Why do you think any kind of experience no matter how miraculous, is evidence for God?

Surely the more ridiculous the experience, the more likely that you are delusion/hallucinating/mistaken somehow.

No matter how absurd something is I will believe it if there is enough evidence, but the more absurd and improbable the more evidence I will require.

You don't believe in an invisible man in the sky? Well that's all very well but personification is all over the Bible. God is considered to be a "he" and is personified in the Bible.

But whether he is a person in the sky or not makes no difference to the fact he's still a deity and still improbable either way. Where is the evidence?

Why do you think personal experience is valid evidence? Surely that evidence is incredibly weak considering we need much better evidence in that for science.... and even scientific evidence is not enough for God because he is unreachable for it. God - as in, any deity - or the Christian one in this case - is extremely complex with his attributes because they don't just come from nowhere and they're not just there right from the beginning. This requires insanely strong evidence - evidence so strong I can't think of any strong enough - as I said, even scientific evidence is insufficient for God. So if you don't have strong enough evidence why believe? Personal experience is very weak evidence, much to weak for science in and of itself (as in the anecdote of a scientist is not evidence...) at the very least. If personal experience is too weak a form of evidence for science then it's certainly too weak for The Supernatural. The natural world is already observed and understood by science somewhat... it is much more reasonable and yet that demands strong evidence. The supernatural - as in God, as in deities - as in anything 'miraculous' at all be it good or bad connotations - demands even stronger.

EvF

(February 11, 2010 at 10:09 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Why do you think personal experience is valid evidence?

Evie, could you please explain how you view the term "personal experience" and distinguish it from what is done in science? It seems to me that any scientific observation would fall under "personal experience" for the observer such that all scientific evidence IS based on "personal experience" for someone. I suspect you view things differently, hence my question.

By personal experience I mean experience that is said to be personal and said that it cannot be understood by others. It is true to them. Others need to have the 'personal' (kind of "special" supposedly) experience in order for them to understand otherwise the person who has had the "personal experience" is just not able to be argued with. Personal experience cannot be tested properly, repeated, demonstrated - unlike science.

EvF

(February 11, 2010 at 10:43 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: By personal experience I mean experience that is said to be personal and said that it cannot be understood by others. It is true to them. Others need to have the 'personal' (kind of "special" supposedly) experience in order for them to understand otherwise the person who has had the "personal experience" is just not able to be argued with. Personal experience cannot be tested properly, repeated, demonstrated - unlike science.

EvF

Thanks.

(February 11, 2010 at 10:09 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Why do you think any kind of experience no matter how miraculous, is evidence for God?

Surely the more ridiculous the experience, the more likely that you are delusion/hallucinating/mistaken somehow.

Well, as per my example earlier in this topic, it is not necessarily that the experience is ridiculous or absurd at all. There can be nothing apparently 'miraculous' about the experience, but when one examines the experience itself, they find there was something...there, all along.

Quote:No matter how absurd something is I will believe it if there is enough evidence, but the more absurd and improbable the more evidence I will require.

You don't believe in an invisible man in the sky? Well that's all very well but personification is all over the Bible. God is considered to be a "he" and is personified in the Bible.

"He" is not personified in any particular form or limited idea, however, even when he takes physical manifestation. This is because, He's God. He is a part of everything.

You don't think he has the capability(supposing he exists) to personify Himself as something corporeal, something etheral, or something just plain non-physical(such as the smile of a stranger, a warm breeze, an unexplainable feeling or even the atmosphere around you[it's very hard to describe what I mean])?

Personally, I like to think of God in an older brother sort of sense, rather than a Fatherly sense. Simply because I have found the bond between brothers in real life to be very strong.

Quote:But whether he is a person in the sky or not makes no difference to the fact he's still a deity and still improbable either way. Where is the evidence?

The problem comes in labeling him a deity, or using mislading terms such as "Son of God", "Living God" etc., etc. This particular deity is meant to be a part of everything on this earth. Literally, God is life, love, and everything in between.

Quote:Why do you think personal experience is valid evidence? Surely that evidence is incredibly weak considering we need much better evidence in that for science.... and even scientific evidence is not enough for God because he is unreachable for it. God - as in, any deity - or the Christian one in this case - is extremely complex with his attributes because they don't just come from nowhere and they're not just there right from the beginning.

That's the thing about God- he is not complex, not in His mannerisms, His attrbutes, or His existance. It is merely an attempt to 'science-ify'(pardon) that makes himseem complex.

Quote:This requires insanely strong evidence - evidence so strong I can't think of any strong enough - as I said, even scientific evidence is insufficient for God. So if you don't have strong enough evidence why believe? Personal experience is very weak evidence, much to weak for science in and of itself (as in the anecdote of a scientist is not evidence...) at the very least. If personal experience is too weak a form of evidence for science then it's certainly too weak for The Supernatural. The natural world is already observed and understood by science somewhat... it is much more reasonable and yet that demands strong evidence. The supernatural - as in God, as in deities - as in anything 'miraculous' at all be it good or bad connotations - demands even stronger.

I understand where you are coming from and I'm glad for the respectful response. But please, in your search for evidence, keep in mind that there is more than one way to acquire evidence, and there is more than one kind of evidence!

As I said with the snow flakes, the experience itself can be had in infinite combinations, but it is recognizing and understanding that what you've just seen and felt is a snow flake that makes it a snow flake.

Our perception of a snowflake does not a snowflake make.
There are millinons of square miles of snow that were there before anyone was around to perceive it.
What was your point?

(February 11, 2010 at 7:56 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

---

So I bring up many many points why fr0d0 has repeatedly dodged, not just dodging now but also overtime, and been inconsistent... where fr0d0 has posted statements like "God doesn't exist... he just is" - which is a nonsensical statement of course... a contradiction - and his response to me is that he's answered it all before. Well, fr0d0, which response(s) are you talking about? Your "answers" contradict each other. You claim to have evidence of at least some form. I ask for it and you say there can't be any. This happens over and over. Stop messing around it's ridiculous.

I am not surprised you're backing out now fr0d0... I've gave you too much of your own confusion and/or inconsistencies for you to deal with.

Oh and btw fr0d0 - you have failed to explain why God is any less absurd than the FSM. The fact he's written in the book doesn't make him less absurd... in fact - the FSM is in a book too! Be it parody or not that doesn't somehow magically make God any more probable. You say the FSM is not serious proposition... indeed it isn't - but the whole point is you've failed to explain why God is any more reasonable at all.
EvF

---

Wow that was low Evie. I've never seen you be cowardly before.

I answered your question immediately (the one you asked in this thread and not the questions you've asked over the last year which I also addressed fully this week with no response from you).

I answered it immediately and you didn't reply, but petered out the conversation only to bring it up again at the end. Still you didn't respond to my first reply. Yes I know it's your game to just throw in shite like a smokescreen... that always seems to be your tactic.

As for your heroic uncovering of me dodging... it seems you failed by a long chalk every time.

So stuff your shite summation and go address some points rationally you weasel.

(February 11, 2010 at 2:13 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Our perception of a snowflake does not a snowflake make.
There are millinons of square miles of snow that were there before anyone was around to perceive it.
What was your point?

Really, there were? Kindly point out these millions of miles of snow that were there before I got there and prove to me they were there before I got there, so that I may go and see them.

What was your point?

(February 11, 2010 at 4:44 pm)Watson Wrote:

(February 11, 2010 at 2:13 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Our perception of a snowflake does not a snowflake make.
There are millinons of square miles of snow that were there before anyone was around to perceive it.
What was your point?

Really, there were? Kindly point out these millions of miles of snow that were there before I got there and prove to me they were there before I got there, so that I may go and see them.

What was your point?

Is that really your standard of belief? Because, if so, guess what I want similar evidence of...

(February 11, 2010 at 4:46 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote:

(February 11, 2010 at 4:44 pm)Watson Wrote:

(February 11, 2010 at 2:13 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Our perception of a snowflake does not a snowflake make.
There are millinons of square miles of snow that were there before anyone was around to perceive it.
What was your point?

Really, there were? Kindly point out these millions of miles of snow that were there before I got there and prove to me they were there before I got there, so that I may go and see them.

What was your point?

Is that really your standard of belief? Because, if so, guess what I want similar evidence of...

No. The sarcasm was in-laid so as to say "Unless you've perceived it, it doesn't exist." Of course, the only way to for one moment perceive the thing is to believe it exists...