Theism, magical thinking and CAM.

[MrFungus420]

So, there is an objective God (IMO),

This statement is based on what?

1) The NT accounts of Jesus and his works and teachings;

Circular reasoning...using the Bible to verify what the Bible claims. Not objective.

2) the experience of others;

Hearsay and anecdotes. Not objective.

3) my personal experience.

Anecdotes. Not objective.

[Bruce Burleson]

Circular reasoning...using the Bible to verify what the Bible claims. Not objective.

I hear this a lot from atheists, and of course it is wrong. The gospel accounts of the life of Jesus (not the whole Bible) are some historical evidence of the subject of those gospels, just like any account of an event is some evidence of the event. You may not like the evidence, you may disagree with the evidence, but it is some evidence.

Anyway, you asked for the basis of my statement that there is an objective entity "God", and I told you. If I hear a piece of music, that is some evidence that the music exists. If I see a piece of art, that is some evidence that the art exists. If I meet a person, that is some evidence that the person exists. If I encounter God through my experience, that is some evidence that God exists. You may not like the evidence or find it persuasive, but it is some evidence.

[hiyymer]

If I encounter God through my experience, that is some evidence that God exists. You may not like the evidence or find it persuasive, but it is some evidence.

It's just not "objective" evidence, because it is only evident in your experience. The interesting problem to me is what does god represent. Take the example of color. Color does not exist except in our experience. Yet we know what color represents. It distinguishes different wavelengths of light. Photons exist objectively. God clearly represents something too. Even atheists have an idea what you mean by a god. It doesn't seem very easy to explain it though.

[Svartalf]

Well, any statement that predicates the objective existence of something, meaning it should be observable by non spiritual means, and that appends (IMO) is terminally flawed and false. Or did I see any proper evidence that Dog had been witnessed and reported, observed and recorded by standards going what amounts to word of mouth, flawed through innumerable copying by fallible clerks (how come the True and Inerrant Word of Dog could be recorded is so many divergent and in so many cases erroneous ways?), and varying translations?

Still waiting for decent evidence of objective existence of Dog. (and no, not Canis Lupus subs familiaris)

Your statement that anything objective should be observable by non-spiritual means is an unjustified a priori assumption. You do not know that this is true, nor can you prove it, even by non-spiritual means. God is encountered through revelation, because that is how he has chosen to reveal himself. My statement that an objective God exists and can be known by revelation is no less valid than your statement that an objective God should be observable by non-spiritual means.

Since perceiving spiritually cannot be verified or falsified by anybody else, as spiritual perceptions cannot be properly shared between different persons, and the imperfection of communication makes comparing perceptions virtually impossible, other means where others can also be enabled to observe the object are necessary for predicating objective rather than subjective perception and nature of the subject of said perception.

My principle is not whether I know this is true, my problem is that you cannot show or demonstrate to me that your "objective" Dog is true.

Also, if you were able to make an objective" demonstration, there would be no room in there for that epitome of the subjective, the statement (iMO), which demonstrate that the whole of it, starting with the objective status of Dog, is entirely within the realm of your subjective opinion.

[hiyymer]

Our experience is full of agents. You, me, my cat, god, etc. Agents are a metaphor of the brain. They are self-caused and intentional. I want to eat. Well actually it's got nothing to do with 'I'. My body's blood sugar is low and it sets of a whole serious of chemical and neurological signals to ensure that it gets fed including the pattern of neurons firing in my consciousness that the I-agent "wants to eat". There is no intention in objective reality. It's just a metaphor for our biological regulation.

What do believers say is the intentionality of god? Well mostly god wants us to love each other. We already do. Our biological regulation ensures that we organize in groups and cooperate and are capable of empathy (mirror neurons). Natural selection has produced that behavior because it works to replicate the species. Why is that intentionality floating around in our experience as a god instead of just being OUR intentionality? If you stop intellectualizing and just be open to the experience it's obvious. Social intentions do seem to come from beyond the I-agent. The I-agent's intentions are all for the I-agent, not for all of us. This is the natural way for the brain to organize it's intentional agents. It's not some aberrant meme. God is the shared agent of the group and the intentions that appropriately go with the group. We go to church on Sunday to express the intentions of the group, not our own needs. Morality is about the fact that the sets of intentions aren't harmonious and tend to conflict. But it's a little more than that. We seem to experience the social intention as the underlying purpose in life. We are all for moral progress, whether we have a god or not. So a god has a long term mission as well. And that's just the beginning. God has all kinds of intentions. God wants us to eliminate the other groups. We are a territorial species. But rearranging the agents and getting rid of the god won't change that. The metaphors in our consciousness don't make us what we are, and there is no guarantee that god's intentions will be any more consistent than the I-agent's intentions.

Atheism is like being color blind. If green looks different to me than everyone else, then I am always aware that colors are in our heads. The rest of us don't worry much about it. As far as our every day thoughts go, it is the tree or the traffic light that is green. The atheist is typically a loner, not a joiner, and is too well-educated to take the intentional agent god as transparently real. But the atheist also tends to take refuge in rationalism, and ignore the fact that our own intentions and the I-agent aren't objectively real either. We can't just decide to be. We already are what we are. Life is irrational.

[colubridae]

Circular reasoning...using the Bible to verify what the Bible claims. Not objective.

I hear this a lot from atheists, and of course it is wrong. The gospel accounts of the life of Jesus (not the whole Bible) are some historical evidence of the subject of those gospels, just like any account of an event is some evidence of the event. You may not like the evidence, you may disagree with the evidence, but it is some evidence.

Anyway, you asked for the basis of my statement that there is an objective entity "God", and I told you. If I hear a piece of music, that is some evidence that the music exists. If I see a piece of art, that is some evidence that the art exists. If I meet a person, that is some evidence that the person exists. If I encounter God through my experience, that is some evidence that God exists. You may not like the evidence or find it persuasive, but it is some evidence.

No he's quite correct. You are doing the equivalent of finding an edition of Harry Potter 2,000 years from now and claiming that it is evidence that H potter really existed because you have a book.


We can play these pointless incessant word games, but you’ve already done that, here there and everywhere. There is not one shred of evidence for JC, Apollo and all the others. You and your ilk just turn up every now and again with the same tired drivel.

You cold read the members and attempt to ingratiate yourself (as in my dad was in the navy) just like lamont. A really honest xian would not be here, or resort to underhand methods.

Shame on you and all your kind.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Still blowing on the same old vuvuzela, Bruce? Perhaps it's about time you found an instrument with a slightly larger range of notes - B flat gets so tiring all on its own after a while.

[Bruce Burleson]

No he's quite correct. You are doing the equivalent of finding an edition of Harry Potter 2,000 years from now and claiming that it is evidence that H potter really existed because you have a book.

No, he is not correct, and neither are you. But I see that this is going nowhere, so adios.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Bruce knows jeebus is real cos jeebus spoke to him during an LSD trip years ago. What further evidence do the rest of us need?

[Mysturji]

Bruce knows jeebus is real cos jeebus spoke to him during an LSD trip years ago. What further evidence do the rest of us need?

You mean that VolksWagons really DO jump up in the air on occasion, and some trees do in fact say "WHOOOOOOSH!"?

[MrFungus420]

Circular reasoning...using the Bible to verify what the Bible claims. Not objective.

I hear this a lot from atheists, and of course it is wrong. The gospel accounts of the life of Jesus (not the whole Bible) are some historical evidence of the subject of those gospels, just like any account of an event is some evidence of the event. You may not like the evidence, you may disagree with the evidence, but it is some evidence.

Ok, then I guess we have evidence that Hogwarts exists. We have evidence that there is a base on the moon. We have evidence that people are abducted by aliens. We have evidence that Zeus is one of the sons of Cronus. We have evidence of cybernetic enhancements. We have evidence of Superman. We have evidence of Gandalf.

Based on what you are saying, we have evidence of the existence of every single thing that everyone has ever said or written down.

Having an account of something does not mean that it is real and is not necessarily evidence for it.

Anyway, you asked for the basis of my statement that there is an objective entity "God", and I told you.

There was absolutely nothing objective about it.

If I hear a piece of music, that is some evidence that the music exists.

You experience the piece of music through your ears. They are the sensory apparatus that allows you to hear the music.

If I see a piece of art, that is some evidence that the art exists.

You experience the piece of art through your eyes. They are the sensory apparatus that allows you to see the art.

If I meet a person, that is some evidence that the person exists.

You experience the person with your eyes and ears (and a good chance with your sense of touch, as well, a handshake or something). There are several sensory apparatus that allow you to meet this person.

If I encounter God through my experience, that is some evidence that God exists.

You experience God with your ________________.

You may not like the evidence or find it persuasive, but it is some evidence.

No, it isn't.

It's circular reasoning, hearsay and anecdotes. None of which is evidence, None of which is objective.

[Mysturji]

You see, that's the thing about evidence... real evidence, anyway: It is verifiable (and usually verified) by multiple independant objective sources.
Note the word "multiple". That means more than one (i.e. not just one old book).
Note the word "independant". That means they were not working together, or collaborating: They used different methods to arrive at the same conclusion.
Note the word "objective". That means a source without an agenda (hidden or not) related to the object in question.
There is no such evidence for ANY supernatural entity, including your god.

[floppit]

:dev: :dev:

It all started so well...

[hiyymer]

You see, that's the thing about evidence... real evidence, anyway: It is verifiable (and usually verified) by multiple independant objective sources.
Note the word "multiple". That means more than one (i.e. not just one old book).
Note the word "independant". That means they were not working together, or collaborating: They used different methods to arrive at the same conclusion.
Note the word "objective". That means a source without an agenda (hidden or not) related to the object in question.
There is no such evidence for ANY supernatural entity, including your god.

And the I that we experience as I. (All supernatural).