Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[LadyForCamus]

[hide]You know as well as I do that one does not have to posit a formal, logical argument in order to engage in fallacious reasoning, Steve.  I asked you to describe the method you use to distinguish a supernatural cause from an ‘as of yet unexplained’ natural cause. Your answer included a real life example; that if people first prayed for a child with cancer, and then the cancer disappeared, that could be a good reason to think the cause of the healing was supernatural. You and I both know that, “because the second event followed the first” is a faulty reason to think the second event was caused by the first. Your methodology, at least in this one particular instance, is invalid by way of fallacious reasoning. I don’t see that there is much to dispute here.

Your mistake is the larger set of reasons/beliefs that form the context. It's inductive reasoning based on the fact that brain tumors do not generally disappear on their own, the belief that God exists, the belief that God can heal, and the belief that prayer is part of that process as outlined in the NT to effect that intervention. As in any inductive argument, the premises are probabilistic and the conclusions still may not be true.

And, as you well know, the fact that folks are credulous to the “supernatural” has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the truth of whether such causes exist at all, let alone whether or not such a cause is the most probable one for any given event.  To think otherwise is begging the question.  And, using prayer as “the context” (reasons) for determining “supernatural” as the cause of someone’s cancer disappearing is a post hoc ergo proctor hoc fallacy no matter how you attempt to twist your words. You have no sound, reliable methodology for distinguishing a rare medical phenomenon from a “miraculous” one, which renders the latter completely useless as an explanation.

In fact, perhaps the prayers did nothing to change the outcome--that God would have healed him anyway for some other reason. I said before, we cannot know for sure, there is no way to prove it.

 
At least you’re willing to admit that.  

Entities that exist and are therefore part of a greater reality that are not bound by the laws of nature that govern the universe. Worldviews that belief it the existence of the supernatural have a particular framework that provide context to the interaction.

What do you mean by “greater reality”?  Why would entities that exist as part of a greater reality be disqualified as “natural”?  Can you describe the positive qualities of this reality that eliminate it from the category of, “natural”?  How is it that our bodies exist in the natural world, and our souls can exist in the natural world, yet one can be detected but not the other? So many unanswered questions, Steve. 

Of course I believe in free will. So do most people...because...that is what we experience every waking moment of the day. If you are dualist, you believe the mind is a separate thing  from the brain. My particular worldview holds that that mind is our soul and that it will continue to exist after we die.

So, what I’ve learned about the supernatural in this thread:

1. It effects the natural world yet somehow cannot be observed or investigated, but we don’t have any idea how this technically works.

2. It is part of a greater reality, but we don’t know what that greater reality consists of, or how to know if science can have access to it or not, or why its disqualified from the natural fabric of reality that we currently exist within.

3. We have no positive language to describe the specific characteristics of supernatural things or entities.

And you say atheists have gaps in their world view?



PS: I’ve had some wine, so if this is less than eloquent, I sincerely apologize. 😛

[SteveII]

Your mistake is the larger set of reasons/beliefs that form the context. It's inductive reasoning based on the fact that brain tumors do not generally disappear on their own, the belief that God exists, the belief that God can heal, and the belief that prayer is part of that process as outlined in the NT to effect that intervention. As in any inductive argument, the premises are probabilistic and the conclusions still may not be true.

And, as you well know, the fact that folks are credulous to the “supernatural” has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the truth of whether such causes exist at all, let alone whether or not such a cause is the most probable one for any given event.  To think otherwise is begging the question.  And, using prayer as “the context” (reasons) for determining “supernatural” as the cause of someone’s cancer disappearing is a post hoc ergo proctor hoc fallacy no matter how you attempt to twist your words. You have no sound, reliable methodology for distinguishing a rare medical phenomenon from a “miraculous” one, which renders the latter completely useless as an explanation.

It is only begging the question if I am making an argument for the existence of the supernatural by miracles that I can't be sure are miracles. That's not what I am doing. I am saying that given that I believe in the supernatural (for other reasons) and given the background information that such events do not happen with any regularity, it is reasonable to infer that miracle x after prayer y may be supernatural. 

In fact, perhaps the prayers did nothing to change the outcome--that God would have healed him anyway for some other reason. I said before, we cannot know for sure, there is no way to prove it.

 
At least you’re willing to admit that.  

Entities that exist and are therefore part of a greater reality that are not bound by the laws of nature that govern the universe. Worldviews that belief it the existence of the supernatural have a particular framework that provide context to the interaction.

What do you mean by “greater reality”?  Why would entities that exist as part of a greater reality be disqualified as “natural”?  Can you describe the positive qualities of this reality that eliminate it from the category of, “natural”?  How is it that our bodies exist in the natural world, and our souls can exist in the natural world, yet one can be detected but not the other? So many unanswered questions, Steve.

Natural is within this universe and made up of the material things the universe is made out of and obey a certain set of laws. The supernatural is not contingent on there even being a universe. If the universe failed to exist, God, angels, demons, whatever would still exist. This automatically creates the line you are looking for. 

IMO, we are supernatural/natural hybrids. We rely on our bodies and the physical world to develop our minds (souls). God has said that that soul/mind will outlast this body and into a new body that will not die. We will still exist in a physical world (heaven as we call it). 

Of course I believe in free will. So do most people...because...that is what we experience every waking moment of the day. If you are dualist, you believe the mind is a separate thing  from the brain. My particular worldview holds that that mind is our soul and that it will continue to exist after we die.

So, what I’ve learned about the supernatural in this thread:

1. It effects the natural world yet somehow cannot be observed or investigated, but we don’t have any idea how this technically works.

2. It is part of a greater reality, but we don’t know what that greater reality consists of, or how to know if science can have access to it or not, or why its disqualified from the natural fabric of reality that we currently exist within.

3. We have no positive language to describe the specific characteristics of supernatural things or entities.

And you say atheists have gaps in their world view?

PS: I’ve had some wine, so if this is less than eloquent, I sincerely apologize. 😛

1. Yes.
2. No, science cannot and never will have access to it.
3. We have lots of descriptions of God, angels, demons, heaven, hell. What you mean by "characteristics" is a material /scientific description--see #2. 

You hold your wine well!

[Angrboda]

And, as you well know, the fact that folks are credulous to the “supernatural” has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the truth of whether such causes exist at all, let alone whether or not such a cause is the most probable one for any given event.  To think otherwise is begging the question.  And, using prayer as “the context” (reasons) for determining “supernatural” as the cause of someone’s cancer disappearing is a post hoc ergo proctor hoc fallacy no matter how you attempt to twist your words. You have no sound, reliable methodology for distinguishing a rare medical phenomenon from a “miraculous” one, which renders the latter completely useless as an explanation.

It is only begging the question if I am making an argument for the existence of the supernatural by miracles that I can't be sure are miracles. That's not what I am doing. I am saying that given that I believe in the supernatural (for other reasons) and given the background information that such events do not happen with any regularity, it is reasonable to infer that miracle x after prayer y may be supernatural. 

What was your original belief in the supernatural based on?

At least you’re willing to admit that.  


What do you mean by “greater reality”?  Why would entities that exist as part of a greater reality be disqualified as “natural”?  Can you describe the positive qualities of this reality that eliminate it from the category of, “natural”?  How is it that our bodies exist in the natural world, and our souls can exist in the natural world, yet one can be detected but not the other? So many unanswered questions, Steve.

Natural is within this universe and made up of the material things the universe is made out of and obey a certain set of laws. The supernatural is not contingent on there even being a universe. If the universe failed to exist, God, angels, demons, whatever would still exist. This automatically creates the line you are looking for. 

IMO, we are supernatural/natural hybrids. We rely on our bodies and the physical world to develop our minds (souls). God has said that that soul/mind will outlast this body and into a new body that will not die. We will still exist in a physical world (heaven as we call it). 

That certainly is one way that you can define nature, but it's not the only way. If supernatural things obeyed normative laws like the inverse square law, I don't see why we would distinguish one form of regularity and order of effects from another form of regularity and order of effects, especially given that your earlier remarks were that the supernatural was what nature was not. If one is defining the supernatural as simply things which don't have a natural explanation and are not probable given what we know of natural law, that would seem to lead inescapably to an argument from ignorance. How do you determine that gravity is a consequence of things in this universe as opposed to merely an effect caused by supernatural forces existing outside this material world? (Indeed, some theists maintain that all natural phenomena are maintained by God. Who am I to argue otherwise?)

[HappySkeptic]

It is only begging the question if I am making an argument for the existence of the supernatural by miracles that I can't be sure are miracles. That's not what I am doing. I am saying that given that I believe in the supernatural (for other reasons) and given the background information that such events do not happen with any regularity, it is reasonable to infer that miracle x after prayer y may be supernatural. 

I can only say -- you would make a very poor scientist.

Science deals with weird postulates all the time.  Saying "I'll assume my postulate is true, and then determine which of my experiments can be explained with it" is terrible.  That is how pseudoscience gets done.

The problems are:

1) The postulate is not accepted fact, meaning that any stories you come up to link it to experiment are often exercises in wish fulfillment.  You will not look for counter-evidence.
2) Other explanations must be ruled out before an experiment can be used as evidence of the postulate.
3) The postulate, to be useful, must make clear what it predicts, and what sort of evidence would invalidate it.  Otherwise, any evidence could be woven into the postulate's story.  A postulate becomes a theory when all attempts to invalidate it's specific predictions fail, and no better theory also makes those predictions.

Your investigation of miracles fails on all 3 counts.

[GrandizerII]

Emphasis mine. That there is one of the many problems with the NT. The Gospel message isn't consistently the same throughout the 27 books. Prime example being James' salvation through works vs. Paul's salvation through faith. Only a biased Christian mind sees the opposite.

Did you read that on an atheist bullet list?

No, you can see the discrepancies in the Bible ...

What exactly did James say? 

James 2:18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without [a]your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is [c]dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made [d]perfect?

So, as a student of the Bible, tell me how that contradicts Paul and that they cannot both be right. Please be specific with references.

Great, now contrast with this:

Ephesians 2:8-10:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

See the difference? According to James, salvation is through faith + works (faith here being a merit as opposed to submission to God). According to Ephesians, salvation is by divine grace through faith, not by works (contradicting what James said). Abraham, according to James, was considered righteous for his works. According to Ephesians, no man should boast of their works because righteousness is granted from above, not by their own merits.

Interesting note: Martin Luther really struggled with James.

I will get to your other part later today.

[Amarok]

Did you read that on an atheist bullet list?

And which Apologist rag do you pull your talking points from Steve .

[Rahn127]

Steve, if you want to discuss whatever version of the bible you read, make your own thread about it.

This thread is about evidence for a god.

Pretend this is Memphis, Egypt - 2600 BC.
Work is being done to construct a pyramid to the northwest. Your version of a bible has another 2700 years before priests cobble it together to form a canon.

Now give me some evidence for a god that doesn't involve some ancient anecdotal stories.

Or

STFU

[RoadRunner79]

Steve, if you want to discuss whatever version of the bible you read, make your own thread about it.

This thread is about evidence for a god.

Pretend this is Memphis, Egypt - 2600 BC.
Work is being done to construct a pyramid to the northwest. Your version of a bible has another 2700 years before priests cobble it together to form a canon.

Now give me some evidence for a god that doesn't involve some ancient anecdotal stories.

Or

STFU

It seems like the evidence demand is always moving and shifting. There’s always an excuse to not look at the evidence, and there’s always something else.

[The Valkyrie]

I happen to be conclusive and undeniable evidence that god exists...


...and that he hates you all.

[Silver]

I happen to be conclusive and undeniable evidence that god exists...


...and that he hates you all.

God is a cat?