1
1234
Guest
I know of no credible evidence for the existence of God.
- Status
C
c659smith
Guest
Evidence other than actualy having your own 5 senses personally affected by God or personally knowing in advance and witnessing a miracle by God.
What type of evidence would you accept?
1
1234
Guest
*Post by 1234 immediately below and in quotations
" There has been a lot of sociological research about how unreliable an oral history is. This can be verified by sitting 12 people in a circle and having the first whisper a story to the second, the second to the third, and so on and then listening to the final story that #12 tells–usually very different from #1’s story in many respects".
My response to this post was immediately below in quotations
"But it is apparent that many of the Apostles of the New Testament do not differ in the facts of these miracles and only differ in the paticular message they want the reader to understand.
Mark, Matthew, Luke, Paul, Peter, John
this is what makes evidence credible".
That the Apostles account of what occurred to not differ from eachother*
" There has been a lot of sociological research about how unreliable an oral history is. This can be verified by sitting 12 people in a circle and having the first whisper a story to the second, the second to the third, and so on and then listening to the final story that #12 tells–usually very different from #1’s story in many respects".
My response to this post was immediately below in quotations
"But it is apparent that many of the Apostles of the New Testament do not differ in the facts of these miracles and only differ in the paticular message they want the reader to understand.
Mark, Matthew, Luke, Paul, Peter, John
this is what makes evidence credible".
That the Apostles account of what occurred to not differ from eachother*
1
1234
Guest
Well, I’ve never had that sort of experience…
BUT if I did have that experience, I would think, and say to others,
“God exists FOR ME because of such and such experience I have had. That doesn’t mean that you must believe in a god or obey me because I believe in a god.”
People may or may not believe in my experience.
C
c659smith
Guest
Nothing about atheists there either. By the way, do you believe that religion and superstition should go unchallenged?
First thanks for replying to the creed and understand that a creed for an Atheist is rather amusing.
I would challenge Religion and Superstiion. This being superstition within a Religion or Religion using a superstition.
C
c659smith
Guest
But other than Evidence other than actualy having your own 5 senses personally affected by God or personally knowing in advance and witnessing a miracle by God.
What type of evidence would you accept?
C
c659smith
Guest
1
1234
Guest
C’mon, Soc, you don’t want to “share the same faith in the truth” that I have!
As I have said before, (ad nauseam?) there is no credible evidence in the belief in a god.
I don’t feel obliged to disprove the existence of a god. You feel obliged to prove it. Good luck.
C
c659smith
Guest
So lets get this straight .
I could be wrong?
You make a statement that there is there is no God?
You are asked other than Evidence of actualy having your own 5 senses personally affected by God or personally knowing in advance and witnessing a miracle by God you would accept.
You do not have to accept any other evidence and that is your right. “your rationalization”.
But I am sure you agree that brought to any trial / court of law your rationalization would let 99% of the guilty free and as such is not to be considered a lone form of evidence.
The challenge I do have is that when one makes a comment that there is no evidence on the existence of God as that is a false statement. There is credible evidence as is defined in the definition of evidence.
That unless one knows what additional forms of evidence is acceptable by you then discussion on the opposing view is fruitless and futile.
A
Armor_of_God
Guest
No problem, Les…this thread is getting to be quite the labyrinth! Thanks for taking the time to check back.
You know, I think I have been incorrect a few times in my life, well, more than a few times…wait a minute, actually, I think maybe I have been correct a few times in my life.
P
phooney
Guest
@psyche23
Forgive me, it is easy to confuse “as certain as possible” with “certain” under many circumstances, this is an example where I made this mistake. Naturally, if we’re nitpicking, then nobody can be certain of anything.
More metaphor!
I hear that, I am not sure if I have another thread’s worth of energy in me at the moment.
Is this the official word from the church? That it was a historical event as described in the bible?
Just imagine if this wasn’t a catholic board, and you weren’t in the overwhelming majority
P
phooney
Guest
@Natural Enquirer
I think your technique might be helped along if you crunch up a few potato chips in your mouth before screaming the question though, which will cover your conversation partner in a thin layer of fried potato chunks and spit also symbolising, and serving as a warning of, your disgust for him if he should reply in the negative.
Oh, I most certainly agree… (with all my soul!)
I think your technique might be helped along if you crunch up a few potato chips in your mouth before screaming the question though, which will cover your conversation partner in a thin layer of fried potato chunks and spit also symbolising, and serving as a warning of, your disgust for him if he should reply in the negative.
Who knows, perhaps with more research I could, perhaps I couldn’t. Mind you, if such statements are purely about matters of faith and morals, I’m not sure how they could be either qualifiable or quantifiable statements, which leaves me purely with looking for internal contradiction. I am not versed enough in the proceedings of the church councils to do this at the moment. I defer the challenge! I would have hoped that representatives of the church would have been divinely inspired to keep their mouths shut if they weren’t telling the truth on these matters though! It is also clear from A’s experiences regarding how hell was portrayed that the true position of the church (and hence god’s position?) isn’t (or at least wasn’t) known by the priests themselves, the church’s frontline men and main interface of the church and the public.
P
phooney
Guest
continued @ Natural Enquirer
“In coral reefs there are certain places that a weary fish can go when it needs to have itself cleaned of any parasites that have latched on. Anywhere else but these places, it’s a fish eat fish world, but those that eat the cleaner fish there are refused service afterwards and thus get riddled with parasites and are less likely to pass on their genes. Cleaner fish go about their business, even removing parasites from INSIDE the mouths of their ‘clients’. Occassionally they get eaten because sometimes a fish has just GOT to eat. This is all explained by evolution quite tidily.”
I get the impression you’d rather I not just dredge up examples of fish, but I still think this is a great example.
Here’s an example that is a little bit closer to home, in primates, again posted earlier in this thread:
First example, I would like to cite the cleaner fish, here is what I posted earlier in the thread:
“In coral reefs there are certain places that a weary fish can go when it needs to have itself cleaned of any parasites that have latched on. Anywhere else but these places, it’s a fish eat fish world, but those that eat the cleaner fish there are refused service afterwards and thus get riddled with parasites and are less likely to pass on their genes. Cleaner fish go about their business, even removing parasites from INSIDE the mouths of their ‘clients’. Occassionally they get eaten because sometimes a fish has just GOT to eat. This is all explained by evolution quite tidily.”
I get the impression you’d rather I not just dredge up examples of fish, but I still think this is a great example.
Here’s an example that is a little bit closer to home, in primates, again posted earlier in this thread:
P
phooney
Guest
continued @ Natural Enquirer
So there is a natural agreement that can be demonstrably selected for. Overall, on a population-wide scale, in-group reciprocal altruism is naturally selected for. However, it is easy to see that in the population in question, if there are a few that don’t reciprocate they will have an advantage over those that do. They do all the ‘getting’ and none of the ‘giving’. Stephen Pinker refers to these as ‘cheaters’ as in cheaters in what is supposed to be a reasonably fair exchange.
The reason this behaviour doesn’t spread throughout the population has already been explained, but what could we expect to see in a population of social animals who are altruistically reciprocating with a small number of cheaters? I posted this previously, so most of this will be word for word, but will change it here to coincide with where I am in my explanation.
In the animal kingdom, the gazelle evolving faster and faster, and the evolutionary response from the cheetahs is often described with the metaphor of an “arms race”. This is also an apt way to describe the evolutionary response within a population of social animals such as what we are discussing. There are those that cheat for benefit, and those that get cheated to their detriment. In response to getting cheated, those that are able to detect the cheaters better would not get cheated as often, thus they would be in a better position to reproduce (because their food isn’t being ‘stolen’, they are not relying on those that refuse their lookout duty obligations, etc). Alternatively, those that are better able to cheat undetected also do better. This results in exactly the same kind of “arms race” that you see in gazelle vs cheetah.
So, this theory (or hypothesis) makes a prediction. In a population of social animals we would expect to see cunning cheaters, and sophisticated cheater detection, which would involve non-voluntary displays of sincerity. We’d also see consequences for those caught cheating.
Quoting myself from thread 2 (was in regards to animal communication, but the example also demonstrates consequences for being caught ‘cheating’):
“One chimp from a group was taken into the experimental area (some largeish park-like habitat for them) and shown where a cache of food was, and she was then taken back to where the rest of the group was and left alone a while. Then the scientists released the other chimps… who went straight for the food. In another experiment, there was one chimp who was known to be very aggressive about food etc. This time, when the group was released, the aggressive chimp raced off to some random corner of the park, while the rest of the group went to the food was able to eat in peace for a while (anybody remember what I said about reciprocal altruism?) These examples come from Carl Sagan’s “Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors”.”
And from earlier in this thread, in regards to humans, regarding displays of sincerity, and the consequences of success of throwing off cheater detection:
“increasing abilities to detect the “cheaters” and also a wider and wider variety of non-voluntary phenotypes to show when we are sincere. Examples would be laughter, smiling, crying, blushing, etc. It is no wonder that those who are able to convincingly throw off our natural ‘lie detectors’ by their skill with the displays of sincerity are paid so much, both as Actors and con men.”
So where does this leave us as modern humans? We are the most extensive and varied traders in the animal kingdom, beyond close family members. This is largely due to our complex brains. The evolution of our brains is certainly an interesting topic of conversation, but is a sideline to this one. To altruistically reciprocate like us: “An animal must be able to grant a large benefit to another at a small cost to itself, and the roles must commonly reverse. The animals must devote part of their brains to recognizing each other as individuals …], and if replayment comes long after the favor, to remembering who helped them and who refused, and to deciding how to grant and withhold favors accordingly” (Stephen Pinker “How the Mind Works” page 403)
Off the top of my head, humans can trade pretty much anything that any other animal can, but what we have in ridiculous abundance over other animals is tools, and more importantly, information. “information is an ideal trade good because its cost to the giver-a few seconds of breath- is minuscule compared with the benefit to the recipient.” (Pinker, page 403 again).
It is at this level that I think our modern perceptions, culture and communication with each other helps shape our morality, while evolution still accounts for the base as I have described.
So there is a natural agreement that can be demonstrably selected for. Overall, on a population-wide scale, in-group reciprocal altruism is naturally selected for. However, it is easy to see that in the population in question, if there are a few that don’t reciprocate they will have an advantage over those that do. They do all the ‘getting’ and none of the ‘giving’. Stephen Pinker refers to these as ‘cheaters’ as in cheaters in what is supposed to be a reasonably fair exchange.
The reason this behaviour doesn’t spread throughout the population has already been explained, but what could we expect to see in a population of social animals who are altruistically reciprocating with a small number of cheaters? I posted this previously, so most of this will be word for word, but will change it here to coincide with where I am in my explanation.
In the animal kingdom, the gazelle evolving faster and faster, and the evolutionary response from the cheetahs is often described with the metaphor of an “arms race”. This is also an apt way to describe the evolutionary response within a population of social animals such as what we are discussing. There are those that cheat for benefit, and those that get cheated to their detriment. In response to getting cheated, those that are able to detect the cheaters better would not get cheated as often, thus they would be in a better position to reproduce (because their food isn’t being ‘stolen’, they are not relying on those that refuse their lookout duty obligations, etc). Alternatively, those that are better able to cheat undetected also do better. This results in exactly the same kind of “arms race” that you see in gazelle vs cheetah.
So, this theory (or hypothesis) makes a prediction. In a population of social animals we would expect to see cunning cheaters, and sophisticated cheater detection, which would involve non-voluntary displays of sincerity. We’d also see consequences for those caught cheating.
Quoting myself from thread 2 (was in regards to animal communication, but the example also demonstrates consequences for being caught ‘cheating’):
“One chimp from a group was taken into the experimental area (some largeish park-like habitat for them) and shown where a cache of food was, and she was then taken back to where the rest of the group was and left alone a while. Then the scientists released the other chimps… who went straight for the food. In another experiment, there was one chimp who was known to be very aggressive about food etc. This time, when the group was released, the aggressive chimp raced off to some random corner of the park, while the rest of the group went to the food was able to eat in peace for a while (anybody remember what I said about reciprocal altruism?) These examples come from Carl Sagan’s “Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors”.”
And from earlier in this thread, in regards to humans, regarding displays of sincerity, and the consequences of success of throwing off cheater detection:
“increasing abilities to detect the “cheaters” and also a wider and wider variety of non-voluntary phenotypes to show when we are sincere. Examples would be laughter, smiling, crying, blushing, etc. It is no wonder that those who are able to convincingly throw off our natural ‘lie detectors’ by their skill with the displays of sincerity are paid so much, both as Actors and con men.”
So where does this leave us as modern humans? We are the most extensive and varied traders in the animal kingdom, beyond close family members. This is largely due to our complex brains. The evolution of our brains is certainly an interesting topic of conversation, but is a sideline to this one. To altruistically reciprocate like us: “An animal must be able to grant a large benefit to another at a small cost to itself, and the roles must commonly reverse. The animals must devote part of their brains to recognizing each other as individuals …], and if replayment comes long after the favor, to remembering who helped them and who refused, and to deciding how to grant and withhold favors accordingly” (Stephen Pinker “How the Mind Works” page 403)
Off the top of my head, humans can trade pretty much anything that any other animal can, but what we have in ridiculous abundance over other animals is tools, and more importantly, information. “information is an ideal trade good because its cost to the giver-a few seconds of breath- is minuscule compared with the benefit to the recipient.” (Pinker, page 403 again).
It is at this level that I think our modern perceptions, culture and communication with each other helps shape our morality, while evolution still accounts for the base as I have described.
P
phooney
Guest
continued @ Natural Enquirer
Also, just to cite the page from Stephen Pinker in regards to grief and empathy, it is from page 407 of “How the Mind works” in the subsection called “The Doomsday Machine”.
My source on this was Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” starting at page 222, the subsection “A case study in the roots of morality”, where he cites statistical surveys and psychological experiements done by Harvard biologist Marc Hauser (Who has a book called "Moral Minds: How Nature Designed our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong). This particular subsection is 10 pages long, so I can’t reproduce it here, but in a nutshell, various moral dilemmas have been posed to people of a wide variety of backgrounds. Occassionally the dilemma has to be presented in a way that other people can understand, for example the dilemma of “you standing by a railway track switch lever while a runaway train is coming, on one track are two people tied up, on the alternative track is one person, what do you do?” is meaningless to somebody from a tribe deep in the jungle (in this experiment the Kuna of central america). However, most people regardless of being theist, atheist, city-dweller or tribesman say they would switch the lever so that only one person gets killed. This is the general kind of situation that Hauser uses, with increasingly complex moral problems to solve, and surprisingly similar responses from everybody. Another principle that was articulated in this study was “an innocent bystander should not suddenly be dragged into a bad situation and used for the sake of others without his or her consent” (p224)
Also, just to cite the page from Stephen Pinker in regards to grief and empathy, it is from page 407 of “How the Mind works” in the subsection called “The Doomsday Machine”.
That’s it! I can’t work the Dawkins argument into this. I give up on it for the time being
P
phooney
Guest
@C659smith
Regarding Holland, where did you get your information from? The most recent survey I can find is from 2002:
Roman Catholic 31%, Dutch Reformed 13%, Calvinist 7%, Muslim 5.5%, other 2.5%, none 41%
cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html
The problem with most of these types of surveys is they often haven’t given “none” as an option, as well as people being afraid to admit to anybody a lack of belief in case family members reacted negatively. Note that same website has sweden with no atheists at all! So I don’t put much stock in these surveys, when the other one I saw put sweden at 80% lacking belief in a personal god.
Regarding Holland, where did you get your information from? The most recent survey I can find is from 2002:
Roman Catholic 31%, Dutch Reformed 13%, Calvinist 7%, Muslim 5.5%, other 2.5%, none 41%
cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html
The problem with most of these types of surveys is they often haven’t given “none” as an option, as well as people being afraid to admit to anybody a lack of belief in case family members reacted negatively. Note that same website has sweden with no atheists at all! So I don’t put much stock in these surveys, when the other one I saw put sweden at 80% lacking belief in a personal god.
P
phooney
Guest
@Armor of God
I’m not sure how I can elaborate…it just literally makes no sense. There is no logical connection that I can deduce between his self-punishment (or allowing himself to be tortured) and teaching us about holy suffering and teaching us about choosing the will of the father. What was he thinking? “Hmmmm… these uppity humans are getting a bit sinful. I know! I’ll send a part of myself down to be tortured and killed, that will solve everything.” … What? First of all, if this is his best effort at teaching everybody it is inadequate to do it once in history to be witnessed by a small proportion of the global population. Especially from my perspective two thousand years later. He could have just forgiven people, but he didn’t, he went for an extremely gruesome process. This doesn’t indicate a being worth worshipping to me.
Thanks for the further quotes from the catechism, that explains original sin as a kind of analogy.
I’m not sure how I can elaborate…it just literally makes no sense. There is no logical connection that I can deduce between his self-punishment (or allowing himself to be tortured) and teaching us about holy suffering and teaching us about choosing the will of the father. What was he thinking? “Hmmmm… these uppity humans are getting a bit sinful. I know! I’ll send a part of myself down to be tortured and killed, that will solve everything.” … What? First of all, if this is his best effort at teaching everybody it is inadequate to do it once in history to be witnessed by a small proportion of the global population. Especially from my perspective two thousand years later. He could have just forgiven people, but he didn’t, he went for an extremely gruesome process. This doesn’t indicate a being worth worshipping to me.
Thanks for the further quotes from the catechism, that explains original sin as a kind of analogy.
A
Armor_of_God
Guest
Phooney, I have no interest in making someone believe in anything if they are not open to it. I have no interest in using the “with God anything is possible” explanation as an argument, and that was not how I intended it. My interest is in understanding: Increasing my understanding about others’ beliefs or opinions, and trying to clear up misunderstandings others have about the Catholic faith, with charity and compassion.
I find that many, many negative opinions about the Church are based on misunderstandings, misconceptions and falsities. A very wise Archbishop, instructor, and author once said something along the lines of: " There are only a handful of people who hate the Catholic Church, though there are millions who hate what they THINK the Church is." (Fulton J. Sheen)
The “anything is possible with God” explanation is definitely not going to convince someone who does not believe in God and has no interest in believing in God. However, it can be useful in helping the non-believer understand a little bit why the believer would hold something to be true that cannot be easily explained using purely human logic or science.
C
c659smith
Guest
encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761572410/Netherlands.html
is one source and I do not doubt what the statistics are and do bounce to and fro.
I do not re-call the exact site but the one above will show it is far from an Atheists state which is what was I thought being stated.
P
phooney
Guest
Judging by A’s and Les’ experiences of priests that they’ve given us so far, it would seem that one could also make the following statement:
“There are only a handful of people who love the Catholic Church, though there are millions of love what they THINK the Church is.”
I can’t remember what I was told specifically about hell when I went to a Catholic school, but I’m sure you’ll agree that the understanding of the concept of hell as eternal burning on actual fire is very common in both believers and disbelievers alike, and also in some of those that have a job within the church, priests etc.
Thanks though, for taking the time to go back through some of my lengthy posts!
- Status