Evidence for Believing

[Lek]

Of course religous people are the ones who mostly claim to have experiences with God. That's why they're religious. But there are also non-religious people who do and usually convert afterwards.

---

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.

Ok, god existed as an immaterial being (whatever that means) but it does not answer the question of where it existed

There was no "where", there just "was" God. Where is relational to a physical environment.

[EgoDeath]

Of course religous people are the ones who mostly claim to  have experiences with God.  That's why their religious.  But there are also non-religious people who do and usually convert afterwards.

But Lek, don't you see that as an issue?

Wouldn't you be skeptical of a product that only had positive reviews from people who worked for the company that made the product?

Do you understand how bias works?

And no, interestingly enough, plenty of people who are already religious have "experiences with god." It's not as if everyone who has had a revelation of some sort was a non-believer, but through their experience became a believer.

[Belacqua]

No one who wasn’t born yesterday and who has any sincere interest in reality can give a rat’s ass about theology when the question is about what constitutes reality.

That's fine. There's no reason for you to study theology. 

Unless you're going to challenge theological ideas, in which case you might look as if you haven't studied theology.

---

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.

You'd have to justify the link between waking up at 6 and winning the lottery. Most likely there is none, in which case it isn't reasonable evidence. 

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?

I already gave an example, about the restaurant. If you asked 100 people what is the best restaurant in town, and they gave you consistent answers, and then you said, "I have no evidence at all for what is the best restaurant in town," that would be silly. 

Here's another example:

Suppose one million people said their iPhones gave them a headache. It's possible this is a mass delusion. But I think it's sufficient evidence (not proof) to justify further investigation. 

If the people who make iPhones said, "ha, numbers aren't evidence, so there's no need to look into this," that would be seen as evasion. 

If you reject the testimony of a million Christians about hearing God's voice, but accept as evidence (not proof) the statements of a million phone users, it shows that you are evaluating evidence on something other than numbers. 

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? 

This is why evidence isn't proof. We need additional tests to confirm or deny evidence. 

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)?

I don't know anything about Lek. I don't read his posts carefully. 

Lots of people seem to find it hard to say "I may be wrong."

---

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

Thank you. Yes, I agree that people are so easily fooled that it's not very reliable evidence. 

On the other hand, there are times when it's believable. A dozen of my neighbors have reported seeing a wild boar recently. Apparently it's come down from the mountain to look for food. I haven't seen it, but a dozen reports constitute good evidence, I think.

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?

Evidence, but not proof. 

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?

Evidence, but not proof.

It looks to me that people have certain kinds of experiences which they interpret according to their local beliefs. So one person might attribute an experience to Jesus, and one to Shiva, or whatever. Others attribute it to brain chemicals. To settle the matter we'd need further investigation, and there is always the possibility that it can't be settled. 

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

I gave the restaurant example purely as a case in which numbers make the evidence more persuasive. 

If you feel it doesn't do that, please explain why.

---

Human beings have a major superiority complex. They imagine themselves important. Surely then, if humans are so fucking special, then they must have a purpose. That purpose must have been drawn out by the ultimate power in existence. Therefore god did it.

One frequent example of humans' superiority complex I see is the idea that if there were a God it would behave in a way that I approve of and understand. 

As if an omnipotent and omniscient power would just naturally have the same ideas I do.....

[Lek]

Of course religous people are the ones who mostly claim to  have experiences with God.  That's why their religious.  But there are also non-religious people who do and usually convert afterwards.

But Lek, don't you see that as an issue?

Wouldn't you be skeptical of a product that only had positive reviews from people who worked for the company that made the product?

Do you understand how bias works?

And no, interestingly enough, plenty of people who are already religious have "experiences with god." It's not as if everyone who has had a revelation of some sort was a non-believer, but through their experience became a believer.

What I'm saying is that a religious person is going to have spiritual experiences with God because they commune with God. An atheist isn't likely to have one because he doesn't commune with God. I just was qualifying when I made the statement about some non-believers having these experiences, but it's going to happen more with those who are truly searching.

[EgoDeath]

What I'm saying is that a religious person is going to have spiritual experiences with God because they commune with God.  An atheist isn't likely to have one because he doesn't commune with God. I just was qualifying when I made the statement about some non-believers having these experiences, but it's going to happen more with those who are truly searching.

Well, I don't think that's necessarily true. Certainly there have been atheists who tried very hard to "commune with god" but were unsuccessful, no?

What made them different from these supposed non-believers who were converted by revelatory experiences? Did they just not try hard enough?

And, so you see, this is the problem with trying to use these experiences as evidence for god, or rather evidence that anyone else should consider credible or reliable.

If all Christians, for example, had the exact same type of revelation in the exact same way, seeing the exact same things, even that would be more useful than just Lek, on AF, telling us we should believe in god because he said so.

But that's not the case is it? Even among Christians, revelations and experiences with god differ massively from one another. We may see some similarities in these accounts... but not enough to consider the lot of them reliable sources for evidence of god.

[possibletarian]

But Lek, don't you see that as an issue?

Wouldn't you be skeptical of a product that only had positive reviews from people who worked for the company that made the product?

Do you understand how bias works?

And no, interestingly enough, plenty of people who are already religious have "experiences with god." It's not as if everyone who has had a revelation of some sort was a non-believer, but through their experience became a believer.

What I'm saying is that a religious person is going to have spiritual experiences with God because they commune with God.  An atheist isn't likely to have one because he doesn't commune with God. I just was qualifying when I made the statement about some non-believers having these experiences, but it's going to happen more with those who are truly searching.

*Emphasis mine*

Seek and ye shall find.. search for god while he may be found... etc etc I'm sure holy text around the world have similar encouragements in them.

The problem being it's just stuff people wrote to justify why others are not having the same experience because they have emotionally invested themselves in belief, they cannot understand why people don't believe what they believe.

The problem with belief and opening yourself up to ideas, without testing is that it can literally get you to any crackpot idea, from flat -earth, people wearing tin foil hats to stop the government beaming ideas in their head, to religions, to all manner of experiences that are attributed to some other worldly influence.

This is why most people who believe in a spiritual world cannot define it properly other than effectively saying 'you have to believe to believe' which of course can get you to any idea.

Maybe stop trying to justify it by experience, think what you actually know about god, that you can say for sure and with good reason 'this is so' then get back to us, because if you don't have good reason then why do you believe ? Blindly following the excuses that others have written to excuse their lack of proof and calling it somehow inspired won't get you anywhere

---

@Lek

Can you tell us what god has communicated to you about ?

[Rahn127]

For any potential god that may exist in any potential world there exists a lesser powerful being that is natural to the universe that it inhabits.

It can reveal itself to people and these people will not be able to tell the difference between the lesser natural being that is nearly all powerful and a god.

There are hundreds of trillions of these lesser beings in each universe and therefore, the experience you experienced has a 1 in 100 trillion chance of actually being the god you think it is.

It's more likely that it was one of the lesser natural beings that communicated with you.

You did not win the god lottery.

[Foxaèr]

Well, I asked a question and I received many answers.  My reasons and evidence are not what you're looking for.  I think you're all living in a little box, which you feel secure in, but it won't allow to explore the entirety of existence.  I don't have any other evidence that you will accept so okay.

The problem with personal evidence, which is all you have, is that it is only evidence to the individual experiencing it merely in his mind. It is not proof of anything to anyone else.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, I asked a question and I received many answers.  My reasons and evidence are not what you're looking for.  I think you're all living in a little box, which you feel secure in, but it won't allow to explore the entirety of existence.  I don't have any other evidence that you will accept so okay.

Lek,

A rational person would not expect anyone to accept what you've presented as evidence.  Evidence has to be verifiable.  If it isn't it's not evidence.  You should seriously check your premises and ask yourself if you have any intellectual right to use the concepts reason and evidence.  Or truth.  What fundamental premises do these ideas rest on and what does your own philosophy's position on these fundamentals amount to?  Is there a conflict?  You seem to want to lash out at us for not accepting your "evidence" as if the problem is with us and not what you've presented.  But that is just a rationalization.

---

Why is it a stolen concept?

 Because the concept "evidence" rests logically on the axioms of existence, consciousness and identity and their corollary the primacy of existence.  The notion of a God is a wholesale rejection of these truths.  It's like standing on the 6th floor of a building while demolishing the foundation and expecting the sixth floor to remain standing apart from its foundation.  It can't be done.

Why.  Why, bud?  Why is the notion of god a wholesale rejection of any truth?  I didn't ask you to reassert your beliefs.  I asked you to explain them.

To put more meat on their bones, so that others could understand what you mean, and mean to say.

[Foxaèr]

What I'm saying is that a religious person is going to have spiritual experiences with God because they commune with God.

A unicornist is going to have spiritual experiences with unicorns because they commune with unicorns; yet the experience merely takes place in their heads, in a conceptualized reality that they have created for themselves for the sake of comfort. Precisely how it is with god, too.