new thread for old RE: Atheists, what do you believe is the best argument for the existence of a deity?

[Mark 13:13]

I in my ignorance committed the faux pas of necroposting and have been politely asked to start a new one so I have.

the discussion from my input on was as follows

RE: Atheists, what do you believe is the best argument for the existence of a deity?
(Today 09:12)Zen Badger Wrote:
(Today 09:09)Mark 13:13 Wrote:
The best arguement for the existence of God is personal experience; it may not convince other people but it sure as hell is much stronger than any amount of wonderfully crafted words and logic, if anything all the arguement really can act as a barrier to people really opening themselves to personal experience.

So when a serial killer says that god commanded him to commit his crimes we should take his word for it then?
Nope but if he really believed God spoke to him then trying to convince him otherwise will take some doing. Now Zen I'm going to challenge you with an extreme example and ask you to be honest and suspend your disbelief for a moment. If you were alive and an apostle of Jesus Christ and you watched him die on the cross and then met him again a few days later and chatted with him in the company of others and later again watched Jesus ascend into the sky. Could any evidence anyone try to give you that it didn't happen convince you otherwise, would you face death and still not change your mind?

RE: Atheists, what do you believe is the best argument for the existence of a deity?
(Today 09:30)Mark 13:13 Wrote:
(Today 09:12)Zen Badger Wrote:
So when a serial killer says that god commanded him to commit his crimes we should take his word for it then?
Nope but if he really believed God spoke to him then trying to convince him otherwise will take some doing. Now Zen I'm going to challenge you with an extreme example and ask you to be honest and suspend your disbelief for a moment. If you were alive and an apostle of Jesus Christ and you watched him die on the cross and then met him again a few days later and chatted with him in the company of others and later again watched Jesus ascend into the sky. Could any evidence anyone try to give you that it didn't happen convince you otherwise, would you face death and still not change your mind?

Let's stick to the original question shall we....

So why we accept your "revelation" of god but not the serial killers?

In both cases your claims have equal evidence and validity.

So why yours and not his?

my response now

I am not changing the question but rather an creating a hypothetical situation in order to demonstate why when it come to a persons belief the subjective experience is often the over-riding reason for the belief over any amount of objective arguement. How the person gets to that subjective experience well now that's a whole new can of worms. So just to make me a little happier even though you don't see the point, please answer the hypothetical question asked and you can put that on your list of good deeds for the day.

[FallentoReason]

Ahem, if I may...

The hypothetical is a red herring. Unfortunately, "Mark's" Gospel (the first one written) doesn't contain any resurrection accounts like the one you've described.

EDIT: it's like when I came out of the closet to my friends and one of them asked "ok, so hypothetically, what would you say to Jesus when he returns"? It's a hypothetical void of any meaning until the Christian can provide the evidence that Jesus of the Bible existed as described.

[Zen Badger]

I in my ignorance committed the faux pas of necroposting and have been politely asked to start a new one so I have.

the discussion from my input on was as follows

RE: Atheists, what do you believe is the best argument for the existence of a deity?
(Today 09:12)Zen Badger Wrote:
(Today 09:09)Mark 13:13 Wrote:
The best arguement for the existence of God is personal experience; it may not convince other people but it sure as hell is much stronger than any amount of wonderfully crafted words and logic, if anything all the arguement really can act as a barrier to people really opening themselves to personal experience.

So when a serial killer says that god commanded him to commit his crimes we should take his word for it then?
Nope but if he really believed God spoke to him then trying to convince him otherwise will take some doing. Now Zen I'm going to challenge you with an extreme example and ask you to be honest and suspend your disbelief for a moment. If you were alive and an apostle of Jesus Christ and you watched him die on the cross and then met him again a few days later and chatted with him in the company of others and later again watched Jesus ascend into the sky. Could any evidence anyone try to give you that it didn't happen convince you otherwise, would you face death and still not change your mind?

RE: Atheists, what do you believe is the best argument for the existence of a deity?
(Today 09:30)Mark 13:13 Wrote:
(Today 09:12)Zen Badger Wrote:
So when a serial killer says that god commanded him to commit his crimes we should take his word for it then?
Nope but if he really believed God spoke to him then trying to convince him otherwise will take some doing. Now Zen I'm going to challenge you with an extreme example and ask you to be honest and suspend your disbelief for a moment. If you were alive and an apostle of Jesus Christ and you watched him die on the cross and then met him again a few days later and chatted with him in the company of others and later again watched Jesus ascend into the sky. Could any evidence anyone try to give you that it didn't happen convince you otherwise, would you face death and still not change your mind?

Let's stick to the original question shall we....

So why we accept your "revelation" of god but not the serial killers?

In both cases your claims have equal evidence and validity.

So why yours and not his?

my response now

I am not changing the question but rather an creating a hypothetical situation in order to demonstate why when it come to a persons belief the subjective experience is often the over-riding reason for the belief over any amount of objective arguement. How the person gets to that subjective experience well now that's a whole new can of worms. So just to make me a little happier even though you don't see the point, please answer the hypothetical question asked and you can put that on your list of good deeds for the day.

I've already filled my quota of good deeds for the day so....... no.

Now answer my question please.

[Mark 13:13]

Ahem, if I may...

The hypothetical is a red herring. Unfortunately, "Mark's" Gospel (the first one written) doesn't contain any resurrection accounts like the one you've described.

EDIT: it's like when I came out of the closet to my friends and one of them asked "ok, so hypothetically, what would you say to Jesus when he returns"? It's a hypothetical void of any meaning until the Christian can provide the evidence that Jesus of the Bible existed as described.

Ok if I changed it to a flying saucer and a trip to crapandria the 2nd planet in the dobobian system would it be more acceptable. the point I'm trying to demonstrate is personal experience trumps any other proof which is why I see so often the reply "why doesn't God just show himself clearly" which is just an allusion to "give me a personal experience of God and I will then believe."

---

Ahem, if I may...

The hypothetical is a red herring. Unfortunately, "Mark's" Gospel (the first one written) doesn't contain any resurrection accounts like the one you've described.

EDIT: it's like when I came out of the closet to my friends and one of them asked "ok, so hypothetically, what would you say to Jesus when he returns"? It's a hypothetical void of any meaning until the Christian can provide the evidence that Jesus of the Bible existed as described.

Of course you may-and btw happy new year
Ok if I changed it to a flying saucer and a trip to crapandria the 2nd planet in the dobobian system would it be more acceptable. the point I'm trying to demonstrate is personal experience trumps any other proof which is why I see so often the reply "why doesn't God just show himself clearly" which is just an allusion to "give me a personal experience of God and I will then believe."

[FallentoReason]

Ok if I changed it to a flying saucer and a trip to crapandria the 2nd planet in the dobobian system would it be more acceptable. the point I'm trying to demonstrate is personal experience trumps any other proof which is why I see so often the reply "why doesn't God just show himself clearly" which is just an allusion to "give me a personal experience of God and I will then believe."

If personal experience is a valid form of proof, then there's a mind-blowing 3 000+ gods that exist.

What separates you from the guy next to you claiming that Allah/Krishna/YHWH/Zoroaster proved their existence to them?

[Mark 13:13]

In reply to both Zen and Fallen ; and what seperates me or makes me different. From your perspective nothing but your subjective view and judgement of me from what you see and hear from me and about me through the lens of your experiences and beliefs . as far as subjectivity being a form of proof I never said it can be accepted as a proof in the sense you apply just that personal experience is what people tend to put their greatest trust in.

[Minimalist]

just that personal experience is what people tend to put their greatest trust in.

Usually mistakenly.

[Whateverist]

In reply to both Zen and Fallen ; and what seperates me or makes me different. From your perspective nothing but your subjective view and judgement of me from what you see and hear from me and about me through the lens of your experiences and beliefs . as far as subjectivity being a form of proof I never said it can be accepted as a proof in the sense you apply just that personal experience is what people tend to put their greatest trust in.

But then, realizing that trusting subjective experience has led individuals in 2800 different belief systems to believe in different gods, doesn't it at least make you wonder if your standard for belief is too low?

In experiencing a hallucination, perception doesn't have to result in cognitive acceptance. The first time I had acid was with a young woman I visited at the house she lived in on the beach. I brought her a picture I'd drawn of her running across the night sky in front of an old tree in which I'd drawn her hair as the tail of a comet. She pinned it up when I first came in. After taking the acid we decided to go for a walk. At the door, I saw in my drawing that the figure I'd drawn of her was actually running. Realizing I was experiencing a hallucination, I looked closer. Every line I'd drawn looked like blood vein under magnification. I could see blood and light coursing through each one. At that time, I couldn't look at it without seeing this but at no point did I think it was objectively happening. Perception need not equal cognition, and seeing need not be believing.

So, one way to respond to a private religious experience is to accept it on face value. But another way is to reflect on the fact that other people having their own private experiences aren't getting the same message you are, so perhaps the mystery goes deeper than the particular manifestation that it presents to you. It is okay to decide "this is the coolest thing that ever happened to me and I want to live the rest of my life around what I felt in this moment", but it isn't the only possible reaction.

[Cato]

I don't think anyone is denying the fact that people believe in things that cannot be demonstrated outside personal experience, but this belief does not constitute evidence for the existence of the thing believed. The evolved abilities of belief and pattern recognition combined with the well established idea of self-deception results in people believing all manner of things: bigfoot, alien visitors, homeopathic remedies, apocalyptic prognostications, etc.

Here's a good primer:
http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shermer...ption.html

More in depth reading:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-deception/

[Deicide73]

There are none. Personal experience or 2nd. and 3rd. person accounts are the worst forms of "proof." The reason is that they are unverifiable. A co-worker and I have had a many discussions about this topic and he has been unable to bring evidence to back up his claims. You can take these claims at face value all you want, but it is not proof.