Before We Discuss Whether God Exists, I Have A Question

[Whateverist]

What exactly are we meant to do with someone else's "personal experience"?

If you have to ask it isn't working.  I think you're supposed to validate it by submerging yourself into the group hallucination.  Rebel.

[LadyForCamus]

@Theists

For all these supposed miracles and healings god is doing, how come he’s never re-grown a limb? Limb reattachment is conspicuously missing from the long list of supposed medical miracles that defy modern medicine.

[SteveII]

I have over the years gotten  tired of discussng whether there is a god, with well meaning relatives.  I have a new program.  I say,

I would like to (1) believe in god, if god exists; and  (2) to not believe in god, if God does not exist.  Can you say the same?  If the answer is "no,"  I refuse to discuss the matter as we have left the realm of what is in favor of we would like to be.  

I've tried this just three times now. The answer has never been flat out no at least not initially.  Instead, the responses have been:  but you are trying to take away my faith; Pascal's Wager; and I just know he does.  To which I respond, that unless you are willing to consider the possibility there is no god, than there is no point in the dicussion.   It isn't perfect, but so far this works better than anything I've tried yet.

You are simply saying you want to have a true belief. But because of the nature of the subject, certainty one way or the other is simply not possible. However, you don't want to grant your opponent that, so you (disingenuously) have set yourself up to be the one who looks like you are the only one with an open mind. In other words, the question of the existence of God is a probabilistic one, and to demand certainty is clearly unwarranted. 

Inherent in your question is the idea that some sort of proof is available. What exactly do you mean by proof? It seems there are different kinds of proof.

* Scientific proof
* Historical proof
* Logical proofs (both deductive and inductive)
* Proof resulting from personal experience

There also also different thresholds of proof:

* Possible
* More likely than not (preponderance of the evidence)
* Beyond reasonable doubt
* Absolute certainty

These lists result in 16 different combinations alone (and I'm sure I missed some). What combination(s) do you think is the minimum necessary for a basic belief to be reasonable? See, that's the crux of this whole debate: proof is demanded but atheists typically use the wrong combination of kind/threshold so they can claim--"see, no proof".

---

What exactly are we meant to do with someone else's "personal experience"?

No one is qualified to conclude that any particular occurrence was the result of a cause which hasn't yet been shown to be real in the first place. At best it's just unexplained.

That's one concise question begging argument. We can't consider a supernatural cause in event xyz because supernatural events have not been shown to happen. 

It's funny how all this magic stuff occurring everywhere around believers has completely avoided me the entire 40 years I've been on this planet. Why is that, I wonder?

How do you know? There could have been a 100,000 supernatural causes in and around your life. They are not all big flashy events with lights and smoke. A simple encounter, a delay, whatever. What if the effect God was after is a long way off? Why not 100 years from now? You can believe there are none but you cannot logically conclude that there were none. I would make the argument that if God exists and has a directed purpose for mankind, then it is very likely that you have been affected by supernatural causation in your life.

[robvalue]

Every time God intervenes he is patching a hole in his supposedly perfect plan. I like being a little bitch to God. He loves it too.

I dunno, I just... how can people seriously think the most powerful being that could ever exist is following them around doing magic tricks and locating car keys?

[SteveII]

@Theists

For all these supposed miracles and healings god is doing, how come he’s never re-grown a limb?  Limb reattachment is conspicuously missing from the long list of supposed medical miracles that defy modern medicine.

First, are you sure? Jesus put a man's ear back on. He was reported to have healed many lame and crippled people who were brought to him. Why would your exempt amputees from this list? How do you know there have never been the case of a lost limb being restored, ever?

Second, you could insert like a thousand things into that sentence. Why not any of those? 

Third, your point is a very basic argument from silence. 

However, in case you are interested in a discussion I will give you my thoughts on miracles in the NT versus miracles today:

Regarding the NT: These were big, purposeful (had context, taught lessons, proved a point), witnessed (many by large groups), and had theological significance (backed up Jesus' claim to be God, means of redemption. We do not see these types of miracles anymore. This is also a reason I am not going to argue if so and so's brain tumor disappeared as a result of supernatural intervention. These types are not miracles "addressed to the world" but rather personal events that in contrast to the NT events are small, for purposes that are not apparent to the everyone, and only have narrow (perhaps only personal) theological significance.

---

Every time God intervenes he is patching a hole in his supposedly perfect plan. I like being a little bitch to God. He loves it too.

I dunno, I just... how can people seriously think the most powerful being that could ever exist is following them around doing magic tricks and locating car keys?

You would need there to be no free will to make that "perfect plan" argument. Everything bit of data and all of our intuitions points to the fact that there is, so...

Regarding "magic tricks and car keys"--I firmly believe that people over ascribe events/happenstance/coincidences to God--every day. So what? Does not change the possibility.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Jenny A. raises the issue of intellectual honesty. Her question tacitly assumes that there are absolute truths, since if there were no absolute truths then one could be neither honest nor dishonest. I’ll leave it at that.

[Mister Agenda]

You are simply saying you want to have a true belief. But because of the nature of the subject, certainty one way or the other is simply not possible. However, you don't want to grant your opponent that, so you (disingenuously) have set yourself up to be the one who looks like you are the only one with an open mind. In other words, the question of the existence of God is a probabilistic one, and to demand certainty is clearly unwarranted. 

Have you ever engaged Drich or GC? They seem to possess the certainty that you claim is not possible. The proposed question merely addresses whether we're addressing someone like you or someone like them.

There are people who are absurdly certain in both camps, so the question could be turned around; but let's face it, you're just less likely to be talking to a gnostic atheist than an agnostic one.

[Jenny A]

I have over the years gotten  tired of discussng whether there is a god, with well meaning relatives.  I have a new program.  I say,

I would like to (1) believe in god, if god exists; and  (2) to not believe in god, if God does not exist.  Can you say the same?  If the answer is "no,"  I refuse to discuss the matter as we have left the realm of what is in favor of we would like to be.  

I've tried this just three times now. The answer has never been flat out no at least not initially.  Instead, the responses have been:  but you are trying to take away my faith; Pascal's Wager; and I just know he does.  To which I respond, that unless you are willing to consider the possibility there is no god, than there is no point in the dicussion.   It isn't perfect, but so far this works better than anything I've tried yet.

You are simply saying you want to have a true belief. But because of the nature of the subject, certainty one way or the other is simply not possible. However, you don't want to grant your opponent that, so you (disingenuously) have set yourself up to be the one who looks like you are the only one with an open mind. In other words, the question of the existence of God is a probabilistic one, and to demand certainty is clearly unwarranted. 

Inherent in your question is the idea that some sort of proof is available. What exactly do you mean by proof? It seems there are different kinds of proof.

* Scientific proof
* Historical proof
* Logical proofs (both deductive and inductive)
* Proof resulting from personal experience

There also also different thresholds of proof:

* Possible
* More likely than not (preponderance of the evidence)
* Beyond reasonable doubt
* Absolute certainty

These lists result in 16 different combinations alone (and I'm sure I missed some). What combination(s) do you think is the minimum necessary for a basic belief to be reasonable? See, that's the crux of this whole debate: proof is demanded but atheists typically use the wrong combination of kind/threshold so they can claim--"see, no proof".

---

What exactly are we meant to do with someone else's "personal experience"?

No one is qualified to conclude that any particular occurrence was the result of a cause which hasn't yet been shown to be real in the first place. At best it's just unexplained.

That's one concise question begging argument. We can't consider a supernatural cause in event xyz because supernatural events have not been shown to happen. 

It's funny how all this magic stuff occurring everywhere around believers has completely avoided me the entire 40 years I've been on this planet. Why is that, I wonder?

How do you know? There could have been a 100,000 supernatural causes in and around your life. They are not all big flashy events with lights and smoke. A simple encounter, a delay, whatever. What if the effect God was after is a long way off? Why not 100 years from now? You can believe there are none but you cannot logically conclude that there were none. I would make the argument that if God exists and has a directed purpose for mankind, then it is very likely that you have been affected by supernatural causation in your life.

You are correct in saying that I want to have a true belief.  That is the crux of it.  Regardless of whether it is possible to know for certain, I still want my belief to be correct.  Not everyone does.  Which is why it is so hard to get Christians to say, "If god does not exist, I don't want to believe in him." It is my way of determing if you all really want to know.  If you don't, then you can't discuss the evidence honestly.   

Some people don't want to know if they have cancer AIDS.  Some people don't want to know if a loved one suffered in death, or if their spouse cheated on them.  

This isn't the only question that people sometimes don't want the answer to.  Just recently we offered a 23 and Me kit to Mr. A's dad.  He declined the offer because his nephew had taken the test and came back only 1/4  English.  Mr. A Senior's parents were both English so he expected his nephew to be around 1/2 English.  This leads Mr. A Senior to suspect, rightly or wrongly, that his mother had an affair.  He would rather not have proof one way or the other.  So he will not take the test and has asked Mr. A not to tell him his results.  He would prefer, as his says, not to know if his mother had had an affair.  It would disturb his memory of her.  I'm not going to discuss it with him.


Like theists who will not say that they want to believe there is no god, if there isn't one, they prefer believing one thing, without examining the other possibility.  And that's fine, as long as the don't want to discuss the possibilities with me.

[Succubus]

I'm not sure that's true.

All you could test for was a known naturalistic cause. Absent that, most atheists will just claim miracles have unknown naturalistic causes.

And you accuse other of question begging!
The means by which miracles occur are completely irrelevant until you first show  a miracle has taken place then we can discuss the cause. To date there is no evidence that such an event has ever happened.  

Most atheists deny the personal experiences of Christians as some sort of delusion/misrepresentation/misunderstanding/confusion. There is nothing to 'test' because the other side of the equation is supernatural and as a result, cannot be detected in a lab.

If the supernatural were real it would be trivially easy to detect.

[Jenny A]

Jenny A. raises the issue of intellectual honesty. Her question tacitly assumes that there are absolute truths, since if there were no absolute truths then one could be neither honest nor dishonest. I’ll leave it at that.

It does assume that there is or isn't god.  I'd be interested to know if you think there is a third possibility?  Doubt about which answer is correct is certainly possible. The question is do you want to make your choice the answer that is most likely to be true  even if that turns out to that there is no god.  

If not, and you are a relative of mine likely to be distressed by the conversation, and believe me, conversations between close relatives about a God some of them believe in and some of them don't can be distressing, then I don't want to have the conversation with you.

I continue to be amused at the number of Christians who are not my relatives, who both want to play, but are unwilling to say that little sentence.