in mind.

Either way...your binary thingy is absurd.

Yes, we may never know if God exists or does not exist, but either god/s exist or do not exist.

I shouldnt have put my personal beliefs (i.e. we will find out...) in the last message.

Please send some links so I can read up on agnosticism.

Well so far...you have shown no evidence whatever for the existence of any gods. The historical data in almost any piece of fiction is hardly evidence that it is non-fiction. All of the people mentioned in the Bible could be real people...or based on real people...and it would provide no evidence of any gods.

Quote:

Well so far...you have shown no evidence whatever for the existence of any gods. The historical data in almost any piece of fiction is hardly evidence that it is non-fiction. All of the people mentioned in the Bible could be real people...or based on real people...and it would provide no evidence of any gods.

What exactly would "evidence of any gods" be to you? In other words, what do you look for in something in order to classify it as "evidence", specifically as it relates to evidence of any gods?

Implicator wrote:

Quote:

Well so far...you have shown no evidence whatever for the existence of any gods. The historical data in almost any piece of fiction is hardly evidence that it is non-fiction. All of the people mentioned in the Bible could be real people...or based on real people...and it would provide no evidence of any gods.

What exactly would "evidence of any gods" be to you? In other words, what do you look for in something in order to classify it as "evidence", specifically as it relates to evidence of any gods?

Well...since this line of reasoning usually comes up when someone says, "I 'believe' in God because of the evidence"...I prefer to have them tell me what the evidence is that they are using to guess there is a God.

Then I comment on it.

What do you suppose is "evidence" for the existence of gods?

(Or...conversely, what do you suppose is "evidence" that there are no gods?...which is the question I ask of atheists...who say they 'believe' there are no god.)

Implicator wrote:

Well...since this line of reasoning usually comes up when someone says, "I 'believe' in God because of the evidence"...I prefer to have them tell me what the evidence is that they are using to guess there is a God.

Then I comment on it.

What do you suppose is "evidence" for the existence of gods?

(Or...conversely, what do you suppose is "evidence" that there are no gods?...which is the question I ask of atheists...who say they 'believe' there are no god.)

... you are correct in how the question normally arises. However, I didn't ask the initial question in this thread, nor did I even postulate whether or not there are gods. Rather, I simply asked you a question:

"What exactly would "evidence of any gods" be to you?"

You have spoken throughout this thread about "evidence for the existence of a god" and "evidence against the existence of gods", and so I naturally assumed that you have some way of recognizing evidence if it were presented to you. That was my question to you - and still is.

I thought I answered your question. I am willing to consider ANY evidence both for or against the existence of God or gods.

I can assure you that I would recognize evidence if it were presented

and in fact, invited you to offer some up in either direction for discussion.

But since you seem to want a specific from me regarding what I would consider evidence of a God...let's see if I can come up with something.

And I guess it is best to note that we have to assume the god WANTS to reveal itself to us. If the god doesn't...all bets are off. But if the god doesn't want to reveal itself...all of that scripture of revelation is just hokum.

So...let's get to it:

First of all...the god these people are talking about supposedly "created" the universe...meaning that their god created our planet and the sun around which it revolves...created all the other 200+ billion suns in our galaxy...created the hundreds of billions of other galaxies that we know about...and created the space in which to fit them.

I certainly wouldn't want "evidence" of a god supposedly that powerful to consist of a card trick...or by a statistically insignificant uptick of "cures" for people who pray to it.

It would not be unreasonable to suggest that if that god wanted to reveal itself...with a high degree of certainty...it could do so by announcing in some way that at 9:30 pm Eastern Standard Time next Thursday evening...January 13th...ALL of the stars in our companion galaxy (the Andromeda Galaxy) will go dark...and will stay invisible for the next ten years...coming back into visibility at 9:30 pm EST on January 13th of 2015.

The god could announce that this had all been set into motion....in anticipation of a request for evidence...back almost 3 million years ago, so that the results could be viewed here on Earth some 2.9 million light years away.

Yep...that would be evidence...and fairly convincing evidence.

But...hell...that is way, way too dramatic.

Way too dramatic.

How about...next Thursday evening...January 13th...at 9:30 pm Eastern Standard Time...the planet Uranus will leave its orbit and head out toward the vast beyond...at a rate of speed easily seen by astronomers here on Earth.

Yeah...I like that better.

That would be evidence...and it would be convincing.

Does that answer your question, Implicator?

Can you suggest alternatives for discussion?

Quote:

I can assure you that I would recognize evidence if it were presented

You almost make it sound as if:

1) There is an objective nature to evidence.
2) I can be certain that you are able to recognize something objective - evidence, in this case.

I'm not disputing either of these - just trying to be sure I understand what you are saying.

Quote:

and in fact, invited you to offer some up in either direction for discussion.

I wasn't really interested in offering evidence either for or against gods, I just wanted to know your take on how to recognize such evidence if it ever showed up.

Honestly, my first inkling was that you were evading the question I was asking. But it seems you have answered it further below, so that's good.

Quote:

But since you seem to want a specific from me regarding what I would consider evidence of a God...let's see if I can come up with something.

Yup, that's what I asked for. Either specific examples, or a more general explanation of what constitutes "evidence for the existence of a god" in your mind.

Quote:

And I guess it is best to note that we have to assume the god WANTS to reveal itself to us. If the god doesn't...all bets are off. But if the god doesn't want to reveal itself...all of that scripture of revelation is just hokum.

I think that if the god did *not* want itself revealed to us then we would be in a pickle. If the god didn't really care, however, I don't think the situation would be quite as bad. The situation where the god *did* want itself revealed would be much better, though.

Quote:

So...let's get to it:

I'm all ears

Quote:

First of all...the god these people are talking about supposedly "created" the universe...meaning that their god created our planet and the sun around which it revolves...created all the other 200+ billion suns in our galaxy...created the hundreds of billions of other galaxies that we know about...and created the space in which to fit them.

I certainly wouldn't want "evidence" of a god supposedly that powerful to consist of a card trick...or by a statistically insignificant uptick of "cures" for people who pray to it.

Sure … evidence of this nature could always be explained away. The card trick would be by its very nature deceitful, and not necessarily indicative of whether any gods exist. The uptick might actually be evidence, but not compelling enough, as it could always be explained by some other phenomena. .

Actually, this brings up a good point, I thinkEvidence (alone) seems to me to be subjective, and not objective.

In other words, I don't see evidence as something that "speaks for itself". Let's take the uptick by way of example. Let's just suppose (for the sake of argument) that some sort of diety out there had responded to a group of people's prayers, such that those they prayed for became better. Now, even though (in this example) the cure was the direct result of the prayer, presenting this cure as evidence would not convince you that such a god as these people were praying to existed.

I'm not saying that's all bad - I am just pointing out that evidence by itself doesn't seem to be sufficient to convince anyone of anything, as there are always alternative explanations for why something happened.

Sorry for interrupting …

Quote:

It would not be unreasonable to suggest that if that god wanted to reveal itself...with a high degree of certainty...it could do so by announcing in some way that at 9:30 pm Eastern Standard Time next Thursday evening...January 13th...ALL of the stars in our companion galaxy (the Andromeda Galaxy) will go dark...and will stay invisible for the next ten years...coming back into visibility at 9:30 pm EST on January 13th of 2015.

The god could announce that this had all been set into motion....in anticipation of a request for evidence...back almost 3 million years ago, so that the results could be viewed here on Earth some 2.9 million light years away.

Yep...that would be evidence...and fairly convincing evidence.

But...hell...that is way, way too dramatic.

Way too dramatic.

Sort of an "extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim" sort of drama

Really good example, btw. It makes me want to ask another question, though - given my comments above. What if someone you respected in the scientific community came up with an explanation for this remarkable event that didn't require belief in any gods. Even though this was initially presented to you as extraordinary evidence, do you think you would continue to perceive it that way, after being presented with a more "ordinary" (from your perspective) explanation?

I guess I am challenging your comment above where you say "I can assure you that I would recognize evidence if it were presented".

Quote:

How about...next Thursday evening...January 13th...at 9:30 pm Eastern Standard Time...the planet Uranus will leave its orbit and head out toward the vast beyond...at a rate of speed easily seen by astronomers here on Earth.

Yeah...I like that better.

That would be evidence...and it would be convincing.

Ok, so not quite as "extraordinary" maybe, but it still seems to fit the general mold of something we don't see happening all the time, and that would seem to go against what we currently know of the laws of nature. Unless that pesky scientist you respect comes up with some natural explanation, of course

Quote:

Does that answer your question, Implicator?

Can you suggest alternatives for discussion?

I think it is a good start, for sure. I'm happy to stick with what you have suggested for evidence for now, as I don't want to muddy the waters at this point.

Well, Implicator, allow me to start by complimenting you on the amazing way you have coped with the intricacies of A2K. It took me months to get as facile as you. With only three posts...you have mastered the techniques...and are interacting as though you have been around for a very long time.

Implicator wrote:

Quote:

I can assure you that I would recognize evidence if it were presented

You almost make it sound as if:

1) There is an objective nature to evidence.
2) I can be certain that you are able to recognize something objective - evidence, in this case.

I'm not disputing either of these - just trying to be sure I understand what you are saying.

I'm saying that I can assure you that I would recognize evidence if it were presented. I'll get back to that later...and perhaps it will become more clear then...although I think it already is very clear.

Quote:

Quote:

First of all...the god these people are talking about supposedly "created" the universe...meaning that their god created our planet and the sun around which it revolves...created all the other 200+ billion suns in our galaxy...created the hundreds of billions of other galaxies that we know about...and created the space in which to fit them.

I certainly wouldn't want "evidence" of a god supposedly that powerful to consist of a card trick...or by a statistically insignificant uptick of "cures" for people who pray to it.

Sure … evidence of this nature could always be explained away. The card trick would be by its very nature deceitful, and not necessarily indicative of whether any gods exist. The uptick might actually be evidence, but not compelling enough, as it could always be explained by some other phenomena. .

The "uptick" is evidence! (As I mentioned above, I'll have more to say about this later...and it may become more clear.) There is no "might" about it. But as you observed...it is not especially compelling.

Quote:

Actually, this brings up a good point, I think Evidence (alone) seems to me to be subjective, and not objective.

I'd prefer to think of evidence as objective...but that it must be evaluated subjectively. We could get into a detailed discussion of this...but I don't want to interrupt your thought.

Quote:

In other words, I don't see evidence as something that "speaks for itself". Let's take the uptick by way of example. Let's just suppose (for the sake of argument) that some sort of diety out there had responded to a group of people's prayers, such that those they prayed for became better. Now, even though (in this example) the cure was the direct result of the prayer, presenting this cure as evidence would not convince you that such a god as these people were praying to existed.

Correct. The objective (as I see it) evidence of what happened for us to say "this person became better"...must be subjectively considered. In most studies...we really do not know where the "cure" or "improvement" came from or how it came about. The linkage with the prayer is tenuous at best.

Quote:

I guess I am challenging your comment above where you say "I can assure you that I would recognize evidence if it were presented".

Are you referring to "evidence" or "proof?"

The Bible is "evidence" of the existence of a god.

It is not especially good evidence...and in fact, I would argue that it is particularly poor evidence...BUT IT IS EVIDENCE.

And I recognize it as such.

Are you referring to "evidence"...or are you using the word evidence...and meaning "proof?"

Hmm … it almost seems like you think I am someone else - maybe someone who has changed their handle. Or maybe that is just my imagination at work. Anyway, a friend of mine invited me to this board, and so I thought I would hop on over and check it out. I have been posting on other boards for quite awhile, which when added to the "preview" option on this board means my acclimation time was rather short.

Implicator

First of all...this discussion we are having here is without a doubt in my mind...the most interesting I've had in months. I want very much for it to continue. There are few things in life I enjoy more than a stimulating discussion with someone like you...and I hope it goes on for a long while. (I will invite you to another thread at the end of my short comments here.)

I think I can clear up most of the reservations you expressed in your last post...by simply saying that whenever I used the word "evidence" on its own in my last post...it was merely shorthand for "evidence for (or against) the existence of God."

The Bible is evidence for the existence of God. I don't consider it compelling evidence (that is my subjective impression of the objective Bible)...but it definitely IS evidence for the existence of God.

If we look around ourselves...the fact that we are here...that existence EXISTS...is evidence for the existence of God. Not very compelling evidence for the existence of God...highlighted by the fact that atheists often use the fact that "looking around" (and seeing no gods) is evidence that gods do not exist. I don't find that very compelling evidence for the assertion that there are no gods either.

At no point have I ever asserted that no evidence for or against the existence of God or gods exists...but rather that the evidence is of poor probative value...ambiguous...and often contrived.

I continue to maintain that I would recognize evidence for the existence of God if it is presented...and in fact, have already recognized such evidence as has been presented.

I don't know how to make that any clearer.

My position...my agnosticism...takes this form: I do not KNOW if a God exists....I do not KNOW if there are no gods...and I do not see any unambiguous evidence upon which I feel comfortable making a guess in either direction.

If we can get this question of whether or not I would recognize evidence for (or against) the existence of God...out of the way, I'd love to get on to whatever next is on the agenda in this discussion. BUT I DO NOT WANT TO HURRY THIS...because I can see it is important to you.

Please ask any questions that still remain that can clear this up.

And if you get the opportunity...I'd love to hear any comments you might want to offer in a new thread I started a bit earlier. Check it out here.


Oops...forgot about one item that I'd better cover:

Quote:

Hmm … it almost seems like you think I am someone else - maybe someone who has changed their handle. Or maybe that is just my imagination at work. Anyway, a friend of mine invited me to this board, and so I thought I would hop on over and check it out. I have been posting on other boards for quite awhile, which when added to the "preview" option on this board means my acclimation time was rather short.

Yep...I did. Apparently I was wrong. Please accept my apology for the way I went about questioning you on the matter...but I truly am enjoying the way you argue, and I didn't want sometimes offensive self to show up in a more aggressive way of asking the question. :wink:

Quote:

My position...my agnosticism...takes this form: I do not KNOW if a God exists....I do not KNOW if there are no gods...and I do not see any unambiguous evidence upon which I feel comfortable making a guess in either direction.

So would you refer to yourself as an unbeliever in god(s), as opposed to a disbeliever? (I am guessing that as an agnostic you not only claim to lack knowledge "one way or the other", but you even claim to lack belief).

Quote:

If we can get this question of whether or not I would recognize evidence for (or against) the existence of God...out of the way, I'd love to get on to whatever next is on the agenda in this discussion. BUT I DO NOT WANT TO HURRY THIS...because I can see it is important to you.

Please ask any questions that still remain that can clear this up.

I think we can move beyond this point, as you have sufficiently clarified your point for me. Also, I hope you forgive my propensity to wax Socratic, but I have another question for you, one that seems (at least to me) to be the logical next step.

You claim you have been presented evidence for the existence of a god, yet at the same time you state that such evidence has been insufficient to move you from unbelief to belief.

I wonder, have you ever considered that there may be nothing wrong with the sufficiency of the evidence, but rather with how you evaluate ("process") it? Let me illuminate what I am trying to say.

I consider there to be three elements to reviewing evidence and reaching a conclusion. There may be more ways to slice this up - I happen to take the following approach. First, there is the evidence itself. Second, there is the person evaluating the evidence. Third, there is the process the person uses to evaluate the evidence - the glue that holds the first two elements together.

You have been presented with evidence for the existence of a god, yet you find it to be less than compelling. The conclusion you reach is based not only on the evidence, but also on the process you employ to evaluate that evidence. Do you feel it is possible that your process is wrong, which entails that the conclusions you come to based on the evidence may also be wrong?