Is faith based on little or no evidence reasonable? (abortion, marriage, believers)

[Woof]

Originally Posted by Nozz

That is why when I speak on this subject I ask the theists for "ANY evidence, argument, data or reasons to lend even a modicum of credence to the idea there might be a god entity".

Still nothing forthcoming however.

I'll refer you back to an earlier post. What you mean to say is that there's no universally accepted evidence. For me the standards are lower: I'm not seeking evidence that would satisfy a cosmologist, just evidence that works for me. It's much the same as the evidence for psi: I have my own personal evidence that it happens, which might not satisfy YOU.

As for the evidence of God from the complexity of the universe at the very beginning: of course it's a kind of evidence, again perhaps not satisfying YOU. The universe came from a tiny "egg" with all the current physical laws inherent. The laws are complex and consistent. The physical constants just happen to be right for the formation of elements higher than hydrogen and helium, in fact perfect for the carbon chemistry that is the basis for life.

The classic analogy is of a man walking along a swamp who finds a watch on his path. He examines the watch, and determines that its complexity and orderliness of function was ultimately designed by a thinking being, since it would be very improbable that a watch could self-assemble from the swamp materials by random processes.

Originally Posted by Woof

You might think that's true if you have been reading skeptics' publications where they IMPLY that sort of thing, but if you look at polling data it's quite wrong. The numbers have been closer to 50/50, though the last time I'd checked it was more like 60% of scientists were AGNOSTICS mostly (some hardcore atheists.)

Everyone has different standards of evidence or proof - we should say "evidence" because proof is mainly for mathematics. Most people are sort of tribal in their requirements to believe in something. They believe what trusted people tell them in their circle of family and friends. That's all that was needed to survive up until very recent times. Now that things are more complex, a higher standard among the leaders of nations is more desirable - that's what separates firstworld from thirdworld countries.

Now in more scientific and literate times, we are starting to see a higher standard of evidence being raised, and so a few demand scientific and laboratory evidence for the existence of God. But scientific evidence isn't the only valid kind! Most people believe in true things as a result of education from school or parents still - one doesn't believe in atoms from having found them in a school experiment, but rather because trusted people have SAID that there are atoms, elements, molecules etc. That's a form of tribal knowledge - it's still much faster to learn that way than by personal experimentation. In the same way, historical evidence is almost all "anecdotal" ...... it relies on witnesses ...... and yet most of us believe in Ancient Rome and Greece, and that they had a tremendous influence on arts and philosophies even to this day. We believe in the past existence of Alexander the Great, the pharoahs of Egypt, Confucius or Gung fu Tse, and Plato ...... though we have no direct evidence of them.

Again, scientific evidence isn't the source of MOST of our knowledge.

So many people believe in the Bible and God because of family or friends telling them the Bible (or Koran) is the perfect word of God. That's all they need. Mind closed to need for further evidence. Some people extend that to needing witness of a miracle or prayer answered. That's the level of evidence that works for them.

Personally, I'm too logical to believe the Bible is anywhere near perfect. I see the mistakes and contradictions. So I don't particularly believe in the Bible as being more than tribal legends in the Old Testament, and partly accurate testimonies in the NT. But the Bible doesn't have much to do with my belief in God, which comes from two main sources: specific prayers answered specifically and improbably, and the fact that the universe is highly ordered by complex laws, which gave rise to sentient old me, capable of dwelling on such thoughts.

Going past "proof" think about the complexity of the universe. Even as it is now, we know that it comes from a beginning "cosmic egg" that was even more highly ordered with MORE information. It's been expanding, increasing in entropy. That means it had almost perfect reverse entropy - perfection - in a tiny space. I've heard it might have been the size of a robin's egg. So first there was nothing ...... then there was a tiny perfect jewel ...... and then that "nothing" exploded. THINK about that.

[BigCityDreamer]

Originally Posted by Woof

As for the evidence of God from the complexity of the universe at the very beginning: of course it's a kind of evidence, again perhaps not satisfying YOU. The universe came from a tiny "egg" with all the current physical laws inherent. The laws are complex and consistent. The physical constants just happen to be right for the formation of elements higher than hydrogen and helium, in fact perfect for the carbon chemistry that is the basis for life.

The classic analogy is of a man walking along a swamp who finds a watch on his path. He examines the watch, and determines that its complexity and orderliness of function was ultimately designed by a thinking being, since it would be very improbable that a watch could self-assemble from the swamp materials by random processes.

So, let's assume there is a God that created the universe - with its billions of galaxies having sextillions of stars and planets that have existed over the course of billions of years.

Do you agree then that to say this same God came to earth of all planets, created humans, gave them absolute morality and sent his "son" 2000 years ago as a sacrifice for the sins of all humans for all time is the nuttiest concept imaginable?

[Woof]

Personally I do think that's a bit nutty, BCD, but each to their own.

[busterkeaton]

Originally Posted by Woof

I'll refer you back to an earlier post. What you mean to say is that there's no universally accepted evidence. For me the standards are lower: I'm not seeking evidence that would satisfy a cosmologist, just evidence that works for me. It's much the same as the evidence for psi: I have my own personal evidence that it happens, which might not satisfy YOU.

As for the evidence of God from the complexity of the universe at the very beginning: of course it's a kind of evidence, again perhaps not satisfying YOU. The universe came from a tiny "egg" with all the current physical laws inherent. The laws are complex and consistent. The physical constants just happen to be right for the formation of elements higher than hydrogen and helium, in fact perfect for the carbon chemistry that is the basis for life.

The classic analogy is of a man walking along a swamp who finds a watch on his path. He examines the watch, and determines that its complexity and orderliness of function was ultimately designed by a thinking being, since it would be very improbable that a watch could self-assemble from the swamp materials by random processes.

The reason why these "laws" look so complex....is because we're viewing them after the fact. It's like a crime scene investigator. The crime itself may have been as simple as a person pulling a trigger....but the detective has a daunting task, because he has to reconstruct the scene again; without having witnessed it. So, do the physicist, biologist, geologist, etc. It's just instead of a crime scene, they(scientist) are trying to unfold the universe's one. These "laws" in and of themselves, may not, be that "complex" at all.

[Woof]

Well, let me put it this way. To get atoms on the periodic table higher than helium requires certain physical constants to be at very precise numbers. Otherwise the bigger atoms with more neutrons and protons would fall apart. The weird thing is that there is no particular reason why the constants should be set at those values.

One way of looking at it would be that we simply wouldn't be here to ponder the matter if they hadn't been the right values - the universe would be nothing much but hydrogen, and people wouldn't have come about. But sh*t happened, and by chance it happened well enough so that life formed from carbon chemistry, and so here we are today with you able to take this point of view.

My way of looking at it is that it is remarkable that the constants should be just those right values, and like the watch on the path through the swamp, it seems almost as if ..... designed that way.

Now that alone might not have been enough to convince me, but personal experiences of specific prayers answered specifically, together with similar experiences having happened to trusted friends and family, plus the vast numbers of people who also report experiences which might very well be explained by some sort of infinitely greater Higher Power that is able to re-arrange events ....... all that together is enough for ME.

And that's all I care about. I don't need to convince other people that God exists, because there is no permanent Hell for them to go to if they screw up in their beliefs. To the contrary, I think that God could make it immediately known without a doubt that he exists, simply by tweaking everyone's mind - no need for a dubious "user's manual" of Planet Earth.

That He does not do so indicates to me that he doesn't consider it to be important. In fact it seems that knowledge of God is a mystery that requires a long and difficult quest to be even partly successful. Anyone who isn't interested in doing so, simply continues to live various lives in the playgrounds of Creation.

[TRANSPONDER]

As I understand it, the periodic table is of no more significance than a paint - store colour chart. That the number of protons in atoms ranging from one to a couple of hundred (where they tend to become unstable rather quickly) leads to each one being placed in order of atomic 'weight'. Not unexpectedly the different number of protons result in a very different substance, but that is a natural result of physics and is in no way the 'watchmaker' element that you find convincing.

The answered prayers are, I would suggest, like other answered - or not answered -prayers. Count the hits and explain away the misses. It is the same effect as when it seems to be that the bus always zooms past the end of the road before I get a chance to flag it down. I forget the many times it came just after I got to the stop.

Personal experiences are real enough, but like voices in the head, the ecstatic feelings through meditation and the feelings of a 'presence' plus the NED and OOB experiences could well be an effect of the brain and some initial evidence indicates that this is just what it is.

Apart from this applying just as much to other religions and just seeing it as some proof of a 'god', that is just not good enough evidence to turn a possible god into a probable one.

I give you the other view. Whether you take the point on board or not is up to you.

[Woof]

The thing about physical constants is not simply a count of protons. A constant is a measurement of a value such as the speed of light, the gravitational constant, Planck's constant, and numerous others that just happen to be a certain amount, though other universes with other constant values and thus different chemistries can be imagined. Whatever. I'm not a physicist, it's simply an argument I came across that seems valid to me.

I've read your point of view many times, I've seen the skeptics' arguments. You choose to go one way with what you accept as evidence, I choose to go another - but please don't call it a "proof". Proofs are for mathematics.

[Boxcar Overkill]

Originally Posted by Woof

The thing about physical constants is not simply a count of protons, but whatever. I've read your point of view many times, I've seen the skeptics' arguments. You choose to go one way with what you accept as evidence, I choose to go another - but please don't call it a "proof". Proofs are for mathematics.

"Proof" is for lots of things beyond mathematics, says the lawyer.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Woof

The thing about physical constants is not simply a count of protons. A constant is a measurement of a value such as the speed of light, the gravitational constant, Planck's constant, and numerous others that just happen to be a certain amount, though other universes with other constant values and thus different chemistries can be imagined. Whatever. I'm not a physicist, it's simply an argument I came across that seems valid to me.

I've read your point of view many times, I've seen the skeptics' arguments. You choose to go one way with what you accept as evidence, I choose to go another - but please don't call it a "proof". Proofs are for mathematics.

Kindly do not misrepresent my point. YOU are the one presenting 'proof' through the periodic table and now apparently through various universal constants. YOU are the one trying to make a case for 'god'. I don't need to make one. The only 'proof' I need is enough doubt that universal constants or any other evidence used as a case for god is actually convincing evidence for ID - which is what you are trying to prove of course.

You may have a case. You may have a persuasive argument. But please, do not push the burden of proof onto me, the skeptics and the atheists.

[Woof]

"Proof" is not the same as an argument. It's much stronger - say like the angles of a triangle can be proven step by step to add up to 180 degrees or a straight line. What I have is arguments based on what I consider to be evidence, in the context of a discussion - I don't care what you believe, nor have I "proven" God.