Why is there no verifiable evidence?

[floo]

deleted

[Shaker]

The second paragraph nails it.

[Brownie]

Not everything can be reduced to iterative maths, floo.

Your second paragraph makes sense to me, that we created God in our own image.  Certainly many religions seem to go along with that.  However there is no explanation for personal experience and I wish Christians would stop trying to convince non believers about the existence of God because, whatever anyone says, it isn't something that can be proved objectively, scientifically.  Be thankful floo that you will rarely encounter any believers who try to do that - unless you actively seek them out (I'm talking about real life, not forums).

I've had personal experience but there is no point in me recounting any of that because it could be explained in various ways and I have done it before elsewhere.

So - live your life and stop mithering about it!  Life is too short, you have a decent life to enjoy.  I do, however, understand why it does niggle you.  I could say that God understands and will sort it all out in the end - but I won't  .

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

  However there is no explanation for personal experience and I wish Christians would stop trying to convince non believers about the existence of God because, whatever anyone says, it isn't something that can be proved objectively, scientifically.

Not sure I understand what you mean by no explanation for personal experience? That you think that you have had a personal experience of God does not mean that you have had an experience of God. People hallucinate, that is a know natural fact, how do you rule out the possibility of that. Now if you prefer to attribute it to God then that is fine on a personal basis, it would be rude of me to questions it almost, but the issues come when said people try to insist that their interpretation is also true for me.

As for the second part would you like to take it up with Hope. He reckons he has a methodology for this sort of thing, but is reluctant to share.

[Brownie]

Stephen said: "Not sure I understand what you mean by no explanation for personal experience? That you think that you have had a personal experience of God does not mean that you have had an experience of God. People hallucinate, that is a know natural fact, how do you rule out the possibility of that. Now if you prefer to attribute it to God then that is fine on a personal basis, it would be rude of me to questions it almost, but the issues come when said people try to insist that their interpretation is also true for me."

That is exactly what I said.
I do not insist that my interpretation is true for you Stephen.

[Stranger]

Not everything can be reduced to iterative maths, floo.

What an odd comment - I can't see anything in what Floo said that even touched on the subject...

[Brownie]

Think about it Stephen.  On reflection, it's not that important, I don't want you to ponder unnecessarily.  Floo was wondering about verifiable evidence is all.   There is none.

[john]

Think about it Stephen.  On reflection, it's not that important, I don't want you to ponder unnecessarily.  Floo was wondering about verifiable evidence is all.   There is none.

I have absolutely no argument with any Christian who has such an attitude, they are entitled to their beliefs and if it brings them comfort great I am pleased for them.

That is not what happens in most cases though is it?  People with religious beliefs make claims for their beliefs that impact on others and that is unacceptable and must be challenged.

[floo]

What an odd comment - I can't see anything in what Floo said that even touched on the subject...

My thinking too. Maths and me are an oxymoron!

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Stephen said: "Not sure I understand what you mean by no explanation for personal experience? That you think that you have had a personal experience of God does not mean that you have had an experience of God. People hallucinate, that is a know natural fact, how do you rule out the possibility of that. Now if you prefer to attribute it to God then that is fine on a personal basis, it would be rude of me to questions it almost, but the issues come when said people try to insist that their interpretation is also true for me."

That is exactly what I said.
I do not insist that my interpretation is true for you Stephen.

Thumbs up to that. 

Let's all enjoy our own journeys.

[floo]

If it makes people happy to believe in god and Jesus that is fine. It is when they tell others it is all TRUE, and even use threats to try to coerce them into believing as they do, when it goes very badly wrong!

[Hope]

If god and Jesus want us to believe they actually exist, why is there no verifiable evidence to support that scenario? ...

How surprising.  Floo asks a question that she has asked hundreds of times over the last few years.  Again, as usual, the questions are answered by various people and when there are enough answers that she doesn't like, Floo tends to flit off.

[floo]

How surprising.  Floo asks a question that she has asked hundreds of times over the last few years.  Again, as usual, the questions are answered by various people and when there are enough answers that she doesn't like, Floo tends to flit off.

Hope when have you provided the slightest piece of verifiable evidence in connection with the topic?

[Brownie]

Floo hasn't flitted off this time Hope  .

Floo, there is no objective evidence, only personal experience.  I think you know that very well!

[Hope]

People hallucinate, that is a know natural fact, how do you rule out the possibility of that.

Well, you can see whether there is any familial or personal history of hallucination.  You can then check whether the experience actually fits with the nature of hallucination. 

Now if you prefer to attribute it to God then that is fine on a personal basis, it would be rude of me to questions it almost, but the issues come when said people try to insist that their interpretation is also true for me.

The same can be said when people insist that religious people are uneducated, blind, indoctrinated and all the other phrases that are habitually used to denigrate religious belief.

As for the second part would you like to take it up with Hope. He reckons he has a methodology for this sort of thing, but is reluctant to share.

No, not reluctant to share; rather having shared it before on other forums, it tends to completely flummox those who regard the physical as the be all and end all of human existence.

[Hope]

Floo hasn't flitted off this time Hope  .

Floo, there is no objective evidence, only personal experience.  I think you know that very well!

I've known her go to several pages before doing so - and I get the impression that most of the posts thus far are ones she is comfortable with.

[Brownie]

I wonder why floo is so obsessed by whether or not it can be proved God exists.

[floo]

I don't think I am obsessed with the topic, it doesn't impinge on my real life!

[Gordon]

No, not reluctant to share; rather having shared it before on other forums, it tends to completely flummox those who regard the physical as the be all and end all of human existence.

Well why not put your cards on the table here then, since several of us have asked: there are some clever people here too, so being flummoxed is unlikely, but you can expect your submission to be critiqued.

[Brownie]

I don't think I am obsessed with the topic, it doesn't impinge on my real life!

I think you are obsessed with it floo and by religious belief generally.  Maybe you wonder if you are backing the wrong horse and hope someone will come up with something definitive that will convince you once and for all.  That will not happen.  You either believe or you don't.

[floo]

I think you are obsessed with it floo and by religious belief generally.  Maybe you wonder if you are backing the wrong horse and hope someone will come up with something definitive that will convince you once and for all.  That will not happen.  You either believe or you don't.

Really? Sure I am obsessed, NOT!

[Brownie]

Sorry I got it wrong floo.  Presumably you won't mention it again then.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Well, you can see whether there is any familial or personal history of hallucination.  You can then check whether the experience actually fits with the nature of hallucination.

Why, what would that prove? People who hallucinate must have a first hallucination.

Anyway that was one hypothesis to explain the experience. Even if you could show that false you would still need to show that is was a non natural phenomena at play. Not having a natural explanation does not support a supernatural one. You would have though this would have sunk in by now.

 

The same can be said when people insist that religious people are uneducated, blind, indoctrinated and all the other phrases that are habitually used to denigrate religious belief.

Since that doesn't apply to me I don't see the relevance.

Some religious people are blind, uneducated and indoctrinated and so are some non religious people. I don't generalise I call it on the evidence.

No, not reluctant to share; rather having shared it before on other forums, it tends to completely flummox those who regard the physical as the be all and end all of human existence.

Two things:

• So you admit you have not shared it on this forum despite claiming so.
  
  Stop lying with the "physical being the be all and end all" no one has asked you for a physical method to assess the supernatural. As far as I can see no one is saying that the physical is the only thing that could be.
  

I am not interested in what the method is as long as it can tell the difference between probably true and probably not true.

[Shaker]

No, not reluctant to share; rather having shared it before on other forums, it tends to completely flummox those who regard the physical as the be all and end all of human existence.

That was on other forums (so you claim ...). This is a different forum with different people who may well not be flummoxed at all.

So try it here. No reason not to, is there? What will the feeble excuse be this time?

[Shaker]

Even if you could show that false you would still need to show that is was a non natural phenomena at play. Not having a natural explanation does not support a supernatural one. You would have though this would have sunk in by now.

Not a chance. Negative proof fallacy all the way with this one.