What evidence, solid scientific, universally proven evidence do you have that your back pain truly exists?

[tonyrey]

That is an odd statement for a Catholic to make. Paul wrote that “if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.” (1 Corinthians 15:14) Doesn’t all of Christianity stand or fall on the empirical evidence of the Resurrection?

No! The teaching of Christ shines by its own light…

 

[gentle_atheist]

No! The teaching of Christ shines by its own light…

Ooh, I don’t know about this. I am a cradle Catholic myself and I can remember a number of times on Easter morning when the priest would say that if the Resurrection had never occurred then Jesus would be regarded as a nice philosopher but nothing more.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

That is an odd statement for a Catholic to make. Paul wrote that “if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.” (1 Corinthians 15:14) Doesn’t all of Christianity stand or fall on the empirical evidence of the Resurrection?

This question is nonsensical. For an explanation, see my previous post.

 

[JDaniel]

That is an odd statement for a Catholic to make. Paul wrote that “if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.” (1 Corinthians 15:14) Doesn’t all of Christianity stand or fall on the empirical evidence of the Resurrection?

GA:

That is not logical: Paul was speaking to the Corinthians, between 50 -52 AD, who were not witnesses to the “empirical evidence” of Christ’s Resurrection. He wasn’t saying it as you are spinning it.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Ooh, I don’t know about this. I am a cradle Catholic myself and I can remember a number of times on Easter morning when the priest would say that if the Resurrection had never occurred then Jesus would be regarded as a nice philosopher but nothing more.

GA:

And you took that to mean: Jesus was never Resurrected?"

God bless,
jd

 

[Blacksword]

There are people who experience pain or itching in a limb that has been amputated. So even though the experience is real it does not prove that the object of that experience is real.

Furthermore, there is a difference between proving that my back pain exists and proving that back pain itself exists. Just wrench the back of the unbeliever and you will gain an instant convert to the existence of back pain.

I mention this because there is a linguistic sleight-of-hand in the believer’s response to the atheist’s challenge:

Atheist: What evidence, solid scientific, universally proven evidence do you have that your God truly exists?

Believer: What evidence, solid scientific, universally proven evidence do you have that your back pain truly exists?

Simply drop the word “your” from each sentence and you will understand my point.

I’m not really quite seeing the sleight of hand here…wouldn’t the wrenching of another person’s back and successful conversion of them into a true believer in back pain be still essentially their own subjective experience? This is like the atheist who sees another atheist convert to Christianity…still no conclusive proof for ME to believe in back pain just because another person changes their mind about it. It’s merely their own personal experience of back pain, after all.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

GA:

That is not logical: Paul was speaking to the Corinthians, between 50 -52 AD, who were not witnesses to the “empirical evidence” of Christ’s Resurrection. He wasn’t saying it as you are spinning it.

God bless,
jd

Empiricism didn’t even exist then, as the philosophical doctrine that we have today.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I can prove that my back pain exists because, if you look at the x-rays, you can see my bones pinching the nerves. Ouch.

But anyway, I think we should be extra kind to Atheists here. The worst thing to do is just give them more “ammo” against Christians by being rude to them.

Not in all cases, but true enough in MOST.

I personally have no problem talking with atheists.

Good show, overall.

 

[gentle_atheist]

I’m not really quite seeing the sleight of hand here…wouldn’t the wrenching of another person’s back and successful conversion of them into a true believer in back pain be still essentially their own subjective experience? This is like the atheist who sees another atheist convert to Christianity…still no conclusive proof for ME to believe in back pain just because another person changes their mind about it. It’s merely their own personal experience of back pain, after all.

There is nothing wrong with subjective experience. I can prove to you that back pain exists by wrenching your back so that you experience back pain yourself. But that still doesn’t prove to you that MY back pain exists. I could be faking it to get on disability or win a lawsuit. And proving to you that MY back pain exists is the challenge that you, as the believer, have issued to me, as the atheist.

Your challenge to me is not equivalent to the challenge that I, the atheist, have issued to you, the believer. When I say, “Prove to me that your God exists,” the phrase “your God” simply means “the God that you worship.” It does not mean “your personal experience of God.” (By the way, I always hate it when atheists use the expression “your God” or “your god” because it is gratuitously insulting to the believer.)

Just as I can easily prove to you that back pain exists by wrenching your back, you can easily prove to me that God exists by shooting me dead. But that assumes that you are right and I am wrong about the existence of God. And what if the opposite is true? What if you are wrong and I am right? I’ll never know it – and neither will you! So you win either way!

 

[AntiTheist]

Your challenge to me is not equivalent to the challenge that I, the atheist, have issued to you, the believer. When I say, “Prove to me that your God exists,” the phrase “your God” simply means “the God that you worship.” It does not mean “your personal experience of God.”

Lest the central point be lost amid the rest of the silliness of this thread, I want to put a fine point on it:

The claims are not equal – one claim (“my back pain exists”) is a claim about one’s inner state, one’s subjective experience; the other claim (“my god exists”) is a claim about an entity that exists (supposedly) outside of any human mind.

As such, they have different standards of evidence. Claims about one’s inner state can be verified by one’s examination of one’s own inner state; claims about external beings require more than an examination of one’s inner state.

(By the way, I always hate it when atheists use the expression “your God” or “your god” because it is gratuitously insulting to the believer.)

It’s not insulting in the least – there are more than one god claims out there. If I specifically mean the believer’s god, I will say “your god.” And now that you’ve said the above, I’m going to make it a point to always use it from now on, just because I can.

 

[hansgeorg]

I can prove that my back pain exists because, if you look at the x-rays, you can see my bones pinching the nerves. Ouch.

Does not prove your back pain exists right now or any other specific moment, though it would be very odd if it never existed. Or, better still, use the word occurred.

Because the bones are where they are even when you are not feeling the pain. But a pain not felt does not occur as pain. Though its underlying cause may occur or even persist.

 

[mdrummer5]

And now that you’ve said the above, I’m going to make it a point to always use it from now on, just because I can.

Awfully mature of you

I am a believer… however I have to agree that the argument is flawed.

GA posted:

I mention this because there is a linguistic sleight-of-hand in the believer’s response to the atheist’s challenge:

Atheist: What evidence, solid scientific, universally proven evidence do you have that your God truly exists?

Believer: What evidence, solid scientific, universally proven evidence do you have that your back pain truly exists?

**Simply drop the word “your” from each sentence and you will understand my point. **

That last line is key. Those of us that believe can not provide scientific proof that God exists. However, backpain in general can be easily proven to exist. “Your” makes it entirely different I can’t prove to anyone that the signs I believe to be from God are from him but I believe that they are. I also can not prove to anyone that my back hurts after a gig for days but that does not mean that backpain in general does not exist.

Frankly, the argument is stupid. The other thing about the word “your” in the context of asking someone to prove a type of pain implies that the person is lying. Whereas the argument for “your” God is just asking someone to substantiate what are (to non-believers ridiculous) claims.

 

[hansgeorg]

“Your” makes it entirely different I can’t prove to anyone that the signs I believe to be from God are from him but I believe that they are. I also can not prove to anyone that my back hurts after a gig for days but that does not mean that backpain in general does not exist.

Not proving non-existence of back pain is not you not failing to prove existence of back pain.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

As such, they have different standards of evidence.

I am curious as to what standard of evidence you think should be applied to the claim that G-d exists, and why.

 

[mdrummer5]

Not proving non-existence of back pain is not you not failing to prove existence of back pain.

It’s two entirely different things. The argument compares a feeling that EVERY human being has experienced (pain in general) to belief in a supreme being who’s presence has never been known to anyone living today.

We know pain exists because we all have experienced it. We can not say with 100% certainty that God exists… we just have faith that he does.

Again, it’s a stupid argument.

 

[vz71]

Lest the central point be lost amid the rest of the silliness of this thread, I want to put a fine point on it:

The audacity of pride…

The claims are not equal – one claim (“my back pain exists”) is a claim about one’s inner state, one’s subjective experience; the other claim (“my god exists”) is a claim about an entity that exists (supposedly) outside of any human mind.

As such, they have different standards of evidence. Claims about one’s inner state can be verified by one’s examination of one’s own inner state; claims about external beings require more than an examination of one’s inner state.

Well…
The claims are different, but the standard of evidence remains the same.
In the back pain claim, it is an experience that one cannot share with others.
No matter what I do, I simply cannot make you experience my back pain.
Likewise with God.
God exists. The experience I have with God is on a spiritual level, and just as our own personal back pain, it is experienced from within.

It’s not insulting in the least – there are more than one god claims out there. If I specifically mean the believer’s god, I will say “your god.” And now that you’ve said the above, I’m going to make it a point to always use it from now on, just because I can.

 

[mdrummer5]

In the back pain claim, it is an experience that one cannot share with others.

Not entirely true.

If I go to the gym and I try to deadlift 1000lbs and keep trying until I hear a pop… we all KNOW that’s going to hurt. I can’t let someone else feel that pain but I bet if they do the same thing… it’s going to hurt.

Believers go to Church because we feel connected to God despite not being able to prove his existence. You can bring a non-believer to mass every Sunday for years and there’s no guarantee that they’re going to start believing because they may never feel that connection.

We all KNOW pain exists… those of us that believe have FAITH that God does. Knowing something exists and having faith that something does while similar are NOT the same thing.

 

[vz71]

Not entirely true.

If I go to the gym and I try to deadlift 1000lbs and keep trying until I hear a pop… we all KNOW that’s going to hurt. I can’t let someone else feel that pain but I bet if they do the same thing… it’s going to hurt.

But your hurt is not my back pain; it is yours.
Only my back pain is mine.

 

[mdrummer5]

But your hurt is not my back pain; it is yours.
Only my back pain is mine.

It’s still not the same thing. I will concede that yes the pain would be different but there’s no denying it would be there.

Let’s not consider it as a counter-argument in fact, take it out of the current context and consider, say… a sledgehammer to the kneecap (horribly violent but for reason) if JoeBob hit you in the knee with a sledgehammer as hard as he could and Steve said “prove to me that hurts” you’d look at him like he’s retarded wouldn’t you? because it’s a retarded argument. Because you can easily say “if you don’t believe me let JoeBob hit YOU in the kneecap with a sledgehammer and see how it feels” he’s going to pass because he knows it’ll hurt.

You can’t do that with God. I believe in God but if someone says to me “prove to me that God exists” I can show them the signs I believe came from God but they’ll see them as nothing more than matters of coincidence.

Again, this argument is stupid. This kind of argument is why people think that some Christians are stupid or illogical in the way they present their beliefs because some of them are.

 

[AntiTheist]

The claims are different, but the standard of evidence remains the same.
In the back pain claim, it is an experience that one cannot share with others.
No matter what I do, I simply cannot make you experience my back pain.
Likewise with God.

No. You don’t comprehend the objection.

The first claim is about your inner state, and as such, the only evidence necessary to confirm it is your observation of your inner state.

The second claim is not a claim about your inner state – it is a claim about a supposedly external entity, and as such, your observation of your inner state is insufficient to demonstrate the claim.

Now, if you want to argue that “An experience that I call ‘talking to god on the spiritual level’ exists,” then yes, you can demonstrate that to yourself. But an inner experience that you label “talking to god on the spiritual level” is not the same thing as an external being.

To put it another way, a child has a real experience of talking to an imaginary friend, but the imaginary friend is not a real external being that exists apart from that child’s mind.

mdrummer5:

Again, this argument is stupid. This kind of argument is why people think that some Christians are stupid or illogical in the way they present their beliefs because some of them are.

Absolutely correct. I have very much enjoyed your posts. I like your no-nonsense style.