Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hi Troop! Not so. Evidence that supports the rational belief in God is everywhere. You don't accept the evidence as convincing, which is really another issue. But I don't want to rain on your parade.
Evidence that people believe in God is definitely abundant. Evidence that God exists is nil. Tell me, is there one shred of evidence that supports any particular God over a SSC other than mere faith?
What is evidence but a conformation of your faith? Do you have evidence that faith and imagination are 2 different things?
If you can imagine something, doesn't that also automatically mean that you have faith in it? And if you can't imagine it, it is impossible to have faith in it.
Evidence that people believe in God is definitely abundant. Evidence that God exists is nil. Tell me, is there one shred of evidence that supports any particular God over a SSC other than mere faith?
I gave you some reasons for why the example of "the cup" just doesn't work as a counterexample. So I don't know why you're bringing it back up.
But here's another reason. You suggested that your "cup" is the creator and designer of the universe. That's exactly the same thing as saying that this cup is God. Ridiculous? I hope we can agree on that. (if you keep pushing this issue we're going to have to get into some deep areas of ontology, I think) So the issue, the central issue, is whether there is a creator/designer--and a being capable of creating or designing the universe would need to have remarkable qualities (qualities that no merely contingent object could have). That's the difference between the two cases.
And many people find that there is evidence for this--that there is a creator and designer. I'm not claiming that all rational people have to agree on this (even theists take different positions on these issues). I'm just saying that many people hold certain features of the world as being evidence for a creator and designer, and that this is rational to do so. You're trying to argue something much more difficult, namely, that there is no evidence at all for a creator/designer. Can you back this up? What argument could you possibly give to support your position that there is no such evidence, anywhere in all the universe? What about the universe itself?
You can't just turn around and say, "well, show me the evidence," since your claim is not based on the lack of someone else being able to show you evidence. You're making a very strong claim--that there is no evidence. You should have to back it up.
Besides, you already know what the evidence is for God's existence, since you've heard it many times (and I keep reminding you). You just don't think it should count as evidence. But why? Is it because you have certain criteria for what counts as evidence? Can you give an argument for your criteria that will be acceptable to all people--or only to fellow metaphysical naturalists who already are committed to an atheistic worldview? You might not agree that the evidence theists point to is compelling--but so what? You might find Antony Flew's new book to be illuminating on this subject.
But here's another reason. You suggested that your "cup" is the creator and designer of the universe. That's exactly the same thing as saying that this cup is God. Ridiculous? I hope we can agree on that. (if you keep pushing this issue we're going to have to get into some deep areas of ontology, I think) So the issue, the central issue, is whether there is a creator/designer--and a being capable of creating or designing the universe would need to have remarkable qualities (qualities that no merely contingent object could have). That's the difference between the two cases.
My point is that you can not prove to me that there isn't a styrofoam cup that created the universe and the world just as I cannot prove that there isn't a God but we both rationally exclude the two. You use ration, logic, and perhaps philosophy to determine that there is no such thing as a cup that created the universe, just as I do with God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Matrix
And many people find that there is evidence for this--that there is a creator and designer. I'm not claiming that all rational people have to agree on this (even theists take different positions on these issues). I'm just saying that many people hold certain features of the world as being evidence for a creator and designer, and that this is rational to do so. You're trying to argue something much more difficult, namely, that there is no evidence at all for a creator/designer. Can you back this up? What argument could you possibly give to support your position that there is no such evidence, anywhere in all the universe? What about the universe itself?
Isn't this an argument from incredulity reworded?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Matrix
You can't just turn around and say, "well, show me the evidence," since your claim is not based on the lack of someone else being able to show you evidence. You're making a very strong claim--that there is no evidence. You should have to back it up.
The Big Bang Theory, Evolution, and many other scientific discoveries are all evidence for what God didn't do. It eventually gets to the point where you sit back and say to yourself: "If God didn't create the universe, didn't create the earth, and didn't create man, than what exactly did God do?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Matrix
Besides, you already know what the evidence is for God's existence, since you've heard it many times (and I keep reminding you). You just don't think it should count as evidence. But why? Is it because you have certain criteria for what counts as evidence? Can you give an argument for your criteria that will be acceptable to all people--or only to fellow metaphysical naturalists who already are committed to an atheistic worldview? You might not agree that the evidence theists point to is compelling--but so what? You might find Antony Flew's new book to be illuminating on this subject.
Again, the only argument I have heard is an argument from incredulity. To me, this does not count as evidence.
To me, evidence counts as something that would be admissible in court.
To me, evidence counts as something that would be admissible in court.
I don't acknowledge your American court, because American law is not reality. Especially since I’m Dutch and don’t live in America.
So are you saying that incredulity is the same as not being able to imagine something?
I mean in medieval times people were afraid of falling off the edge of the earth, because they could not imagine the world to be a globe.
Originally Posted by GCSTroopI don't acknowledge your American court, because American law is not reality. Especially since I’m Dutch and don’t live in America.
I think you know what I mean
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D
So are you saying that incredulity is the same as not being able to imagine something?
I mean in medieval times people were afraid of falling off the edge of the earth, because they could not imagine the world to be a globe.
Let me put it another way. I'm not sure if you're a baseball fan or not, or even if you know any American teams, but this is the best analogy I can think of at the time.
In 1918 the Boston Red Sox traded one of the greatest baseball players to have ever lived to their arch rivals the New York Yankees. His name was Babe Ruth, and prior to this trade the Red Sox had won several World Series Championships and the Yankees had won none. After the trade a stunning turn of events occurred. The New York Yankees went on to become one of the most successful franchises in sports history winning 26 World Series championships. Even more odd was the fact that after 1918 the Red Sox not only blew their chances at winning a World Series title, but they did so in amazing fashion. After so long, people began to believe that there was an actual curse on the Red Sox. They called it the Curse of the Bambino. (The Great Bambino was Ruth's nickname). In stunning fashion, just when you thought the Red Sox were going to finally pull it out, something absolutely bizarre would occur. Over the course of years, people really started to believe that there was indeed a curse. Fans of both teams and throughout baseball really and truly thought there was a curse on the Red Sox.
Finally, in 2004 the Yankees (still the arch rivals) were up 3 games to 0 in a best of 7 series to see who would go on to the World Series. At some time in the playoffs, one of the Red Sox players hit a foul ball into the stands and I'm not sure if it hit a fan or was caught by the fan, but regardless, this fan was none other than the kid who now lives in Babe Ruth's old house. People thought the curse was over. Now, keep in mind, that only one time in sports history, in a 7 game series has any team come back from a 0-3 deficit and won (it was in hockey). Amazingly, and much to my dismay as a Yankees fan, the Red Sox came back and won the next 4 games in a row. After 86 years, the curse finally seemed to be dying. And, to that end, the Red Sox went on and swept the World Series in a best of 7 matchup. They finally won after 86 years. Upset after upset, stunning defeat after stunning defeat, and miserable loss after miserable loss, the "curse" was finally broken. Lifelong fans rejoiced, cried, and jumped for joy. Last month the Red Sox won their second World Series and the Yankees have yet to make a solid performance in the postseason since 2004.
So tell me, was there a curse on the Red Sox caused by the trade of Babe Ruth in 1918? Honestly, watching some of the games the Red Sox lost, one would think that something was controlling the outcome of those games. However, a more logical and reasonable approach is warranted as well. Weren't they all just naturally born players making natural mistakes at inconvenient times? Was there any evidence for an actual curse? Is there a way to test it? To my knowledge there is not and so we must assume that however crazy some of these games turned out, that there was a rational explanation for it. It's nice, especially as a Yankees fan, to believe there was a curse, and in fact, there were times where I had my doubts, but what it all boiled down to was a perfectly reasonable explanation. Their pitching faultered, managers made bad decisions, and opposing players made great plays, but the most defining factor was that I think the players 'knew' they were going to blow the game because of this 'curse'. There was nothing "magic" about it however lovely the story is.
To my knowledge there is not and so we must assume that however crazy some of these games turned out, that there was a rational explanation for it.
I call this curse not being in 'the zone'. People who are in 'the zone' are not concerned with the ego, which means that they do not doubt (themselves). When players are in 'the zone' thought and action are one and they forget all about winning or loosing, there is no doubt so there is no (inner) conflict.
When you are on a loosing streak, the more you lose the angrier you get about the 'mistakes' you've made and the opportunities you've missed. And once you start to doubt yourself or notice that there is a discrepancy between thought and execution, the harder it becomes to get in 'the zone'. The samurai often claim that the only person you can conquer is yourself.
Anywayz, my explanation is not scientific and mostly is my own experience. Can you imagine that I am right?
Then again, in theory, anything is possible.
I mean it is only natural for humans to seek explanations when they do not have one. And I find it only natural that whatever you believe affects you and / or your performance. Whether you call it a curse, doubt or whatever, the fact is that it affects you.
And it is my experience that people believe whatever they want to believe anyway, no matter how illogical or insane I believe they act.
Originally Posted by GCSTroopI call this curse not being in 'the zone'. People who are in 'the zone' are not concerned with the ego, which means that they do not doubt (themselves). When players are in 'the zone' thought and action are one and they forget all about winning or loosing, there is no doubt so there is no (inner) conflict.
When you are on a loosing streak, the more you lose the angrier you get about the 'mistakes' you've made and the opportunities you've missed. And once you start to doubt yourself or notice that there is a discrepancy between thought and execution, the harder it becomes to get in 'the zone'. The samurai often claim that the only person you can conquer is yourself.
Anywayz, my explanation is not scientific and mostly is my own experience. Can you imagine that I am right?
Then again, in theory, anything is possible.
I mean it is only natural for humans to seek explanations when they do not have one. And I find it only natural that whatever you believe affects you and / or your performance. Whether you call it a curse, doubt or whatever, the fact is that it affects you.
And it is my experience that people believe whatever they want to believe anyway, no matter how illogical or insane I believe they act.
It's hard for me to say whether they were in the 'zone' or not as I was not playing. I do know that it was 86 years before they won so I'm pretty sure they had to be in the 'zone' at some time. Nevertheless, not being in the 'zone' is a rational explanation for this in my opinion. Why? Because it affected the players' performance and to all the people watching it seemed as though something mystifying was happening. Maybe that was the case, maybe it wasn't, but people wanted to attribute the miraculous losses (if that's not an oxymoron..) to some sort of curse. In fact, there's another team right now that is allegedly cursed. The Chicago Cubs. In fact, their 'curse' seems to be longer but somehow slightly less recognized. People blame all kinds of stuff they can't explain on some sort of supernatural explanation. Personally, I suspect this was early man's way of dealing with the recognition of lost loved ones and his own recognition of coping with death.
Personally, I suspect this was early man's way of dealing with the recognition of lost loved ones and his own recognition of coping with death.
True, but everyone copes differently with loss. Who am I to say that someone else's coping system is wrong? I bet that I mourn differently than most people, but that is because I've found my own personal way of copying with loss and there is no way I can prove that it will work for everyone.
Quote:
People blame all kinds of stuff they can't explain on some sort of supernatural explanation.
The problem is that my explanation of 'the curse' is entirely personal. It is based on my personal experience, which is not scientific and yet you classify it as rational.
What you call rational another might call spiritual. As long as my explanation works for me, I personally don't care if you call it spiritual, rational, psychological, social, cultural or whatever.
My guess is that as long as I do not force my explanation on others, you won’t care either. Because in a sense I haven't done one thing different from what the very first people did, which is nothing else but trying to make sense of life the best they know how.
We largely agree. Though I don't think they are synonymous (but we don't need to argue about that)
Agreed. There is no method for investigating the supernatural. But that doesn't mean that some phenomena might better be explained through a supernatural explanation. Take the whole world, for example. Or take the laws of nature, or that there is life at all. These "phenomena," which science investigates and comes to understand, can perhaps be explained by some other metaphysical theory besides metaphysical naturalism. Why should we automatically prefer a naturalistic explanation to everything? I think that's playing with a fixed deck.
But you see, Matrix, it doesn't matter whether God is guiding every individual object as it falls to the ground or whether a force we call gravity is responsible. The outcome is the same.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you have evidence that faith and imagination are 2 different things?
Especially since I’m Dutch and don’t live in America.
I mean it is only natural for humans to seek explanations when they do not have one. And I find it only natural that whatever you believe affects you and / or your performance. Whether you call it a curse, doubt or whatever, the fact is that it affects you.