Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

Vlad, you really should pay more attention...

But is it? Is it not just a statement?

Only if you rip it mercilessly out of its clear context.

Doesn't it have to be ''I find no evidence for worship of leprechauns in all major civilisations in this world therefore God must exist?

The whole list was introduced by the phrase "But they are not the same arguments." with reference to the arguments for leprechauns and for Alan's favourite deity. The clear implication being that said list was of arguments that could not be made for leprechauns but could be for Alan's favoured version of god.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Vlad, you really should pay more attention...

Only if you rip it mercilessly out of its clear context.

The whole list was introduced by the phrase "But they are not the same arguments." with reference to the arguments for leprechauns and for Alan's favourite deity. The clear implication being that said list was of arguments that could not be made for leprechauns but could be for Alan's favoured version of god.

Reads to me like AB is saying he took on board some people’s experiences and testimony as evidence in terms of what his mind or thoughts  found believable about a particular supernatural entity, given the supernatural can’t be tested or evidenced by science. If he had not heard about other people’s testimonies or experiences he may not have looked into it.

Other people who have also looked into it did not find anything that was convincing to them. That’s fairly normal for some people listening to believe or have faith in some testimony and accounts they hear and not others, whether it is about recent events, historical events or Jesus or leprechauns.

[Stranger]

Reads to me like AB is saying he took on board some people’s experiences and testimony as evidence in terms of what his mind or thoughts  found believable about a particular supernatural entity...

Is this supposed to mean anything except Alan found some fairly common religious beliefs to be believable? I think everyone may have gathered that.

The context of the discussion is arguments or evidence for the existence of Alan's favourite deity (both of which he has claimed exist). The fact that lots of people believe something is not evidence of its objective truth - to claim it is is an argumentum ad populum fallacy - as was pointed out.

...given the supernatural can’t be tested or evidenced by science.

The problem being that unless there is some objective way of assessing the claims, we have no way to distinguish them from just guessing.

If he had not heard about other people’s testimonies or experiences he may not have looked into it.

You think!?

Other people who have also looked into it did not find anything that was convincing to them. That’s fairly normal for some people listening to believe or have faith in some testimony and accounts they hear and not others, whether it is about recent events, historical events or Jesus or leprechauns.

The point is that Alan says he has evidence and logic to support his claims and has totally failed to produce either.

As has also been pointed out, even if he thinks the number of people believing in something gives it credence, he has to address the fact that whatever god(s) you believe in, most people in the world think you are wrong.

Then there are the blatant contradictions in what he says - the latest being that we are supposed to be able to make a choice but do so despite the fact that his god is hiding (or allowing itself to be hidden) and that all the (many and contradictory) god stories look like nothing but rather silly primitive superstitions.

He is trying to get his beliefs accepted as objective fact but is unable to produce anything that would back up the claim in those terms.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Is this supposed to mean anything except Alan found some fairly common religious beliefs to be believable? I think everyone may have gathered that.

The context of the discussion is arguments or evidence for the existence of Alan's favourite deity (both of which he has claimed exist). The fact that lots of people believe something is not evidence of its objective truth - to claim it is is an argumentum ad populum fallacy - as was pointed out.

The problem being that unless there is some objective way of assessing the claims, we have no way to distinguish them from just guessing.

You think!?

The point is that Alan says he has evidence and logic to support his claims and has totally failed to produce either.

As has also been pointed out, even if he thinks the number of people believing in something gives it credence, he has to address the fact that whatever god(s) you believe in, most people in the world think you are wrong.

Then there are the blatant contradictions in what he says - the latest being that we are supposed to be able to make a choice but do so despite the fact that his god is hiding (or allowing itself to be hidden) and that all the (many and contradictory) god stories look like nothing but rather silly primitive superstitions.

He is trying to get his beliefs accepted as objective fact but is unable to produce anything that would back up the claim in those terms.

I'm just wondering if you're going anywhere with your point that there is no objective evidence for free-will or supernatural agents. My understanding is that there is an established legal principle that testimony under oath can be accepted as evidence (with a penalty for perjury if it is later proved that a person lied under oath). This type of evidence still requires people's brains to decide what they find credible from the testimony and their own experiences, and yes we can call this process guessing, but it is an accepted method of arriving at decisions.

Apart from legal situations, we tend to make decisions in every-day life based on information we find credible and AB stating his beliefs about what he finds credible about other people's testimony and his own experiences in relation to the supernatural seems unremarkable on a Christian Board. Especially as he does not seem to mind the challenges to his testimony as that goes with the territory of testimony. Testimony by its nature is there to be challenged even if that might not alter the testimony.

Since the supernatural is a category for which science doesn't seem to be appropriate, testimony and subjective experience is currently the only evidence that is available to persuade others.

I haven't seen AB claiming he has evidence tested by science proving free-will etc. All I see is him pointing out areas where he has found room for his strongly believed guesses about free-will and/or a supernatural entity because science has limited explanations and my impression is that AB will leave it to those listening to the testimony to decide for themselves what they find credible.

[BeRational]

I think the point is, I for one do not care about guesses. I can guess for myself. When someone says that something is TRUE, then they better have more than a guess.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

If you are listening to someone's else's reports of what is true, you often do have to guess. You might well decide not to invest too deeply in anything that requires guessing.

We see that on this forum when there is disagreement over what a post means. When challenged, the person who wrote it states what they meant by it when they wrote it and others posters frequently claim that they think the poster who wrote it actually meant something else and isn't being truthful. It's guessing when people decide what to believe as true.   

As far as I can see AB is giving reasons or explanations for his belief about what he thinks is true.

[Stranger]

I'm just wondering if you're going anywhere with your point that there is no objective evidence for free-will or supernatural agents.

On the question of free will - the sort of 'free will' that Alan is talking about is logically impossible. Despite Alan's repeated insistence about his 'perception' and his ability to post what he wants, there is no relevant evidence.

I have seen no objective evidence, or sound arguments for the existence of any gods or the supernatural (both of which are rather vague terms anyway).

My understanding is that there is an established legal principle that testimony under oath can be accepted as evidence (with a penalty for perjury if it is later proved that a person lied under oath). This type of evidence still requires people's brains to decide what they find credible from the testimony and their own experiences, and yes we can call this process guessing, but it is an accepted method of arriving at decisions.

The legal evidence approach falls down on three counts.

Firstly, it's quite possible to believe most of the 'testimony' without believing the conclusions people have draw from it. For example, I don't doubt that many religious people have had what they refer to as 'spiritual' experiences but that does not necessarily mean they have encountered an objectively real, external entity.

Secondly, inconsistency between 'witnesses'. There is simply no agreement amongst those who claim to have knowledge of god(s). Instead we have endless religions, sects, cults, and denominations that all disagree. They can't all be true. That's without considering that we have similar 'evidence' for ghosts, horoscopes, alien abductions, homeopathy, and so on, and so on.

Thirdly, many of the claims are self-contradictory. For example, Alan claims his god is has an important message for us and that we need to make an important choice but, at the same time, this god is apparently hidden, so we are supposed to go looking. This is simply incompatible with a just and loving god. If the message and our choice was important, it would need to be made plain to everybody.

Apart from legal situations, we tend to make decisions in every-day life based on information we find credible and AB stating his beliefs about what he finds credible about other people's testimony and his own experiences in relation to the supernatural seems unremarkable on a Christian Board. Especially as he does not seem to mind the challenges to his testimony as that goes with the territory of testimony. Testimony by its nature is there to be challenged even if that might not alter the testimony.

But (again) he claims to have logic and evidence to back up these claims...

Since the supernatural is a category for which science doesn't seem to be appropriate, testimony and subjective experience is currently the only evidence that is available to persuade others.

But (again) he claims to have logic and evidence to back up these claims. Testimony falls down for the reasons given above and subjective experience (by itself) cannot be distinguished from guessing (and doesn't help with the contradictions).

I haven't seen AB claiming he has evidence tested by science proving free-will etc. All I see is him pointing out areas where he has found room for his strongly believed guesses about free-will and/or a supernatural entity because science has limited explanations and my impression is that AB will leave it to those listening to the testimony to decide for themselves what they find credible.

He claimed in #27413 to have "overwhelming evidence". He also claimed in #24676 that the evidence for the soul and his view of free will was based on a "logical analysis". Yet he has produced no objective evidence and no logic.

If he doesn't want to use science, that's fine (although he seems to want to sometimes, see for example #26627) but he does need to provide some way to distinguish his claims from guessing or admit that he doens't actually have any objective evidence or logic.

He will not admit that he's only sharing personal beliefs. For example, I've invited him on several occasions to just admit that he cannot see any flaw in the argument that his kind of "free will" is logically impossible but that he rejects in anyway on the grounds of his personal beliefs - but he won't do so. Instead he's indulged in transparent evasion and avoidance.

Why are you so keen on telling us what Alan thinks anyway? Do you think he cannot put his point of view himself? Do you have anything of your own to add?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I'm just wondering if you're going anywhere with your point that there is no objective evidence for free-will or supernatural agents.

Actually there’s no evidence of any kind, objective or otherwise but ok…

My understanding is that there is an established legal principle that testimony under oath can be accepted as evidence (with a penalty for perjury if it is later proved that a person lied under oath). This type of evidence still requires people's brains to decide what they find credible from the testimony and their own experiences, and yes we can call this process guessing, but it is an accepted method of arriving at decisions.

Apart from legal situations, we tend to make decisions in every-day life based on information we find credible and AB stating his beliefs about what he finds credible about other people's testimony and his own experiences in relation to the supernatural seems unremarkable on a Christian Board. Especially as he does not seem to mind the challenges to his testimony as that goes with the territory of testimony. Testimony by its nature is there to be challenged even if that might not alter the testimony.

Doesn’t work. Legal testimony is accepted as evidence of what people think happened. Explanatory models of objective fact about the world on the other hand require much more – coherent and logically cogent narratives that are testable, whose finding are repeatable, whose theories can be peer reviewed etc. That’s why, for example, the Higgs-Boson didn’t become accepted science on the basis of asking people to “testify” about their opinions on the matter. And the problem with that is that, if AB stuck to what happened – “I lost my car keys, I prayed, I found them” there’d be no reason to doubt him. The moment though he claims an objective fact about the world (‘therefore god”) his “testimony” is epistemically worthless.     

Since the supernatural is a category for which science doesn't seem to be appropriate, testimony and subjective experience is currently the only evidence that is available to persuade others.

First it’s only claims of the supernatural, and second “testimony and subjective experience” about one such claim is no more or less valid than testimony and subjective experience is of any other. There’s no epistemic difference between Fred’s testimony about God and Mary’s testimony about unicorns. That’s why AB is forced to collapse immediately into an ad pop (“but there are more Freds than Marys”) as if that had anything to do with the truth values of their claims.   

I haven't seen AB claiming he has evidence tested by science proving free-will etc.

No, but he does claim to have “evidence” of some kind – lots of it it seems. Trouble is, he never seems to be able to provide any of it here.

All I see is him pointing out areas where he has found room for his strongly believed guesses about free-will and/or a supernatural entity because science has limited explanations and my impression is that AB will leave it to those listening to the testimony to decide for themselves what they find credible.

Absolutely not. Not for one moment does AB think he has a “guess”. Really, his every effort here tells us that he thinks he has anything but a guess.

If you are listening to someone's else's reports of what is true, you often do have to guess. You might well decide not to invest too deeply in anything that requires guessing.

See above re Higgs-Boson and the difference between subjective narratives and objective facts about the world.

We see that on this forum when there is disagreement over what a post means. When challenged, the person who wrote it states what they meant by it when they wrote it and others posters frequently claim that they think the poster who wrote it actually meant something else and isn't being truthful. It's guessing when people decide what to believe as true.

Yes, but sometimes when someone says the equivalent of 2+2=5, other people take the time to explain why it’s not, and he just repeats “2+2=5” (endlessly) then it’s hard not to speculate on what his motive might be.   

As far as I can see AB is giving reasons or explanations for his belief about what he thinks is true.

Yes, and they’re all bad ones. The problem though is that he doesn’t claim only to have reasons or explanations – what he actually claims to have is evidence (and logically sound arguments too it seems), none of which he can produce.

[Alan Burns]

You mean John Lennon?

The person who interviewed John Lennon when he made that claim that he was more famous than Jesus missed a great opportunity to put this claim into context.  The interviewer could have responded with: "But will you still be as famous in two thousand years time?"

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The person who interviewed John Lennon when he made that claim that he was more famous than Jesus missed a great opportunity to put this claim into context.  The interviewer could have responded with: "But will you still be as famous in two thousand years time?"

Oh dear:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

[floo]

The person who interviewed John Lennon when he made that claim that he was more famous than Jesus missed a great opportunity to put this claim into context.  The interviewer could have responded with: "But will you still be as famous in two thousand years time?"

I reckon no one would have heard of Jesus if that guy, Paul, hadn't been such a prolific writer.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Yes they are. Look, I’ll show you.

That’s just the argumentum ad populum again. If I identified lots of people who did believe in leprechauns would that make them true too? Why not?

And while we’re here, your faith was once a small cult too – does that mean that the bigger ones were then true and yours was then false? Why not?

Oh, and just to put the last nail in that particular coffin more people believe in different gods than believe in your god in any case. Does that mean that your god must also be false because it’s the minority belief position? Why not?

And nor have they presented substantial evidence for miracles brought about by the intercession of “God”. If you want to drop the evidence bar so low that it lets in miracle stories about “God” though, then you have no choice but to set it equally low for leprechauns. In which case I give you pots of gold at the ends or rainbows.   

Then you’re not looking hard enough - there are plenty of cultural references to leprechauns. If you’re asserting that in some unknown way more of them for one faith belief somehow validates the claim though then you’ve fallen into a weird sort of aesthetic ad pop. 

See above. Again, if you think that the fact of lots of buildings in some unknown way has anything to do with the truth of the proposition then I give you mosques and temples. There was also a time when there were no building put up to worship your good too, but plenty of them for the Roman gods remember? Try looking up "survivor bias" to see where you've gone wrong.     

But you do know of lots of people who have sacrificed their lives for faith beliefs other than your own, and besides this is supposed to be a comparison of the arguments made for the epistemic truth of the two claims. Since when has “lots of people have died for their belief in god(s), therefore those gods are real” been an argument? 

Stop digging!

Nor are there four independent accounts for the life of Jesus etc and, even if there were, what would that tell you other than that a good story gets repeated?

Again, this is supposed to be a comparison of arguments. Since when has someone claiming these things been an argument that these things are true?

So having enjoyed your odd little diversion, let’s get back to arguments shall we? When you try any one of many available logical fallacies – the ad pop, survivor bias, the argumentum ad consequentiam, the argument from personal incredulity, the post hoc ergo propter hoc etc etc then either you think they’re sound regardless of whether you apply them to “God” or to leprechauns, or you think they’re sound for neither. Special pleading does not get you off that hook, regardless of how uncomfortable you find it.

Well, you have made a valiant attempt at trying to justify your use of leprechauns in comparing arguments for their existence with the arguments for the existence of God, but in any court of law I am sure you would be found guilty of misusing leprechauns in this context.  Your habit of bringing leprechauns into these exchanges does not move the discussions forward in any meaningful way, but comes across as an attempt to trivialise and ridicule the faith of billions of people who have searched for and found God in their lives.  Being born into the Roman Catholic faith did not preclude me from searching for God and truth.  But it did help me start searching from a young age, and the more I searched, the more profound my discoveries were, culminating in the realisation that we are not nature's puppets, but God's free spirits with the ability to search for and choose our destiny.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

I reckon no one would have heard of Jesus if that guy, Paul, hadn't been such a prolific writer.

McCartney?

[Alan Burns]

I reckon no one would have heard of Jesus if that guy, Paul, hadn't been such a prolific writer.

I think you have missed the profound, world changing event which caused Jesus to be known throughout the world.   We will be celebrating it in a few days time.

[floo]

I think you have missed the profound, world changing event which caused Jesus to be known throughout the world.   We will be celebrating it in a few days time.

A less than credible story which in all probability never happened, unless the guy wasn't truly dead. Still Easter eggs are tasty. I have bought the grandchildren Lindt chocolate Easter Bunnies this year.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Well, you have made a valiant attempt at trying to justify your use of leprechauns in comparing arguments for their existence with the arguments for the existence of God, but in any court of law I am sure you would be found guilty of misusing leprechauns in this context.

Then, as ever, your certainty is misplaced.

Your habit of bringing leprechauns into these exchanges does not move the discussions forward in any meaningful way, but comes across as an attempt to trivialise and ridicule the faith of billions of people who have searched for and found God in their lives.

It “moves the conversation forward” for those with the wit to grasp that arguments that work equally for god and for leprechauns are probably bad arguments, and you’ve just plunged (again) into the reification of your subjective claims as objective facts (with an implied ad pop thrown in for good measure).

Being born into the Roman Catholic faith did not preclude me from searching for God and truth.  But it did help me start searching from a young age, and the more I searched, the more profound my discoveries were, culminating in the realisation that we are not nature's puppets, but God's free spirits with the ability to search for and choose our destiny.

That’s not a “realisation” - its just a personal belief you happen to hold, and moreover one founded on very bad thinking and a complete absence of evidence of any kind.

And by the way, your epic fail a few posts back (“but there are more paintings of god than of leprechauns” etc) fundamentally missed the point in any case. The point was that, when arguments work as well for god and for leprechauns they’re probably bad arguments. What you posted was data (“more paintings…” etc) but no arguments. To be an argument, you’d have had to have set out a logical path from the fact of more paintings (or whatever) to the objective truthfulness or otherwise of the objects of those paintings. When you compare the arguments you try though (ad pop, argumentum ad consequentiam, survivor bias etc etc) then we’re right back to the equivalence with god and leprechauns. Either you think that bad arguments become good arguments for both, or for neither. Selecting the one you prefer over the one you don’t somehow to do that is just special pleading – (yet) another mistake in reasoning.         

[torridon]

I think you have missed the alleged profound, world changing event which caused Jesus to be known heard of throughout many parts of the world.   We will be celebrating it in a few days time.

FIFY, all in the interests of accuracy.

There was no resurrection in the earliest gospel, that was added later.  Fantastic stories have a habit of growing in the telling.

[torridon]

Well, you have made a valiant attempt at trying to justify your use of leprechauns in comparing arguments for their existence with the arguments for the existence of God, but in any court of law I am sure you would be found guilty of misusing leprechauns in this context.  Your habit of bringing leprechauns into these exchanges does not move the discussions forward in any meaningful way, but comes across as an attempt to trivialise and ridicule the faith of billions of people who have searched for and found God in their lives.  Being born into the Roman Catholic faith did not preclude me from searching for God and truth.  But it did help me start searching from a young age, and the more I searched, the more profound my discoveries were, culminating in the realisation that we are not nature's puppets, but God's free spirits with the ability to search for and choose our destiny.

Nobody is claiming we are 'nature's puppets', that is just a straw man you use to avoid engagement.

So, we are free to choose our destiny.  Fine.  We choose the destiny we want; how free is that freedom if we have no control over what we want ?  All we are doing is acting out our desires, we don't choose what desires to have.

[BeRational]

The person who interviewed John Lennon when he made that claim that he was more famous than Jesus missed a great opportunity to put this claim into context.  The interviewer could have responded with: "But will you still be as famous in two thousand years time?"

We don't know how that will end up.

[Gordon]

Well, you have made a valiant attempt at trying to justify your use of leprechauns in comparing arguments for their existence with the arguments for the existence of God, but in any court of law I am sure you would be found guilty of misusing leprechauns in this context.

It is the same argument, silly, and if we continue your court analogy I'd imagine any truly fair legal case (since I suspect that UK legal tradition already gives 'God' a ring-side seat in legal proceedings, such as swearing on a Bible) would involve objective evidence that met the standards required in court in respect of the existence of either: that would be a problem in both cases, which is one reason why the arguments for God fails when applied to leprechauns (or any other supernatural claim). It is perhaps that you have a personal preference for just one or the two supernatural myths and you don't take the other seriously whereas neither are serious propositions because the same flawde arguments can be applied to each.

Your habit of bringing leprechauns into these exchanges does not move the discussions forward in any meaningful way, but comes across as an attempt to trivialise and ridicule the faith of billions of people who have searched for and found God in their lives.

Christianity is ripe for ridicule, Alan, as is anything really: nothing wrong with that, in that ridicule is an appropriate response to anything that is presented in a ridiculous manner or involves ridiculous claims. Ignoring the ad pop you've thrown in here, you might need to look at how you are presenting your religion in that there seem to be other Christians who are far more nuanced in their approach compared your proselytising approach, and they approach doesn't come across as being so overtly ridiculous as your own (albeit that I think the core claims of Christianity remain ridiculous no matter how they are presented).     
 

Being born into the Roman Catholic faith did not preclude me from searching for God and truth.  But it did help me start searching from a young age, and the more I searched, the more profound my discoveries were, culminating in the realisation that we are not nature's puppets, but God's free spirits with the ability to search for and choose our destiny.

You don't think your exposure to one approach to religion from an early age might have biased your outlook as an adult? As ever you fall into a bunch of fallacies whenever you try to justify your position, which is something that should concern you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Christianity is ripe for ridicule, Alan, as is anything really: nothing wrong with that, in that ridicule is an appropriate response to anything that is presented in a ridiculous manner or involves ridiculous claims. Ignoring the ad pop you've thrown in here, you might need to look at how you are presenting your religion in that there seem to be other Christians who are far more nuanced in their approach compared your proselytising approach, and they approach doesn't come across as being so overtly ridiculous as your own (albeit that I think the core claims of Christianity remain ridiculous no matter how they are presented).     

But argument from ridicule is a BAD thing Gordon and yet, here you are talking about it as though it were a good thing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

But argument from ridicule is a BAD thing Gordon and yet, here you are, The Fu Manchu of accusers of logical fallacy, talking about it as though it were a good thing.

In which Vladdo still keeps pretending that there is an "argument from ridicule" when there’s no such thing. An argument from ridicule would go something like:

1. Leprechauns are like god.

2. Leprechauns are ridiculous.

3. Therefore god is ridiculous.

It’s not an argument anyone has made, but that’s never been an obstacle to Vlad’s infatuation with the straw man.

The actual argument of course goes:

1. Various arguments are attempted to validate the claim “god”.

2. Sometimes those arguments will work just as well to validate the claim “leprechauns”.

3. That means that either: a). Those arguments are false, and so validate neither god nor leprechauns; or b). Those arguments are sound, and so validate both god and leprechauns. 

4. As leprechauns are plainly ridiculous, a). is more likely than b).

Why he keeps lying about this (it’s been explained to him many times) is anyone’s guess, but it seems to keep him amused.

[SteveH]

I reckon no one would have heard of Jesus if that guy, Paul, hadn't been such a prolific writer.

But he was, so we have. What, exactly, is your point?

[BeRational]

But argument from ridicule is a BAD thing Gordon and yet, here you are talking about it as though it were a good thing.

Why is it bad?

[Gordon]

But argument from ridicule is a BAD thing Gordon and yet, here you are talking about it as though it were a good thing.

It is neither 'bad' nor 'good', Vlad: it is more a question of whether ridicule is an appropriate response or not, and I'd say it was when it is a response to ridiculous claims.

So it isn't so much as an 'argument from ridicule' as a reasonable response to ridiculous claims: a critique rather than an argument, if you will.