Evidence god does not exist

[Paul the Human]

A large number of people that believe something doesn't make that something true, Watson. You know that.

And when I say 'validated by others', I mean something as simple as: You claim that your god speaks to you. Someone else hears him speak to you. Now someone else has validated your claim. That wouldn't be enough (one other person heard it), but that's the kind of validation I mean. It doesn't matter how many people claim that their god speaks to them... no one else ever seems to hear this amazing thing happen. I find that I cannot believe these people are being truthful. It they think that they are... well... then it's more likely that they are suffering a delusion that that a god spoke to them.

[Watson]

That's an entirely contradictory thing to say though, Paul. And you know that.

If a large enough number of people claim to have experienced something, it doesn't make it true. Right. But if a large enough number of people claim to have experienced something that is legitimately outside of their subjective view, yet still observable, then there are two options; accept that there is something objective, and therefore permanently outside of our simple comprehension; or deny an objective entirely and destroy your point of others being able to validate something for you.

If you deny an objective reality outside of our own subjective experience, then you imply that all of us are simply running around with meaningless, subjective standpoints that have no bearing on one another.

If you acknowledge and accept an objective reality, then it is reasonable to consider the possibility of a God or Gods, because an objective reality is in line with the idea and structure of a God or God-like being.

[Paul the Human]

Whether or not there is an 'objective reality' outside of my 'subjective experience' is something that I'll leave to quantum science to ascertain. Heheh.

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying, but I'll elaborate a bit on what I'm saying. If the only evidence you have for the existence of 'god' is your own personal experience... and no one else else can corroborate your claim... I have no personal reason to believe it's true. I believe that you believe it's true... but not that you're correct.

[Captain Scarlet]

There is no objective evidence for anything, Zen, since all of our experiences are limited to the subjective. If there exists objective evidence for something, and it can be shown as such quite clearly to the person experiencing it, then it becomes quite plausible to begin wondering about a God or Gods in relation to this evidence.

Watson on one hand you claim there are no reasonable grounds for unbelief and there is plenty of evidence for a god if we open our eyes and stop being in denial. Then you claim that all our experiences are subjective. I can't see how you can reconcile these positions?

If your evidence for god is objective, it would therefore validate your argument and be available to us all(not sure what that evidence is but anyway), or it is subjective and valueless as a truth claim.

On this basis I would say there are unchallengabley strong grounds for reasonable unbelief and therefore the claim that a god is all living is empty.

[Watson]

And as I pointed out, I have plenty of people to corroborate my claim. Millions, billions even, claim that they feel, see, are affected by, or otherwise experience God every single day. These experiences are, in some cases, so frighteningly similar to my own that it is ridiculous to write them off simply as coincidence. Given the sheer chances, it just isn't rational to do so.

What I'm saying is that if you want to argue corroboration and validation of thought, you have to look into the enormous amount of people who do believe in some form of God or Gods. As a man of science, it is important that you research such a wide-spread claim!

Unless you deny an objective reality, in which case you're reasons for not believing- that of wanting corroboration for claims made- is invalidated because a world where only subjective experience exists cannot rely on outside subjective ideas to make itself work.

I hope that makes sense to you, Paul. I did my best.

@Cap'n Scarlet- I never made the claim that reality is entirely subjective. I argued from a viewpoint which suggested as such, but I do not agree with that view. I am suggesting that since God is objective, thsoe who claim experience with God are dipping into His nature, and therefore expanding into an objective perspective on things.

[Paul the Human]

Yes, but that is still using the 'argument ad populum'. Just because a lot of people imagine the same thing, doesn't make that thing true. Why would so many people have similar 'experiences'? Perhaps they were all raised to believe in such things. Perhaps they were all indoctrinated into similar belief systems.

The point being... this line of thought does not provide me with a reason to believe in magic and superstition. There are far too many other and more likely explanations.

[Watson]

Argument ad populum simply does not apply when we are talking about people in such vast quantities with such vastly different backgrounds. It is entirely possible that a person could believe something because they were raised to believe it, but ultimately it is a personal choice to believe something or not. It is not a decision made for some one, it cannot be.

"Statistics mean nothing to the individual."

The experiences themselves occured, that much is undeniable if you accept that there is an objective reality. You cannot statictic-ize such a large number of people, however, as being delusional or believing for the wrong reasons. It is simply too broad a generalization.

[Paul the Human]

The experiences themselves occured, that much is undeniable if you accept that there is an objective reality.

The claims of said 'experience' exist. When someone makes such a claim (My god speaks to me), there are three possibilities:
1. His god spoke to him.
2. He suffers from a delusion.
3. He's lying.

I certainly see no compelling reason to believe his claim. It is, by far, the least likely thing to be true.

You cannot statictic-ize such a large number of people, however, as being delusional or believing for the wrong reasons. It is simply too broad a generalization.

And so is saying that they have all had actual personal experience of their god. There are only two other options, remember.

[Watson]

1. Plausible, given the enormous amount of other people who also make similar claims. On a personal level, it must be investigated; what did he experience? And more importantly, what does he think God said to him?
2. Also plausible, given that humans have an enormous capacity for self-delusion. Again, it must be investigated and compared to other claims of the sort, and questions must be asked.
3. Again, just as plausible, given that humans lie a lot. And again, it must be investigated as a personal case and compared to other, similar cases.

I am not making the claim that all 5 billion people have truly had the experience with God that they think they have. Often, these things are far too subjectively interpretable to be sure. But you cannot write the belief the people have in these experiences as simply delusional, because to suggest that so many are delusional is preposterous and unlikely.

[Captain Scarlet]

Argument ad populum simply does not apply when we are talking about people in such vast quantities with such vastly different backgrounds. It is entirely possible that a person could believe something because they were raised to believe it, but ultimately it is a personal choice to believe something or not. It is not a decision made for some one, it cannot be.

"Statistics mean nothing to the individual."

The experiences themselves occured, that much is undeniable if you accept that there is an objective reality. You cannot statictic-ize such a large number of people, however, as being delusional or believing for the wrong reasons. It is simply too broad a generalization.

The argument from personal experience for the existence of god is self refuting. Millions of people have experiences of all sorts of dieties and have done so throughout recorded history. Allow one expereince, allow them all and therefore all religions are true and therefore all are false.

Finally you cannot dismiss those who directly apprehend the non existence of god. If you would like an example try the letters of Mother Teresa writing to the Catholic hierarchy. Only these are dismissed as evidence of suffering. Clear confirmation bias.

Still heard no reason why reasonable unbelief is unsound and therefore god cannot be all loving.