AN opportunity for the religious to provide their evidence

[Brownie]

Well, neither do I.  But once somebody says, 'I see God's love in situation X', then surely they are faced with other questions about situations Y and Z.   So once AB says that a child's birth is evidence of God, the questions are bound to come, e.g. about a child's death.   If you say that God is not involved there, then that suggests that sometimes God is involved, and sometimes is not.   OK.  God is hit and miss.

I don't know how you feel about people giving personal examples, wigginhall, I'm reluctant to do that but this story came to mind and seems relevant:

My friend, Elaine, died aged 57.  She had been diagnosed with advanced colorectal cancer fifteen months before.

She had two operations, lots of treatment, then she faded and died.

I was closely involved with her and her husband during Elaine's illness and remember her saying to me, "We've found out more about God's love during my illness than ever before".

Never forgotten that.

[Sebastian Toe]

Never forgotten that.

In a good or bad way?

[torridon]

Some people seem to see other people's misfortunes as a reason not to believe in God, because He is expected to intervene to prevent such misfortunes, if He exists.....

I don't think we need reasons to not believe, rather we need positive reasons to justify belief. That's in part why I am here, perennially baffled as to why this belief is so widespread, and the reasons perhaps are many, and Wiggs shows one example quite neatly here, that belief can derive from a simple habit of mind that is selective rather than balanced.  Whenever good things happen, Praise the Lord, but when bad things happen, we don't likewise blame the Lord. A habitual prejudice in operation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't think we need reasons to not believe, rather we need positive reasons to justify belief. That's in part why I am here, perennially baffled as to why this belief is so widespread, and the reasons perhaps are many, and Wiggs shows one example quite neatly here, that belief can derive from a simple habit of mind that is selective rather than balanced.  Whenever good things happen, Praise the Lord, but when bad things happen, we don't likewise blame the Lord. A habitual prejudice in operation.

A caricature view of religion if ever there was one. In any case people like yourself are the first to write off God blamers as theists.

[torridon]

A caricature view of religion if ever there was one. In any case people like yourself are the first to write off God blamers as theists.

I suppose you are right in a sense; I remember the appalling comments of some American tele-evangelists following the Asian tsunami, seemingly happy to equate such events with God's vengence on Thai bar girls.  A much more obnoxious class of theist, that.

[Brownie]

There was some of that after the New Orleans flooding, Torridon.  Including a couple of people on forums.  Quite distasteful.

[Alan Burns]

I don't think we need reasons to not believe, rather we need positive reasons to justify belief ...

The positive reason is that you are capable of belief, or non belief.  Just ask yourself, what is it that believes or disbelieves?  Is it just some deterministic chemical reaction driven by the unintelligent forces of nature, or is it you?

[Sebastian Toe]

The positive reason is that you are capable of belief, or non belief.  Just ask yourself, what is it that believes or disbelieves?  Is it just some deterministic chemical reaction driven by the unintelligent forces of nature, or is it you?

Both.

[Brownie]

I'm not sure that everyone is capable of belief, or non-belief.

(Seb, answering your question in a previous post, in a good way.)

[torridon]

The positive reason is that you are capable of belief, or non belief.  Just ask yourself, what is it that believes or disbelieves?  Is it just some deterministic chemical reaction driven by the unintelligent forces of nature, or is it you?

I don't see how that follows.

Does it follow that if one is capable of believing something, it therefore must be true ? Beliefs can be mistaken.

Does it follow that because sentient beings capable of thought with a sense of self exist they must have been made by some sort of higher such being ?

I don't see how that follows.  These are not reasons, they are non-sequiturs.

[Sriram]

I don't know how you feel about people giving personal examples, wigginhall, I'm reluctant to do that but this story came to mind and seems relevant:

My friend, Elaine, died aged 57.  She had been diagnosed with advanced colorectal cancer fifteen months before.

She had two operations, lots of treatment, then she faded and died.

I was closely involved with her and her husband during Elaine's illness and remember her saying to me, "We've found out more about God's love during my illness than ever before".

Never forgotten that.

Yes...I can understand that. During trying times we can feel the presence of a Higher Being very clearly. During happy times the Ego is in the forefront and the Higher Self goes into the background.

Trials and tribulations are Natures way of forcing the Ego self into the background and of bringing the Higher Self into the forefront.

We are not here just for the Ego self to have a happy time....and God/Higher Self  is not obligated to keep that happiness going all the time.  Any happiness that the Ego feels is a carrot dangled by the Higher Self to make it go in a particular direction. That direction will eventually lead to the Ego's own erosion which is never liked by the  Ego, obviously. But that's the way it is.     

[Maeght]

The positive reason is that you are capable of belief, or non belief.  Just ask yourself, what is it that believes or disbelieves?  Is it just some deterministic chemical reaction driven by the unintelligent forces of nature, or is it you?

Can you prove that they are not the same thing?

[Alan Burns]

Can you prove that they are not the same thing?

It is not possible to prove the existence of supernatural if you restrict evidence to what is perceived to be natural.  But you can look at the logical pointers which suggest the existence of something supernatural which can't be defined in material terms, such as conscious perception and free will.  Of course you can dismiss the idea of such pointers by claiming that there is no evidence, but in dismissing them you could also be dismissing the opportunity to discover the truth and acquire the most precious gift anyone could ever possess.

[Nearly Sane]

It is not possible to prove the existence of supernatural if you restrict evidence to what is perceived to be natural.  But you can look at the logical pointers which suggest the existence of something supernatural which can't be defined in material terms, such as conscious perception and free will.  Of course you can dismiss the idea of such pointers by claiming that there is no evidence, but in dismissing them you could also be dismissing the opportunity to discover the truth and acquire the most precious gift anyone could ever possess.

Your incredulity is not a method!

[Alan Burns]

I don't see how that follows.

Does it follow that if one is capable of believing something, it therefore must be true ? Beliefs can be mistaken.

I think you have misunderstood my point.  It is the concept of being able to believe in something, not the subject of the belief, which I claim is not capable of being defined by the unguided unintelligent forces of nature.

[Alan Burns]

Your incredulity is not a method!

Which is precisely the point I was making.  By insisting on your idea of "method", you may miss the truth.

[Maeght]

It is not possible to prove the existence of supernatural if you restrict evidence to what is perceived to be natural.  But you can look at the logical pointers which suggest the existence of something supernatural which can't be defined in material terms, such as conscious perception and free will.  Of course you can dismiss the idea of such pointers by claiming that there is no evidence, but in dismissing them you could also be dismissing the opportunity to discover the truth and acquire the most precious gift anyone could ever possess.

So you can't, and therefore the choice you offered was meaningless.

[Nearly Sane]

Which is precisely the point I was making.  By insisting on your idea of "method", you may miss the truth.

I am asking for your method. Your incredulity isn't one. You are just sating you think you are right because you think you are right. This is illogical

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Which is precisely the point I was making.  By insisting on your idea of "method", you may miss the truth.

But without a method to investigate and test your beliefs, how would you know whether or not they are true?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

But without a method to investigate and test your beliefs, how would you know whether or not they are true?

My method would involve reading the scriptures with an open mind, allowing the word of God to enlighten you to the truth.

I suspect that my method would not meet with your approval, but I do wish you would try it.

[torridon]

My method would involve reading the scriptures with an open mind, allowing the word of God to enlighten you to the truth.

I suspect that my method would not meet with your approval, but I do wish you would try it.

That's not really what is meant by method in this context.  That is more akin to mind-training or self-development techniques, it is personal rather than objective.  If you take a young lad, start him on a regime of daily reading and reciting the Qur'an, by the time is is 18 he likely will be a god-fearing devout muslim.  What you suggest comes from that stable, it is more mind training than an objective method to establish epistemic truth.  What objective methods are there ?

[Sebastian Toe]

My method would involve reading the scriptures with an open mind, allowing the word of God to enlighten you to the truth.

I suspect that my method would not meet with your approval, but I do wish you would try it.

If someone does read the scriptures with an open mind and the result is not enlightenment with the truth?

I suspect that you will not be claiming that as proof of the non existence of your god or the failure of your method!

[Alan Burns]

That's not really what is meant by method in this context.  That is more akin to mind-training or self-development techniques, it is personal rather than objective.  If you take a young lad, start him on a regime of daily reading and reciting the Qur'an, by the time is is 18 he likely will be a god-fearing devout muslim.  What you suggest comes from that stable, it is more mind training than an objective method to establish epistemic truth.  What objective methods are there ?

I was not suggesting indoctrination, just reading the Christian bible with an open mind to allow the word of God to reveal the truth.  If the truth is revealed to us by the message of the bible, how could you possibly discover that truth by scientific investigation alone?  You will never discover God's love in scientific investigation.  And you will not find it in the Qur'an either.

[BeRational]

I was not suggesting indoctrination, just reading the Christian bible with an open mind to allow the word of God to reveal the truth.  If the truth is revealed to us by the message of the bible, how could you possibly discover that truth by scientific investigation alone?  You will never discover God's love in scientific investigation.  And you will not find it in the Qur'an either.

Why not?

What if I read it with an open mind, and conclude it is nonsense?

You are simply claiming you are right because you think you are right. This is pointless.

[Nearly Sane]

I was not suggesting indoctrination, just reading the Christian bible with an open mind to allow the word of God to reveal the truth.  If the truth is revealed to us by the message of the bible, how could you possibly discover that truth by scientific investigation alone?  You will never discover God's love in scientific investigation.  And you will not find it in the Qur'an either.

just to note that you are begging the question that the truth you are talking about exists. Why do you use so many logical fallacies? Here's a suggestion, next time when you are praying to your god to find your contact lens, while children die in pain, ask him to help you avoid the logical fallacies in your posts.

BTW have you read the Qu'ran with an open mind?