(September 5, 2014 at 10:53 am)Michael Wrote: So far I have given the universe as evidence for (not proof of) a creator. I have given the sense of the numinous and subsequently changed lives as evidence for (not proof of) the numen. The question then is whether we can then test these with science (as that is what I was asked to do) . I don't know of a way we can, but I'm interested in any ideas.

What would a universe look like that is not created?

For our universe to be evidence of a creator, you'd have to be able to have examples of a non-created universe as a comparison.

If your god interferes with the universe (causes miracles, answers prayers, communicates with people, etc), these are testable claims.

Quote:But I'll offer you a third evidence that is specific to the Christian faith if you like. And that is the evidence of reports that Jesus Christ, who is reported as saying he is one with God and was sent by God, rose from the dead. Again I do not offer this as proof, but as prima facie evidence for a God who breaks down the barrier of death.

There is so much wrong with this paragraph, I'm not sure where to start...

The Gospels were written decades or longer after the alleged events, by unknown authors. They are far from being reliable. They are hearsay, nothing more.

Quote:So the challenge given to me was to take my faith into the lab. How might I take any of these three examples of evidence (again, I fully accept they are not proof) into the lab to test whether my faith is sufficiently warranted?

P.S. I believe the sense of the numinous and a positive change in life is sufficient warrant in itself.

How would you know if you are not just being fooled by your confirmation bias coupled with some sort of natural mental state?

I have a very good friend that was pretty much down and out. Alcoholic, mostly living in the street, even some petty crimes.

One day he walked into a Hindu temple in LA and claims he had numinous, spiritual Hindu experience which caused him to almost immediately turn his life around for the positive.

He now has a great family, his own small business, owns a nice house and is still a believer.

By your standards, he has the same warrant as you claim for Christianity to justify his faith. Yet you probably believe he is mistaking.

How should we test to see whether he is right or you are?

Simon. Just to clarify something, I wasn't talking about material gain when talking about an improved life.

But, yes, how would you test between Hindhu and Christian faith in the lab? Can it be done? I'm not yet hearing anybody say faith can be tested in the lab. It seems to be the one thing we all agree on. I've given three propositions. I'm hearing a lot of objections to those propositions (natch), but I'm not hearing anybody say how they could be tested/falsified in a lab.

And on that I'm going to move on to other threads because we've given this one a good airing and we're not getting anywhere with our experimental planning.

Anyway, it's off to evening prayers for me :-) +

(September 5, 2014 at 1:21 pm)Michael Wrote: Simon. Just to clarify something, I wasn't talking about material gain when talking about an improved life.

Neither was I.

I was talking about the turn around my friend had from an unhappy addict living on the street, to a happy, complete, self assured human being. The material gains he has are an outgrowth of his being a happy, self-realized person.

Quote:But, yes, how would you test between Hindhu and Christian faith in the lab? Can it be done? I'm not yet hearing anybody say faith can be tested in the lab. It seems to be the one thing we all agree on. I've given three propositions. I'm hearing a lot of objections to those propositions (natch), but I'm not hearing anybody say how they could be tested/falsified in a lab.

The thing you are missing, is that there is no need to test faith, because there is nothing to test. In reality, it looks like nothing more than gullibility and believing things with no good reasons.

Your claim that you and other people of faith get positive things out of it, does not offer a shred of evidence that the thing you have faith in actually exists.

Cato: I hear you. You don't like the way I argue or what I argue about. Got it. Thanks.

(September 5, 2014 at 2:54 pm)Dawsonite Wrote: Cato: I hear you. You don't like the way I argue or what I argue about. Got it. Thanks.

Ridiculous conclusion. I'll take this reply as the internet version of taking your ball and going home.

(September 5, 2014 at 2:59 pm)Cato Wrote: Ridiculous conclusion. I'll take this reply as the internet version of taking your ball and going home.

You will obviously take my reply as you see fit. I was playing someone else's ball, not my own, and I am theistically homeless.

I understand your preference to accept the so-called cosmological argument and fight the battle on a different field. I guess I am missing something in this conversation; because if my conclusion is ridiculous, I'm sure I don't know what it should have been.

Care to clarify?