A Soporific
So, you do discount subjective evidence out of hand. I do grant that my experiences are no reason for you to believe anything, and vica versa. I am just saying that there are reasons for people to believe in God.
I saw a purple flying unicorn pegasus going through the sky, and I know a person who said they knew someone who petted one.
Therefore, purple flying unicorn pegasuses exist.
The problem with subjective "evidence" such as this is that it is based on hearsay and personal "experience" and ignores anything like rigorous testing, or the scientific method.
What's the difference between proving that there is E-Coli in the water and proving the existence of god? ANYONE can observe the water and see if there is E-coli bacteria in it when looked at under a microscope. Also, if you use specific bacteria growth plates to pour the water sample in, you'll see from the colors that show up after a week what kind of bacteria is growing on it. You can also reproduce the effects of these findings through redoing the experiment with different people and the same water samples or from different samples taken throughout the river area to determine the proliferation of E-coli.
On the other hand, people try to "prove" the existence of God by saying that they saw the Virgin Mary in a Cheese Sandwich, or that God Visited them in a Dream, or that they heard voices that told them amazing spiritual things.
These things cannot be measured or reproduced reliably, ergo, they are not "evidence" or "proof" of anything specific.
Quote:
I just don't understand how I am supposed to collect tangible and repoducable evidence of an entity that isn't made of matter, isn't made of energy, and doesn't exist within space-time as defined by the big bang. Means of collected such data simply does not exist at our current level of technology and scientific development.
So, you're just going to, on the safe side, when there is no tangible, reproducible evidence, believe in all the customs, the codes of conduct, and the faith-based system simply because you cannot prove it DOESN'T exist?
That's about as logical as saying that since we can't prove that a demon army doesn't exist that we should start preparing for battle with the hordes of evil.
Quote:
It isn't
scientific evidence. There are multiple definitions of evidence, and my usage is perfectly justified. I will never say that there is "proof" as there is not in any form applicable for debate.
If I, someone you didn't know, came up to you and told you that your daughter was imprisoned and being tortured in a Spanish Prison, would you believe me?
Ostensibly, you'd use logical reasoning to respond. Maybe your daughter is at home with you, so she couldn't be in prison. Perhaps, you do not have a daughter, so therefore the point is moot. And still further, you might be very familiar with the humane treatment that Spanish Prisons give to their prisoners, therefore you know she could not be tortured there even if that is where she is.
The hallmark of a first world nation, educated, and middlish classish person, is that we DO NOT simply take what someone says on faith, especially if what they say seems quite unlikely or even impossible.
Even if they have some evidence ("I experienced it!"
wink it does not make it true, and in most instances, your first instinct would not be to believe it, but to question it.
My main question is why we don't question god and religion. Is it somehow unimportant to prove God exists? I would think that to the true believer, nothing MORE would be more important. Do you want to be SURE that you're going to heaven? How about the nature of God's kindness?
Quote:
Still, there is no reasonable reason for people who have had personal experiences to discount those events. The claim "There is no God" or "God cannot exist" is an untenable position to debate, such a claim can never be proven.
I'm hoping to work on finding out how to create the definitive testing to prove that god exists. Technically, if we ever *DID* beyond a shadow of a doubt, figure out that god existed, God would cease to exist. Why? Because God requires faith to exist, and without faith, he would no longer exist.
Besides, I don't think it's any coincidence that Gods are so HUMAN, and so HUMAN CENTRIC. The reasoning is that if gods are created by humans, the creation would have to be familiar. You cannot create a god that is completely unlike humans, because the human mind cannot conceive of worshiping or believing in something alien.
To me, this pretty much seals the "God question" for me.
God is not evident, nor is He active in my life. Therefore, most of the rules that involve God being evident and active in an individual's life are pretty much invalidated.
If I die and go to hell, that's technically God's decision, because for God to exist, that negates free will. He cannot be all powerful with no power over the wills of others. If I die and cease to exist, I will not care either way.
Therefore, it is more important to me that i live out my life in a meaningful way for myself than it is to live for the afterlife (which is predetermined for me anyway).
Sadly, logic, when applied to problems like this, is pretty stupid anyway because how can you apply logic to illogical things?
300
200
200
200
100
100
