Is there a God?

[Zeta-Flux]

As I've said before, there's plenty of evidence that Man created God, but none for the other way.

It appears that you believe the article you quoted backs up that assertion.

It also appears that you have ignored the evidences I've pointed out in the past.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

It appears that you believe the article you quoted backs up that assertion.

Not quite. The article backs up the first part of my assertion -- that there's evidence that Man created God -- but it says nothing about the second part: that there's no evidence the "other way", meaning that God created Man.

It also appears that you have ignored the evidences I've pointed out in the past.

I don't recall your having pointed out any evidence that God exists other than as an idea in human minds, much less that God created Man. Will you please list those evidences for us again?

I recall that once when I asked you for evidence, you told me to ask someone in another forum for evidence. That doesn't count as your having pointed out evidence; it was just deflecting the request somewhere else. (No one in that forum presented any evidence, either.)

In fact, my recollection is that you've never actually described any evidence; you simply claimed that it existed but without specifying what it was. Please don't dodge. Please stop claiming that there's evidence without actually specifying what that evidence is, as you (again) did in the sentence just quoted above.

Why didn't you write, "It also appears that you have ignored the evidences I've pointed out in the past, such as evidential fact A, evidential fact B, and evidential fact C." ? Was it because you can't actually remember pointing out any specific evidence?

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Not quite. The article backs up the first part of my assertion -- that there's evidence that Man created God -- but it says nothing about the second part: that there's no evidence the "other way", meaning that God created Man.

Thank you for the clarification. In what way does the article (or, more precisely, the research the article is reporting on) back up that first assertion?

I don't recall your having pointed out any evidence that God exists other than as an idea in human minds, much less that God created Man. Will you please list those evidences for us again?

After I mention what I consider as evidence, I'm confident you will recall some of these points.

One evidence is testimony of those who have witnessed God. (I seem to recall you pointed out that in a court of law, testimony is a weak form of evidence. I then pointed out that it is, nevertheless, a form of evidence. I cannot recall if we got any further than that.)

Another evidence is personal experience with the divine, such as when He communicates knowledge to us. (I seem to recall you pointed out that people are self deceiving. etc...)

I recall that once when I asked you for evidence, you told me to ask someone in another forum for evidence. That doesn't count as your having pointed out evidence; it was just deflecting the request somewhere else. (No one in that forum presented any evidence, either.)

I don't recall having done this; at least not as the only way to receive evidence.

In fact, my recollection is that you've never actually described any evidence; you simply claimed that it existed but without specifying what it was. Please don't dodge. Please stop claiming that there's evidence without actually specifying what that evidence is, as you (again) did in the sentence just quoted above.

I don't believe I've done those things.

Why didn't you write, "It also appears that you have ignored the evidences I've pointed out in the past, such as evidential fact A, evidential fact B, and evidential fact C." ?

Brevity. I also thought you might recall some of the evidences I suggested last time, but which I've reiterated in this post.

Was it because you can't actually remember pointing out any specific evidence?

No. What was the intent behind your question?

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

In what way does the article (or, more precisely, the research the article is reporting on) back up that first assertion?

The opinions people attributed to God varied as their own opinions varied, even though the opinions they attributed to other people did not vary as their own varied -- which is consistent with the hypothesis of a personally mind-generated God having no objective existence outside the mind. (I'm not claiming that the described study had that hypothesis.)

After I mention what I consider as evidence, I'm confident you will recall some of these points.

I was too cryptic. The evidence you had presented that I remembered was of the ideas people had of God, not of God's existence independent of human thought as I specified.

One evidence is testimony of those who have witnessed God. (I seem to recall you pointed out that in a court of law, testimony is a weak form of evidence. I then pointed out that it is, nevertheless, a form of evidence.

... and psychological science has shown such testimony to be not at all adequate for evidence of objective existence. (Self-delusions and hallucinations, for example. I've personally witnessed testimony about a religious hallucination.)

Another evidence is personal experience with the divine, such as when He communicates knowledge to us. (I seem to recall you pointed out that people are self deceiving. etc...)

Again, this is evidence that people have thought something about the idea of God, not that God has an existence other than as a human thought.

I've always willingly conceded that God exists as an idea in human minds. What I asked for was evidence that God exists other than as an idea in human minds.

I don't recall having done this; at least not as the only way to receive evidence.

It wasn't the only way. It was simply what you suggested on one occasion. On other occasions you've not mentioned that.

No. What was the intent behind your question?

A frivolous tweak, which was uncalled-for and for which I apologize. I had the momentary idea that you should have recalled that in the past I've pointed out that every evidence you've presented has been of God as an idea in human minds, not of God as other than an idea in human minds. But that's not a fair expectation, so the tweak was uncalled-for and rude. I'm sorry I succumbed.

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

The opinions people attributed to God varied as their own opinions varied, even though the opinions they attributed to other people did not vary as their own varied -- which is consistent with the hypothesis of a personally mind-generated God having no objective existence outside the mind. (I'm not claiming that the described study had that hypothesis.)

Are you claiming that the consistency of the research with your hypothesis is what makes the research back up your hypothesis? If not, I do not understand your answer to my question. I think I'm missing something from your argument, because is it not the case the the research is also consistent with the idea that people try to understand a real God by attributing to Him (at least, a priori revelation) the best qualities they can conceive of, and working from there? [Edited to add: I'm not saying this is a good way for people to understand a real God. But it is the easy way out.]

I was too cryptic. The evidence you had presented that I remembered was of the ideas people had of God, not of God's existence independent of human thought as I specified.

Again, I do not recall having done this. Let's focus on the present discussion rather than recollections.

... and psychological science has shown such testimony to be not at all adequate for evidence of objective existence. (Self-delusions and hallucinations, for example. I've personally witnessed testimony about a religious hallucination.)

We may have finally hit upon a point at which we fundamentally disagree with one another.

I do not disagree with the notion that self-delusions and hallucinations take place. Even commonly. However, I do disagree with the idea that because they take place then this, a priori, disqualifies all testimony as evidence. If you disagree with this, then I think we've finally hit upon our fundamental difference.

Whether such testimony is adequate for objective evidence is another question. I was only responding to your claim that "there's plenty of evidence that Man created God, but none for the other way."

(By the way, I too have witnessed religious testimonies, some being delusions and hallucinations.)

Again, this is evidence that people have thought something about the idea of God, not that God has an existence other than as a human thought.

I believe you misunderstood what I was talking about, because I wasn't clear. Let me be more concrete. If, say, you were like Moses and talked with a burning bush, which told you thing you had never before considered and gave you power that you previously did not have, would this not constitute evidence (for you, personally) for the existence of God outside of human minds? [Note: I am not denying the possibility that this conversation was a hallucination.]

I've always willingly conceded that God exists as an idea in human minds. What I asked for was evidence that God exists other than as an idea in human minds.

I hope my previous sentence clarifies that the evidence I was speaking of has evidence of an external component.

It wasn't the only way. It was simply what you suggested on one occasion. On other occasions you've not mentioned that.

I do not recall doing this, but as I believe it is a tangent I'll let it drop.

A frivolous tweak, which was uncalled-for and for which I apologize.

Thank you.

I had the momentary idea that you should have recalled that in the past I've pointed out that every evidence you've presented has been of God as an idea in human minds, not of God as other than an idea in human minds. But that's not a fair expectation, so the tweak was uncalled-for and rude. I'm sorry I succumbed.

Apology accepted.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

Are you claiming that the consistency of the research with your hypothesis is what makes the research back up your hypothesis?

Something that is consistent with a hypothesis backs up that hypothesis. Do we need to compare definitions of consistent and backs up?

The research did not disprove my hypothesis or was inconsistent with it. Instead, it was consistent with my hypothesis. It provided additional evidence to back up my hypothesis/assertion.

I think I'm missing something from your argument, because is it not the case the the research is also consistent with the idea that people try to understand a real God by attributing to Him (at least, a priori revelation) the best qualities they can conceive of, and working from there?

The study was only of "volunteers who said they believe in God", not of volunteers viewing or otherwise experiencing a real God in objective reality. People who believe in something form ideas about that something. The nature of the God idea is such that people will often attribute the best qualities they can conceive of. (But some people attribute qualities that are _not_ the best they can conceive.)

The very behavior of attributing "the best qualities they can conceive of" (your wording) seems consistent, to me, with contemplating something that is not real. When people contemplate something real, they're less likely to ignore the actual (real) properties of that something. They may imagine idealized attributes for the real something, but there's always the drag of the objective reality.

Again, I do not recall having done this.

You probably don't recall it because you claimed it was evidence of a real God. I was the one who pointed out that they were all evidence only of the existence as an idea. You were mistaken about the relevance of the evidence to a real God rather than to an idea. (I'm not claiming you agreed with me.)

We may have finally hit upon a point at which we fundamentally disagree with one another.

I do not disagree with the notion that self-delusions and hallucinations take place. Even commonly. However, I do disagree with the idea that because they take place then this, a priori, disqualifies all testimony as evidence.

I said "not at all adequate for evidence of objective existence." I didn't say it wasn't evidence of anything at all (for instance, testimony can be taken as evidence of what a person thinks s/he witnessed, which has reality as an idea) -- just that it's not evidence that is adequate for demonstrating objective existence outside the mind.

Whether such testimony is adequate for objective evidence is another question.

... and that's what I was writing about (but I could have worded it more clearly).

I was only responding to your claim that "there's plenty of evidence that Man created God, but none for the other way."

There's plenty of evidence that many people think that God created Man, but that isn't adequate to demonstrate that there actually is a real God who actually did create Man.

It used to be that many people thought Earth was flat. The vast multiplicity of those firmly holding that opinion (and vigorously acting upon that opinion, such as by refusing to go on a sea voyage they thought would approach the edge, or by mutinying during such a voyage) didn't constitute evidence that Earth was flat in reality. It eventually turned out that there were other natural explanations for the evidence that they thought was evidence of a flat Earth, plus evidence for a round Earth that many of them had ignored or not noticed or not known about.

The idea that the Earth was flat felt right, but that didn't make it true. See "Creationism Feels Right, but That Doesn't Make it So: Scientific American" at http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...snt-make-it-so

I believe you misunderstood what I was talking about, because I wasn't clear. Let me be more concrete. If, say, you were like Moses and talked with a burning bush, which told you thing you had never before considered and gave you power that you previously did not have, would this not constitute evidence (for you, personally) for the existence of God outside of human minds? [Note: I am not denying the possibility that this conversation was a hallucination.]

It would constitute evidence for me personally, at least for a while until I pondered whether it was related to something real outside my body, but not as evidence for anyone else unless that "power" were demonstrable to others. Also, I'm quite aware that I have been mistaken about some things I personally experienced -- I'm capable of misinterpreting events in my mind. (I could cite examples.) So at some point, I would consider how much of the experience I had was of reality outside my mind. I wouldn't expect anyone else to accept that my experience was "real" unless I could produce corroborating evidence that was examinable by others.

I once was in a position of accusing a doctor of malpractice. Understandably, I wasn't believed until I produced evidence that had objective reality that could be repeatably perceived by other people. Once I did that, the doctor's boss took action (of which I know only a small detail, but it was a publicly noticeable detail that was abnormal ... and the timing was exactly right). I believe that the evidence I provided, taken together with my testimony, persuaded the boss to take action to keep the doctor from hurting other patients, but my mere testimony was completely inadequate without the objective evidence that was consistent with it.

My belief could be mistaken, but I've seen nothing yet that contradicts it, it comforts me, and it does no harm to believe it AFAIK. I wouldn't take real action that depended only on that belief rather than on more objective evidence. I might someday search for additional objective evidence that confirms, or at least is consistent with, that belief, but don't care to go much out of my way to do so now. However, such evidence might help me experience closure, so I might seek it when convenient.

I hope my previous sentence clarifies that the evidence I was speaking of has evidence of an external component.

No, it was evidence of testimony about a perceived external component. It shows that those people had those ideas, but if there's nothing that can be demonstrated repeatably to anyoone else, it's not really evidence of the existence outside those people's minds.

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Something that is consistent with a hypothesis backs up that hypothesis. Do we need to compare definitions of consistent and backs up?

The research did not disprove my hypothesis or was inconsistent with it. Instead, it was consistent with my hypothesis. It provided additional evidence to back up my hypothesis/assertion.

It is a fact that the empty set is a subset of every set.

This fact is consistent with the hypothesis that ZFC is inconsistent.

I would not say that this consistency backs up the hypothesis that ZFC is inconsistent.

I'll try to get to the rest tomorrow.

[Zeta-Flux]

cheesehead,

I said "not at all adequate for evidence of objective existence." I didn't say it wasn't evidence of anything at all (for instance, testimony can be taken as evidence of what a person thinks s/he witnessed, which has reality as an idea) -- just that it's not evidence that is adequate for demonstrating objective existence outside the mind.

I just realized that I slightly misread what you were saying. I thought you qualified "evidence" with "objective", but I was wrong. However, from the quote below, it sounds like you might have wanted that also. Could you clarify this point?

... and that's what I was writing about (but I could have worded it more clearly).

Would you reword the following statement for me? Specifically, try to address the issue of whether there are hidden qualifiers on what forms of evidence you are considering. (I believe you are talking about the objective existence of God, I'm just uncertain whether you allow non-objective evidence.)

Here is the statement I would like reworded: "As I've said before, there's plenty of evidence that Man created God, but none for the other way."

I'll try to get to the rest after work.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

It is a fact that the empty set is a subset of every set.

This fact is consistent with the hypothesis that ZFC is inconsistent.

I would not say that this consistency backs up the hypothesis that ZFC is inconsistent.

Please explain in other terms for those not familiar with Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice (or did you mean something else?).

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Please explain in other terms for those not familiar with Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice (or did you mean something else?).

Don't bother; those familiar and not familiar with Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory are merely waiting for this nonsensical discussion to turn into a poop-throwing contest again.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

I just realized that I slightly misread what you were saying. I thought you qualified "evidence" with "objective", but I was wrong. However, from the quote below, it sounds like you might have wanted that also. Could you clarify this point?

Would you reword the following statement for me? Specifically, try to address the issue of whether there are hidden qualifiers on what forms of evidence you are considering. (I believe you are talking about the objective existence of God, I'm just uncertain whether you allow non-objective evidence.)

Let's get "objective" straightened out.

I'm using it according to definition 1b at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective:

of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries…are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world — Marvin Reznikoff> — compare subjective 3a

Unfortunately, there is an almost-opposite meaning that was used in medieval philosophy: "1 a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy". I am _not_ using that definition.

By "objective", I wish to distinguish things that are not the product of possible deception by self or others.