Evidence for Believing

[possibletarian]

Oh, are we lumping all religions together? If they're so similar then why did theists spent all this time killing each-other for whose god is the right one?

It's a theists strategy, get people to believe in some kind of universal concept of a god or the supernatural, then my chosen god(s) may seem more palatable.

One would have though that if there is some personal god who supernaturally affects the lives of his followers in amazing and personal ways proving to them that he is real, that he would also impress on them the preciousness of humanity rather than hatred. With one breath theists proclaim that humanity has failed to solve it's problems, while at the same time proclaiming a god who can affect us awesomely as the solution but not only fails to solve these problems but cannot give reasons that make sense as to why not.

[LadyForCamus]

I've been asked a zillion times in this forum to give evidence for why I believe in God and each time the questioner comes back and tells me that's not real evidence.   Here's the situation.  We have a being who is supernatural. He/She/It can exist without the need to obey any natural laws and therefore, cannot be understood or explained by natural or scientific means.

If God directly illuminates me through supernatural means which cannot be tested by any natural means, how can I give you any other solid evidence other than to relate my experience?  

If god is, by definition, untestable and inaccessible to scientific inquiry, then by what method have you determined that the cause of your experience was a god, and not your own mind? You need to justify this to yourself first before you can offer it to others as evidence. And, appealing to the number of people who believe the same thing as you is a fallacy. The number of people who believe a claim is true has no rational bearing on whether or not it’s actually true. At one time, a great number of people believed that the earth was flat, and that the sun revolved around it. Did that collective belief count as good evidence for those claims?

[possibletarian]

This is a claim, not evidence.

These are several claims, but no evidence

Theists often reply to this by asking us not to conflate evidence with proof, which of course is correct. They however seem to have no problem with conflating proof with evidence.

Any experience can be offered as evidence, but the likely hood of it been taken as good evidence increases dramatically when you have testable evidence, and of course the subject matter. Untestable evidence can of course be dismissed as proof of anything. One would have thought the most powerful being in all that is who knows us intimately and has an express desire for us to have a relationship with it would have known this.. but alas !!

[The Grand Nudger]

What this would be evidence for, is some mechanism by which so many people came to be counted as the faithful.  

Pretty sure it wasn't by god sending down a message of love.  Little bit more knifey.

[EgoDeath]

Creationists ask "if people came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys." And scientists slap their foreheads in disbelief. 

Your question here is the theological equivalent. It only shows that you don't know any theology at all.

Instead of just pompously telling someone how little they know (you know more than all of us Belaqua, we get it for Christ's sake), how about you explain why the question is nonsensical?

You see, with evolution, we can actually explain why the monkey question is silly.

No theologian or religious apologist has ever explained why "god" ends the regress.

[Deesse23]

When i am talking about "this is not evidence" then i mean (of course) evidence for god, the original proposition (see thread title). I like to stick to topics and not derail threads into (pseudo) philosophical navel gazing.

Of course personal evidence is evidence, for a personal experience possibly. Not however for the existence for a god. And still it would be weak, because how should i be able to determine if you really had an experience and arent lying?

If we define evidence as "anything which gives added credence to a proposition." ...

I have evidence that i am going to win the lottery next week. Its because i woke up today at exactly 06:00. Thats never happened to me. Its unique to my life.
I give the notion that i will win the lottery next week a shitload more credence now, after having woken up at exactly 06:00
Looks like anything could be evidence for everything. Cool.

Also I think that an appeal to numbers constitutes evidence --- though not proof.

Evidence for what? For the original proposition? Why? Why and how would the appeal to "evidence" (aka numbers) be considered fallacious thinking?

If someone has a religious experience, it is not unreasonable for that person to feel that the possibility of the existence of God is more likely to be true than he did before.

If someone has a delusion about being Napoleon, it is not unreasonable for that person to feel that the possibility of being Napoleon is more likely to be true than he did before. Do you think thats a good standard for determining what is reasonable? Do you think everyone should be entitled to determine whats reasonable by himself (for example to the standard given by Lek), or do you think we should find a (somewhat) common ground for determining whats considered to be reasonable? Do you think a thought process which does not include cross checking whats going on in your mind with the external world (no solipism BS please, or this conversation is over before it even began) should be considered being reasonable?

Since Lek (and you) equivocates experience with evidence. How good an evidence for the proposition of actually being Napoleon is an experience of being Napoleon ?

If he's honest he has to accept that he may be deluded

Did Lek do that, ever? ...or did he create this very topic because he ab-so-fucking-lutely refuses to accept even the possibility of being deluded (not even talking about probability)?

You might say I'm suffering from a delusion, but I have no other history of delusions and billions of others who have no history of delusions also believe in God.

No theologian or religious apologist has ever explained why "god" ends the regress.

Something......something metaphysics? Maybe?

[Simon Moon]

Quote from Simon Moon:
But I ask again, why would your god, provide us with the ability to figure out a method, that actually can be demonstrated to differentiate fact from fantasy for every other aspect of reality, yet for his existence, he purposely hides from said method?

Reply:

I don't know, but as I answered before, maybe he wants us to believe for that reason.  The ability he gave us that you mentioned is to distinguish natural reality, not supernatural reality.  Maybe he wants us to know we must rely completely on him.  I don't know why.  From my experience, I just believe it is.  Why not be open to that as billions of other smart people are?  You  can't accept that there can be any other way to know something, so just dismiss it.

---

Hopefully you can understand why this, and almost every other one of your answers and 'evidence', is completely unsatisfactory for us.

We understand WHAT you believe, we want to know WHY you believe it. We continually ask for evidence, because you keep providing us BAD evidence.

---

I think personal evidence is evidence. Not proof, but evidence. If we define evidence as "anything which gives added credence to a proposition." If someone has a religious experience, it is not unreasonable for that person to feel that the possibility of the existence of God is more likely to be true than he did before. If he's honest he has to accept that he may be deluded -- but we all have to accept that about most things.

I actually agree, personal (and even anecdotal) evidence is evidence. It is just probably among the worst types of evidence.

Just last night I was watching a Netflix series on how the brain works. They interviewed several people to recount their memories of 9/11. One person remembered her mother was working downtown NY at the time, she remembered seeing the smoke blowing over the water from her classroom, and other details. Fact is, her mother was in England, her classroom was too far and facing the wrong way to see the smoke, and the smoke wasn't even blowing the right direction. Her memory of this extremely intense and momentous event, was completely wrong.

This type of faulty memory is far from unique.

If someone can be so wrong about a known existent event, then why not about an event that is nowhere near as evident as this?

Also I think that an appeal to numbers constitutes evidence --- though not proof.

So, lets say that in 150 years from now, the vast majority of humanity does not believe in any gods. Will that be convincing evidence that gods don't exit?

Suppose you went to a small town you'd never visited before, and you asked 100 people what the best restaurant in town is. If 99 people give the same answer, that is solid evidence (not proof) that it really is the best restaurant in town. 

Likewise, if a billion people say they have personal experience of God, then that is evidence (not proof). 

This analogy is flawed in so many ways, I'm not even going waste time on it.

And if billions of other people say they have personal experiences, different from the personal experiences, with different gods, than the billion people you mention, is that evidence that their god(s) exist?

Now you may reject the testimony of a billion people about God, while accepting the testimony of 99 people about the restaurant, because they are testimony concerning different categories -- a metaphysical truth versus an aesthetic one. But it shows that what you're rejecting isn't the possibility of numbers serving as evidence. You're rejecting the ability of any proof -- numerical or otherwise -- in certain categories.

Yes, I reject the numbers for the belief in gods, while accepting the numbers who tell me what the best restaurant in town is.

Do you really need it explained to you why?
Seriously...

[Lek]

No, it's a simple question, where was he/she/it?

God existed as an immaterial being at that point and then "became" the universe. I'm relating this as I understand the pantheists' point of view to be.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your understanding is in error. There was no god before there was a universe, because the universe is god.

If the universe came into being, then..in the pantheists view, so too did god. It didn't exist prior to it's coming into existence (that would be ridiculous).

That's your christianity showing it's ass, again.

[Fake Messiah]

God existed as an immaterial being at that point and then "became" the universe. I'm relating this as I understand the pantheists' point of view to be.

Why immaterial? Maybe God was a computer in the past universe and then, as time passed, it advanced so much that when universe started collapsing it created a new universe - like the premise of Isaac Asimov's story "The Last Question". Now, of course, people can toy with those ideas but the problem is that taking it for granted quickly leads to giving money to religious organizations, bigotry, racism, holy wars...