Please validate your belief in your God

[Add Homonym]

They aren't pointing anywhere, unless you think that creation of God is done democratically, and according to the needs and desperation of humans.

You don't think it's possible to look at what's out there and identify trends?

Examples of trend spotting that may or may not work:
- People look for trends in the market, but in the end, it's its own master.
- There is a trend towards the north polar ice sheet disappearing. It may be going, or it may not be.
- There is a trend towards people using Facebook. If the trend continues, the whole world will be using Facebook.. unless they switch to the next trendy thing.
- There is a trend towards skirts going upwards, until they go downwards
- There is a trend towards people believing the next trendy explanation of what causes heart disease, and then finding it's not correct 8 years later.
- There is a trend towards physicists believing in the Many World's Interpretation, therefore it must be correct
- There is a trend towards the standard model of QM being correct, even though everyone knows it can't be correct.
- There is a trend towards atheism.

People have been harping on about God for about 2500 years, and the best we have got is brain surgeons saying they were brain dead, and saw pink fluffy clouds.  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2214836/It-place-clouds-big-puffy-pink-white-The-prominent-neurosurgeon-convinced-theres-heaven-body-experience.html
... or, this one, who says the opposite..


God appears to speak to us through liars, because no honest people appear to be in contact with him. Therefore, when you do a trending analysis, you are doing a weighted average which includes liars, lunies and liberal do-gooders.

An omnimax God is only omnimax, if he uses his powers to intervene.

How do you figure?  I've always seen omnimax traits as describing potential or ability.

Say I'm a God who creates a multiverse; the expression of everything that can possibly be. I must be powerful, because I dunnit. If I don't intervene in one universe, then it means that nothing is supernatural in that universe. Or, to put it another way, God is nothing to that universe.

[3sigma]

You say in your OP you want to discuss God, particularly as I believe in Him.  However, despite saying, "The first thing we need to do is determine exactly what it is you believe in," you don't really seem to be all that interested in what anyone actually believes.  Really, you only seem interested in claiming that a deity that isn't experienced in how you, as a nonbeliever, believe should it be experienced is imaginary.

I didn’t respond to this in my last post, but I don’t want you to think that I am dismissing anything you say out of hand so let’s explore this, Mooby. I am trying to discover what you actually believe in, but your descriptions are so vague and nebulous as to be useless. All you’ve done is tell us what your god isn’t and what can’t be used to investigate it. You haven’t told us what it actually is and what can be used to investigate it. You seem unable or unwilling to provide a description of your god that can be investigated and verified.

You’ve said you don’t believe your god is an entity, which means you don’t think it has a separate and independent existence. If it isn’t an entity with a separate, independent existence then what is it? On what is its existence dependent?

You’ve said you don’t believe your god is a phenomenon, which means it cannot be observed or known through the senses. If your god isn’t a phenomenon then what is it? If your god cannot be observed or known through the senses then how do you experience it?

You complain that my request for a factual description of your god eliminates any deity that is not a material god, which implies that your god is not a material god. Is your god material or immaterial? Does your god physically exist or is it entirely within people’s minds?

You’ve constantly evaded my requests to provide even the most basic description of your god. You won’t provide a straight answer to the question “Is your god real or imaginary?” and you ignored my questions about your god’s basic composition. Is your god composed of matter or energy? Is it a force? If it is none of those then what is it?

So instead of telling us what your god isn’t and how it can’t be investigated, tell us what it actually is and how it can be investigated. Provide a description that can be investigated and verified. Then perhaps you can explain how you have a “personal relationship” with it.

[nogodsforme]

Ahh, but you see, little 3sigma, Mooby's god cannot be investigated empirically, described factually or experienced through the senses. His god is not an entity, a being, or a force. It is neither real nor imaginary.

Yet, for 2500 years people have been somehow investigating, describing, and experiencing his god, even though they have called it by other names and thought it was several different gods, or decided that they were actually dealing with natural forces after all. 

Mooby knows that his god exists. Because the universe is here and b)all those people could not have been mistaken or just making sh!t up.

And that is all we will ever know about Mooby's god:

Basically a big scoop of argument from ignorance (how else could the universe get here?) plus a side order of argumentum ad populum (lots of other people think god exists, too!) covered in lots of philosophical Gish Gallop to create a delicious, but strangely dissatisfying religious word salad.

Sarah Palin eat your heart out.

[jdawg70]

And that is all we will ever know about Mooby's god:

Well, that and that Mooby has a personal relationship with him/her/it/that/something.

[Mooby]

I said it proves you are imagining it. If you cannot distinguish your god from an imaginary god then you must be imagining it.

How does it show it?

Whether you allege I or people in general are imagining God, my criticism still stands.  If I'm unable to distinguish Barack Obama from my imagination to your satisfaction, that doesn't mean I'm imagining Barack Obama.  It simply means that I currently have not met whatever subjective standards you've set forth as your goalpost for being personally satisfied.

Saying your god is an immaterial nonentity defines it out of existence, which again shows you must be imagining it.

How does it show it?

I suppose that you could somehow show that at least one of "material" or "entity" are necessary for existence, but I'll leave the logistics of that up to you.

As jdawg70 warned, Mooby retreats into solipsism.

No, I am not a solipsist.

In making those statements, Mooby, you are admitting you do not have and cannot provide a single fact about your god. Without a single fact to support your god’s existence, you must necessarily be imagining it.

Allow me to generalize your quote to more accurately reflect my world view:

In making those statements, Mooby, you are admitting you do not have and cannot provide a single fact about your god. Without a single fact to support your god’s existence, you must necessarily be imagining it.

No, whether I have or can provide a fact to you in this post, whether about God or existence in general, has no bearing on whether I am imagining God or existence in general.

And, of course, it goes without saying that, yet again, you’ve evaded my question, “Is your god real or imaginary?”

No I haven't.  I've answered it numerous times.  But let me spell it out in bold for you so I can quote it next time you claim this:

I am an agostic theist.  I don't know; I believe so.

Examples of trend spotting that may or may not work:[. . .]

Part of looking at a trend is to first determine whether there's one there or not, whether the trend is short-term, long-term, cyclical, etc., and whether there's any obvious influencing factors or other similar things.

#1 and #4 are likely areas of no trend, while #2 has been cyclic for the last few 100k years.  Facebook's trend should be compared to other Internet sites and fads, and is likely better understood as part of the larger trend of how the Internet has changed since its inception and where it's heading.  The jury's still out on multiverse theory, maybe in a few thousand years we'll have a better perspective of where it fits into everything.

God appears to speak to us through liars, because no honest people appear to be in contact with him.

Where are you getting this information?

Say I'm a God who creates a multiverse; the expression of everything that can possibly be. I must be powerful, because I dunnit. If I don't intervene in one universe, then it means that nothing is supernatural in that universe. Or, to put it another way, God is nothing to that universe.

So you're saying if Yougod stays entirely outside a universe, then Yougod is effectively nothing as far as that universe is concerned.  Well ok, but how does that prevent Yougod from being omnimax?  After all, couldn't Yougod still affect the universe if you wanted?

All you’ve done is tell us what your god isn’t and what can’t be used to investigate it. You haven’t told us what it actually is and what can be used to investigate it.

Incorrect.  Off the top of my head, I've named the following characteristics:
- Eternal
- Omnipotent
- Omniscient
- Omniprescent
- Source of all being
- Infinite
- Perfect

In addition, I've equated God to the Being of Western metaphysics.  In particular I see a lot of similarities to The One of the Neoplatonists, though I don't consider Neoplatonism a perfect analogue for my religious views.

But hey, why read my posts when you can just claim I haven't given any positive characteristics at all?

You’ve said you don’t believe your god is an entity, which means you don’t think it has a separate and independent existence.

No, I don't agree with the second part.  I do think that God has His own existence.

You’ve said you don’t believe your god is a phenomenon, which means it cannot be observed or known through the senses. If your god isn’t a phenomenon then what is it? If your god cannot be observed or known through the senses then how do you experience it?

I don't think God can be observed through the senses on demand.  I think God has the ability to make himself available to senses, and in that way can be experienced through senses.  I said this back in Reply #55.

I mentioned taking an axiomatic approach to knowledge of God in Replies #68 and 84.

You complain that my request for a factual description of your god eliminates any deity that is not a material god, which implies that your god is not a material god. Is your god material or immaterial?

That's like asking whether the set of real numbers belongs to the set of rational numbers or irrational numbers.  The answer is neither, because the set of real numbers is a higher set than the set of rational or irrational numbers.

Similarly, God is ontologically prior (comes before) material and immaterial.  And this isn't just me talking; it's a core tenet of Christianity, as seen in the Nicene Creed:
I believe in one God,
    the Father almighty,
    maker of heaven and earth,
    of all things visible and invisible.

[JeffPT]

Mooby. 

Do you believe your version of god is worthy of worship or not worthy of it, and why?  Does real world evidence come into play with that decision for you?  And since you have no way of knowing what interactions your god has with this world, what do you base your decision on? 

[nogodsforme]

- Eternal
- Omnipotent
- Omniscient
- Omniprescent
- Source of all being
- Infinite
- Perfect

I notice that Mooby did not say that his god was good. This list could apply to any supernatural being.  Not worthy of being liked, loved, respected or worshipped. Worthy of being feared. Especially when those characteristics, combined with the deadly realities of the way the universe is, add up to one pretty awful MF in control of everything. Kinda like Kim Jong Il (decides who gets to survive and who doesn't) but who never, ever dies.

[jdawg70]

Is it me, or does it seem that Mooby doesn't recognize a difference between the word 'believe' and the word 'hope'?

Seriously.  The only way I can make any sense of your posts Mooby is if I assume that when you say 'I believe' you mean 'I hope'.

[3sigma]

How does it show it?
…
How does it show it?
…
No, whether I have or can provide a fact to you in this post, whether about God or existence in general, has no bearing on whether I am imagining God or existence in general.

Well then go ahead, Mooby. Show us that your belief has any foundation in fact. Give us a factual description of your god. Show us what distinguishes your belief in your god from imagination.

No I haven't.  I've answered it numerous times.  But let me spell it out in bold for you so I can quote it next time you claim this:

I am an agostic theist.  I don't know; I believe so.

And the last time you said that, I explained why it wasn’t an answer to my question. I’m not asking if you believe your god is real; I’m asking if it is actually real. Your belief has no bearing on the truth. I’m asking you to give us the truth.

What’s the problem, Mooby? Don’t you know the truth? Are you incapable of recognising the truth? Or are you incapable of giving us the truth? Is your god actually real or is it imaginary?

Incorrect.  Off the top of my head, I've named the following characteristics:
- Eternal
- Omnipotent
- Omniscient
- Omniprescent
- Source of all being
- Infinite
- Perfect

Are any of those claimed characteristics facts or are they just make-believe? Can any of them be investigated and verified or are they all just baseless assertions with no foundation in fact? Show us that these claims are true. Show us what distinguishes your belief in your god from imagination.

No, I don't agree with the second part.  I do think that God has His own existence.

An entity is something with a distinct and independent existence so now you are contradicting yourself. Please prove your claim here is true. Show us what distinguishes this belief from imagination.

I don't think God can be observed through the senses on demand.  I think God has the ability to make himself available to senses, and in that way can be experienced through senses.  I said this back in Reply #55.

Prove it. Prove that your god can ever be observed through the senses. Show us that this claim is true. Show us what distinguishes this belief from imagination.

Similarly, God is ontologically prior (comes before) material and immaterial.  And this isn't just me talking; it's a core tenet of Christianity, as seen in the Nicene Creed:
I believe in one God,
    the Father almighty,
    maker of heaven and earth,
    of all things visible and invisible.

Prove it. Show us that these claims are true. Show us what distinguishes this belief from imagination.

Let’s review your progress once again. You’ve failed to provide a factual description of your god. You’ve failed to show that your belief in your god has any foundation in fact at all. You’ve failed to provide a shred of sound evidence or a single sound argument to prove beyond reasonable doubt that your god is real. You’ve failed to show us what distinguishes your belief in your god from imagination. In summary, you’ve completely failed to validate your belief in your god. It is reasonable to conclude that your belief is the result of self-deception.

[3sigma]

Is it me, or does it seem that Mooby doesn't recognize a difference between the word 'believe' and the word 'hope'?

It isn’t just you. I don’t think Mooby can distinguish between belief and fact. I keep asking him for facts and all he can give us is beliefs. I don’t think he can recognise the difference between fact and fantasy.

[Add Homonym]

God appears to speak to us through liars, because no honest people appear to be in contact with him.

Where are you getting this information?

Say I'm a God who creates a multiverse; the expression of everything that can possibly be. I must be powerful, because I dunnit. If I don't intervene in one universe, then it means that nothing is supernatural in that universe. Or, to put it another way, God is nothing to that universe.

So you're saying if Yougod stays entirely outside a universe, then Yougod is effectively nothing as far as that universe is concerned.  Well ok, but how does that prevent Yougod from being omnimax?  After all, couldn't Yougod still affect the universe if you wanted?

Where am I getting this information? (Of course, I was lumping deluded people in with liars.) The slippery answer is that you are free to name anybody honest, who has God speaking through them. The more general answer is that any lying bastard seems free to start a cult or religion, and I surmise that in a universe that God genuinely did not interact with, these manipulators would be hard at work, creating religions, to exploit the desperate and gullible; so it would look no different to our own religiousphere, where you propose that a God really does interact [or matter] within it. I derive this from the conflciting diversity of religions on this planet, that have evolved. Here is a problem for you, because of "evolved". Religions have to suffer from convergent evolution, which creates a "trend" across religions. It should come as no surprise to you, that I think that the evolutionary shaping-forces on religion are what the adherents want to believe, rather than what the silent God actually wants; so, the religions should converge, in universes where God does not talk to us.

A horrific thing might be, if a God really did talk to us, and we found out how he wanted something entirely different to what we had wanted. He might for example say, "I don't like you. I want you all to die." We might reply, "We don't like you, and will continue to love each other, and do our best", to which he might reply "Go ahead, it's pointless; I will kill you all in the end, anyway." That might be a real God talking, so it's just as well he leaves us alone, to invent shit.

How does that prevent Yougod from being omnimax? He becomes irrelevantmax.

[Dominic]

Is it me, or does it seem that Mooby doesn't recognize a difference between the word 'believe' and the word 'hope'?

It isn’t just you. I don’t think Mooby can distinguish between belief and fact. I keep asking him for facts and all he can give us is beliefs. I don’t think he can recognise the difference between fact and fantasy.

3sigma and jdawg,

Science acknowledges that new information may be discovered which may necessitate a change in current scientific claims, theories, conjectures, propositions, hypothoses and even laws.

Testing and corroboration of the above provides increasing evidence of their correctness but science always allows for future amendments as new information comes to hand.

Do you agree / accept that ?

If you do then you are acknowledging that all of science is based on belief.  Those beliefs have a varying degree of confidence based on evidence, testing and corroboration.

If you do not accept it, and claim instead that science gives us certainty, then such a claim is dogma and is on a par with a religious claim based on faith alone.

Now, when you demand 'proof' and 'truth' from someone, you are making a demand of certainty which science does not make, and a demand which you yourselves could not answer if demanded of you.

Certainly, you can ask for evidence for any claim that anyone makes, and you should - but stop pretending that theists must prove their claims while science does not have to.

[3sigma]

Science acknowledges that new information may be discovered which may necessitate a change in current scientific claims, theories, conjectures, propositions, hypothoses and even laws.

Testing and corroboration of the above provides increasing evidence of their correctness but science always allows for future amendments as new information comes to hand.

Do you agree / accept that ?

Yes.

If you do then you are acknowledging that all of science is based on belief.  Those beliefs have a varying degree of confidence based on evidence, testing and corroboration.

You should qualify that to say science is based on justified belief. That belief is justified by the evidence, testing and corroboration you mention.

Now, when you demand 'proof' and 'truth' from someone, you are making a demand of certainty which science does not make, and a demand which you yourselves could not answer if demanded of you.

Certainly, you can ask for evidence for any claim that anyone makes, and you should - but stop pretending that theists must prove their claims while science does not have to.

To prove a claim is to establish the truth or validity of that claim by evidence or argument. The truth is that which is in accordance with fact or reality. Read the OP. I only ask that religious believers provide enough sound evidence and sound arguments to prove their claims beyond reasonable doubt. I have never asked for or expected absolute certainty—that’s for religious believers. In the latest Pew Forum survey on religious beliefs, 69% of all respondents stated they were absolutely certain about their belief in a god. How certain are you about your belief in a god?

The problem with religious beliefs is they are not justified by evidence, testing and corroboration. No religious believer in this thread has provided a factual description of any god. No religious believer has provided any sound evidence or sound arguments to prove beyond reasonable doubt that any god is real. No religious believer has distinguished a belief in any god from imagination. No religious believer has established the truth or validity of any claims about gods. It isn’t just that they haven’t provided enough sound evidence or sound arguments to support their beliefs; they’ve provided none whatsoever. Please try to answer the requests in the OP. You haven’t even attempted to do that. In fact, you’ve evaded every request to do so. Why is that?

[nogodsforme]

The supposed evidence that religious believers present is so weak that they would never accept it in any other sphere of their lives.

"God answers prayers with yes, no, or not yet." Science can't get away with that sh!t. Can you imagine buying a new car that started one third of the time, stalled one third of the time and blew up the other third? Or used a new medicine that cured one third of the sufferers and killed the rest?

Science has to work better than random chance or we disregard it. Religion doesn't have to work at all. And people wonder why we scoff at religious claims.

[hobbes]

It's been quite a while since I've posted, but I was just reading this thread and felt compelled to write something.  Probably a one time post.   I don't have time for any major debates but I'll let you guys battle it out.

A couple things I want to point out:

1.  What the OP seems to want is some sort of definite empirical evidence of a characteristic of a god.  However, were there one piece of definite empirical evidence for a characteristic of a god, there would no longer be any need for belief.  The existence of a god would be established fact.  If we say there is a god and a particular empirically tested fact can only be attributed to this god and nothing else that exists, some sort of god must exist.  So, I just want to clarify that what the OP is asking for is a definite proof for a god's existence.  Thus, saying that we 'cannot even scientifically prove one characteristic of a god' is equivalent to saying we 'can't even scientifically prove god.'  The first sounds surprising, the second is quite expected.  If god had been proven at any point, this discussion would not exist.  Just wanted to point out that the question is a bit deceiving.

2. I've come across this several times.  Nonbelievers appear quite frustrated with the idea that religious people are frequently 'interfering' with politics/education etc. by making decisions that are based in their belief system.  Non-believers are indirectly saying, ' you must make decisions that are based on my worldview in order for us to accept the decision'.  This is tyranny and discrimination.  People living in a country are a smorgasbord of different belief systems, worldviews, family upbringings, ethnic backgrounds etc.  Each person regardless of their belief has a right to be making decisions for whatever position they hold in a democratic society.  And these decisions will necessarily be rooted in their past and their worldviews and their belief system.

 If a person has come into a high level education position through perseverance, hard work, and democratic election, and he declares that Creationism be taught as a possibility alongside Evolution in all schools, then it is proper and fair that this happens.  However, if he was dishonest about his beliefs and kept them secret so that he could get this position and there was a majority who disliked this teaching method, he gets kicked out and a new person gets elected who hopefully conforms more closely with the worldview of the majority.  It is entirely fair that a person of faith make decisions for important things based on his worldview.


Anyways, you don't have to respond to the 2nd and you probably shouldn't as I realize it doesn't pertain directly to this thread.  I mentioned it because I saw this reaction earlier in the same thread and quite a few times in several others.

[none]

It's been quite a while since I've posted, but I was just reading this thread and felt compelled to write something.  Probably a one time post.   I don't have time for any major debates but I'll let you guys battle it out.

A couple things I want to point out:

1.  What the OP seems to want is some sort of definite empirical evidence of a characteristic of a god.  However, were there one piece of definite empirical evidence for a characteristic of a god, there would no longer be any need for belief.  The existence of a god would be established fact.  If we say there is a god and a particular empirically tested fact can only be attributed to this god and nothing else that exists, some sort of god must exist.  So, I just want to clarify that what the OP is asking for is a definite proof for a god's existence.  Thus, saying that we 'cannot even scientifically prove one characteristic of a god' is equivalent to saying we 'can't even scientifically prove god.'  The first sounds surprising, the second is quite expected.  If god had been proven at any point, this discussion would not exist.  Just wanted to point out that the question is a bit deceiving.

2. I've come across this several times.  Nonbelievers appear quite frustrated with the idea that religious people are frequently 'interfering' with politics/education etc. by making decisions that are based in their belief system.  Non-believers are indirectly saying, ' you must make decisions that are based on my worldview in order for us to accept the decision'.  This is tyranny and discrimination.  People living in a country are a smorgasbord of different belief systems, worldviews, family upbringings, ethnic backgrounds etc.  Each person regardless of their belief has a right to be making decisions for whatever position they hold in a democratic society.  And these decisions will necessarily be rooted in their past and their worldviews and their belief system.

 If a person has come into a high level education position through perseverance, hard work, and democratic election, and he declares that Creationism be taught as a possibility alongside Evolution in all schools, then it is proper and fair that this happens.  However, if he was dishonest about his beliefs and kept them secret so that he could get this position and there was a majority who disliked this teaching method, he gets kicked out and a new person gets elected who hopefully conforms more closely with the worldview of the majority.  It is entirely fair that a person of faith make decisions for important things based on his worldview.


Anyways, you don't have to respond to the 2nd and you probably shouldn't as I realize it doesn't pertain directly to this thread.  I mentioned it because I saw this reaction earlier in the same thread and quite a few times in several others.

halt.
you don't have time to argue that is fine move along.
Um, guess what I claim no ownership of that which is obvious.
You can't blame me for your beliefs.
If you want to believe in the mystical creations of your own imagination that is your problem, not mine or anybody else except those who introduce those beliefs and continue to support those beliefs that you have or may not have.
Tyranny and discrimination?
you have got to be joking.
I am not the one asking you to believe anything nor is it my requirement to do so.
oh yeah, a democratic society where you get to say it is every "non-believer's" problem you believe what you believe about the what you read in a book and the book says during "this time" nothing happens is ludicrous.
you promote "intelligent" design... as if "intelligent" design is an observation, it's not.
"intelligent" design claims a designer is mandatory and creation is mandatory.
well guess what I don't care how many intervals no activity is observed no assessment of reality can be made that is logical and you can't prove a designer by the same method because that is not logical.
I created this post, I pushed the keys on the keyboard.
I thought of the words, letters, and sentences of this post.
They didn't exist until I expressed them.
I created, all it takes is simple observation not claims that nothing happened to justify a theory which is part of reality and that theory is evolution from what I am aware of.
if inactivity is the best you got then you better try harder.
because guess what, I can prove evolution using that method if that method is functional.
the theory is inactive yet it exists.
"intelligent" design....
and putting people who believe that death is mandatory in charge of everything is stupid and counter productive to me and you, but you like thinking that death is mandatory because you want to please the "intelligent" designer that expressed a story or a character in that story.
oh "God" the character is an entity because you might have a "higher" education.
whatever move along.
I haven't observed any thing you have expressed other than this post that I can recall or that I am interested in observing at this time.
so enjoy your life, hobbes, it is your choice.

[3sigma]

1.  What the OP seems to want is some sort of definite empirical evidence of a characteristic of a god.  However, were there one piece of definite empirical evidence for a characteristic of a god, there would no longer be any need for belief.  The existence of a god would be established fact…

I’m guessing from the tenor of your post that you are a religious believer. The OP is asking you to provide three things.

First, I asked for a factual description of your god. I take it from your response that you cannot provide one.  What’s more, you appear to be saying that your belief has no foundation in fact at all.

Second, I asked you to provide enough solid evidence and sound arguments to prove beyond reasonable doubt that your god is real. You’ve made no attempt to do that either and again you appear to be saying that you can’t do that.

Last, failing a factual description, solid evidence or sound arguments, I asked you to explain what distinguishes your belief from imagination. You’ve failed to provide that as well. In short, you have completely failed to establish the truth or validity of your belief. In other words, your belief is the result of self-deception.

2. I've come across this several times.  Nonbelievers appear quite frustrated with the idea that religious people are frequently 'interfering' with politics/education etc. by making decisions that are based in their belief system.  Non-believers are indirectly saying, ' you must make decisions that are based on my worldview in order for us to accept the decision'.  This is tyranny and discrimination…

The problem is that your belief system has no foundation in reason, logic or fact. It is irrational. The last thing we want is people making irrational decisions that affect our lives.

If a person has come into a high level education position through perseverance, hard work, and democratic election, and he declares that Creationism be taught as a possibility alongside Evolution in all schools, then it is proper and fair that this happens...

Don’t be ridiculous. There is nothing proper and fair at all about teaching children unsupported nonsense instead of facts and well supported, scientific theories. This is a perfect example of why we object to gullible religious believers making irrational decisions that affect the lives of others.

[Anfauglir]

What hobbes is saying is that if someone holds a sincere belief, then that belief is worthy of being taught to others as being true.

Hobbes, does this apply to ALL beliefs, or just those that you share?  For example, would you be happy to support the teaching of Native American mythology in schools, taught from the standpoint that it is true?  Or at least, as an equally option for belief?

[hobbes]

Ahh, 3sigma.  Nice to meet you.

My response was not intended to provide an answer to your questions, rather to clarify your initial post.  It was to say that there can be no direct empirical fact linking a god and this universe at request.  And, that really, you are asking believers to prove a god's existence using science rather than just a facet of his being.  This is a big undertaking.  In fact, it hasn't been done well enough in all the history of man, whether by God's design or not.  This does not disprove a god, just an inability to adequately convince a non-believer.

The problem is that your belief system has no foundation in reason, logic or fact. It is irrational. The last thing we want is people making irrational decisions that affect our lives.

That's quite a statement regarding an entire people group.  You and people who agree with you believe it to be irrational.  Obviously the vast number of people who believe in a deity disagree.  The last thing you and people who agree with you want is people making decisions that you and people who agree with you believe to be irrational.

Don’t be ridiculous. There is nothing proper and fair at all about teaching children unsupported nonsense instead of facts and well supported, scientific theories. This is a perfect example of why we object to gullible religious believers making irrational decisions that affect the lives of others.

It sounds as though you are saying that unless people believe what you and others who agree with you believe, they have no business making important decisions that affect other peoples' lives.  What if, and I'm merely saying 'what if', the majority of people disagree with you and consider your beliefs to be irrational.  This majority elects someone whose belief coincides with theirs and he makes decisions based on that belief.  This is democracy.

I would also like to say that most believers I've met are not gullible people.  Maybe you've only met particularly gullible ones.  Neither do these people dismiss science.  Many of them pursue it and love it.  Yet, they are Christians.  I would conjecture that you probably have met a substantial number of believers who, in areas that you don't clash with (a.k.a. religion), are very deep, logical people.  Maybe not though... just conjecture.

[hobbes]

What hobbes is saying is that if someone holds a sincere belief, then that belief is worthy of being taught to others as being true.

Hobbes, does this apply to ALL beliefs, or just those that you share?  For example, would you be happy to support the teaching of Native American mythology in schools, taught from the standpoint that it is true?  Or at least, as an equally option for belief?

Yes, if the person who made the decision to teach Native American mythology in schools received this position democratically.

[none]

Ahh, 3sigma.  Nice to meet you.

My response was not intended to provide an answer to your questions, rather to clarify your initial post.  It was to say that there can be no direct empirical fact linking a god and this universe at request.  And, that really, you are asking believers to prove a god's existence using science rather than just a facet of his being.  This is a big undertaking.  In fact, it hasn't been done well enough in all the history of man, whether by God's design or not.  This does not disprove a god, just an inability to adequately convince a non-believer.
...

what is the problem? hobbes?
you believe god exists and that is part of the universe.
is your belief not part of the universe?

[none]

What hobbes is saying is that if someone holds a sincere belief, then that belief is worthy of being taught to others as being true.

Hobbes, does this apply to ALL beliefs, or just those that you share?  For example, would you be happy to support the teaching of Native American mythology in schools, taught from the standpoint that it is true?  Or at least, as an equally option for belief?

Yes, if the person who made the decision to teach Native American mythology in schools received this position democratically.

hahaha
democracy works if you forget why Native American's aren't the authority.

[Anfauglir]

What hobbes is saying is that if someone holds a sincere belief, then that belief is worthy of being taught to others as being true.

Hobbes, does this apply to ALL beliefs, or just those that you share?  For example, would you be happy to support the teaching of Native American mythology in schools, taught from the standpoint that it is true?  Or at least, as an equally option for belief?

Yes, if the person who made the decision to teach Native American mythology in schools received this position democratically.

So what is important is not whether a position can be demonstrated to be true, but whether the majority are in favour of that position being taught?

[screwtape]

Hi hobbes

1.  What the OP seems to want is some sort of definite empirical evidence of a characteristic of a god.  However, were there one piece of definite empirical evidence for a characteristic of a god, there would no longer be any need for belief.  The existence of a god would be established fact.

To be blunt, so what?  Moses saw god.  Job talked to god.  The OT is rife with stories about yhwh interacting directly with people.  Jesus did a shitload of miracles for lots of people for the sole purpose of "proving" his bona fides.  This whole "faith" thing only became a thing in recent times when people figured out how to use empiracle methods to sort the true from the untrue.  And they learned that their god hypothesis did not fare well using it. 

So I do not find the excuse that detecting god would ruin the whole set up to be convincing.  Rather, it appears that this argument is an admission that you anticipate the universe to behave exactly as if there were no god.  Since you have made your god completely undetectable, you have made your god appear completely non-existant.

For all intents and purposes, you are an atheist. You see, existant things have in influence.  My car, which exists, consumes gas, is visible, produces exhaust, takes me places, etc.  It is entangled with the rest of reality.[1]  My dog, which does not exist, does not consume food, poop on the lawn, bark at night.  Because it does not exist, it is not entangled with reality, it has no impact.  Your god, which you go to lengths to claim does not have any impact on reality, is similarly unentagled with reality.  And so, is as non-existant as my dog. 

 

1.	see Less Wrong for entanglement  http://lesswrong.com/lw/jl/what_is_evidence/

[jetson]

3sigma and jdawg,

Science acknowledges that new information may be discovered which may necessitate a change in current scientific claims, theories, conjectures, propositions, hypothoses and even laws.

Testing and corroboration of the above provides increasing evidence of their correctness but science always allows for future amendments as new information comes to hand.

Do you agree / accept that ?

If you do then you are acknowledging that all of science is based on belief.  Those beliefs have a varying degree of confidence based on evidence, testing and corroboration.

If you do not accept it, and claim instead that science gives us certainty, then such a claim is dogma and is on a par with a religious claim based on faith alone.

Now, when you demand 'proof' and 'truth' from someone, you are making a demand of certainty which science does not make, and a demand which you yourselves could not answer if demanded of you.

Certainly, you can ask for evidence for any claim that anyone makes, and you should - but stop pretending that theists must prove their claims while science does not have to.

You are really showing your ignorance of science and the scientific method here Dominic.  The truth is, we all know that science attempts to explain things as best it can, and that yes, it does have to correct itself as we learn more.  It even throws out entire theories because they were later proven incorrect.  That is the essential beauty of the method and discipline.

Now, when you sit in a science class at school, you are being taught the best current knowledge about something, say dinosaurs.  You, as a student, are not told that it is absolute fact (this is where you appear ignorant).  You are told that this is current scientific understanding based on facts and evidence.  You, as a student, are actually free to disagree!  Although, if you take that route, then you are obligated to show why you disagree, and to show an alternative, and potentially better explanation.  If you do that, using the scientific method, then you have a shot at changing current knowledge.

Again, science DOES NOT ever state something as absolute 100% irrefutable fact.  It stands ready and willing to change it's position on anything, once a falsification is shown, tested, and a consensus agrees that it must change. 

We have seen enough evidence that even religion has to evolve in order to remain acceptable to modern humans.  God no longer has the time or inclination to appear before anyone today, apparently.

[12 Monkeys]

What hobbes is saying is that if someone holds a sincere belief, then that belief is worthy of being taught to others as being true.

Hobbes, does this apply to ALL beliefs, or just those that you share?  For example, would you be happy to support the teaching of Native American mythology in schools, taught from the standpoint that it is true?  Or at least, as an equally option for belief?

Yes, if the person who made the decision to teach Native American mythology in schools received this position democratically.

As a "native" I ask what makes your mythology different from mine?

[hobbes]

So what is important is not whether a position can be demonstrated to be true, but whether the majority are in favour of that position being taught?

Almost.  What is important is that the majority of people believe what is being taught to be true.  If some idea can be convincingly demonstrated to be true, it should sway the majority.

[jetson]

So what is important is not whether a position can be demonstrated to be true, but whether the majority are in favour of that position being taught?

Almost.  What is important is that the majority of people believe what is being taught to be true.  If some idea can be convincingly demonstrated to be true, it should sway the majority.

But what if it is harmful?

[hobbes]

But what if it is harmful?

If the majority of people believe that what is taught is doing more harm than good, it will soon be stopped. 

What is the other option?  That a minority of people can say, 'unless you conform to our standards of belief, you have no right to voice an opinion or make decisions for the majority'?