It is merely an indication of how shockingly limited you are that you would imagine I would be "off smoking pot". Hey. I'm God. Pot doesn't do anything at all for me.

It is the most "God-fearing" who claim God is all-benevolent and all-forgiving. Which is why they live in Awe and Terror, right?

Tyler and Northeast Texas adores Gohmert; he's easily reelected every two years. Many of his constituents share his religious views. It's one of the many reasons I live in Austin and not Tyler.

Amy,

Your faith, that HuffPo's Jennifer Benery would accurately represent Rep. Gohmert's point, was misplaced. Ms. Benery misrepresented Rep. Gohmert's point.

Rep. Gohmert made no reference to any philosophical or theological justification (or lack of) for the deaths and injuries in Aurora.

Rather, Rep. Gohmert was asked about the possible influences upon the shooter, James Holmes. Radio host question:
"[Why do we have so many] twisted minds in our society?"

My summary of Rep. Gohmert's responsive point:
If we had more religion and morality, we would have fewer twisted minds. Our founders said religion and morality were indispensable supports to free society.

We commenters may disagree with Rep. Gohmert's point about the importance of religion in free society. But, Rep. Gohmert made no comment, whatsoever, re philosophical or theological justification (or lack of) for the deaths and injuries (i.e., what philosophy and theology commonly refer to as "the problem of pain). Ms. Benery misrepresented Rep. Gohmert's comments.

I do credit Ms. Benery for linking to audio or Rep. Gohmert's comments, which is how I was able to listen to what Rep. Gohmert was actually speaking about.

I will say that Rep. Gohmert used a couple of phrases: "[God's] protective hand", and "Where was God?", which are commonly associated with victims, and are even commonly associated with "the problem of pain."

However, there is zero doubt that Rep. Gohmert was referencing God's potentially positive influence upon potentially twisted minds in our society, thus protecting all of us from some of the twisted actions which might otherwise occur.

Again, if commenters disagree with Rep. Gohmert's point: fine. I am merely pointing out that Rep. Gohmert was not addressing the problem of pain, i.e. was not addressing any justification (or lack of) for the deaths and injuries. He did reference "God's hand", and "Where was God?", but he was not using them in reference to the problem of pain.

I was raised a good little Lutheran girl, went to church and Sunday school and catechism.

In my particular church, with my particular minister, we were never raised to believe that God owed us a damned thing, including explanations. We were told that God answers prayers, not that we would like the answer.

We knew the song "God sees the little sparrow fall". We also knew the sparrow fell anyway.

We were taught that God is GOD, not someone to whine to.

This has helped lead me to what I feel now, that there was a creator who made this thing, gave us instructions on how to act, and left us to it. That we were more like a science project, and maybe he checks in to see how we're doing and stir up the pot a little. I don't think God is either all-loving or cruel. I'm going with indifferent, and vaguely curious as to what we'll do next.

Case in point: My husband is just now reading to me about a three-year-old who was left in a van, by the day-care workers who took the kids out on a field trip and somehow didn't notice the kid sleeping in the van. The kid is dead. God's fault? No. Idiot's who don't know how many kids they have in their day care apparently. God's will? No, but that's what the kid's family wants to believe, and if it helps them, fine.

I guess I have no problem believing in a schizophrenic God who creates a lot of good shit then takes it out to the driveway to set on fire later on. I just appreciate the good shit, and wait out the bad shit. Sometimes I feel like Tevye, speculating on what fun God has planned for him today.

Sometimes it's nice just having an entity to mentally scream at, which I do.

I believe in God. I wonder if the ants whose hills I flatten out believe in Me.

Guess who's coming to the memorial service of the Aurora, CO shooting victims! On the subject of where was God during the shootings?

To me, pointing to the Westboro Baptist Church people amounts to making the same argument as in "the problem of pain". To wit:

*if pain exists (or if a certain degree of pain exists), then god does not exist

equates to:

*if the Westboro people exist (or, if a certain degree of misguided Christian exists), then god does not exist.

To me, the assertions, and the resultant philosophical and theological arguments, are basically the same.

@gcotharn: What's this? The news media misrepresented a politician's point? That's never happened to a sitting President, and I can't imagine it happening to a congressman, either ;-)

Amy said:
"There's no evidence there's a god, but since god is imaginary"

A nit, yet an important nit which maintains distinction and equilibrium:

Your statement, above, re "no evidence", goes too far.

In past, you have referenced ~no scientific (or physically verifiable) evidence~, and ~no argument which can convince me~. If I grant these, I can still assert that evidence exists, on account of my having personal experience of God. And you can still claim that you neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of god.

However, if you tweak your assertion, and proactively assert a blanket "no evidence" + "imaginary", then you are no longer on the sidelines, but are actively asserting that I am delusional. And you are creating a circumstance in which you are required, by logic, to offer proof that I am delusional. You will have erased the distinction, and upset the equilibrium, which had previously provide you refuge.

Amy, re your 11:53 AM

You have every righteous right to excoriate Rep. Gohmert for believing in God, and you have every righteous right to excoriate Rep. Gohmert for bringing up God at all.

However, both Ms. Benery, and you, excoriated Rep. Gohmert for bringing God into a discussion of the JUSTIFICATION (or lack of) for the deaths. Rep. Gohmert did not do that. Absolutely did not do that.

I suspect this:
you are thinking like you think, which is: in this circumstance, any mention of God is wrong. Fine. Make that argument.

The problem is that you are not making that argument. You are arguing that any mention of God, as part of any justification for death and pain, is wrong. Fine. But Rep. Gohmert did not make this argument about justification. Rep. Gohmert made a completely separate argument which had NOTHING to do with justification. Both Ms. Benery, and you, have constructed a straw man.

and your quote, at 11:53 AM, is a classic case of a truncated quote creating a misrepresentation of a speaker's comments.

This was Rep. Gohmert's argument:

Our nation would experience fewer twisted acts ... if we did not put so many restrictions upon public expression of religion.

gcotharn: what is this, unreason day?

Her transcript supports her blog entry.

Meanwhile, you are using a special pleading for the term, "evidence". A special pleading is a fallacy, and no, this is not a word game.

The processor on your desk has switches only five atoms thick. The manufacturer can point to physical laws by which anyone, not a chosen few selected by faith, can build the same thing; then he can demonstrate it actually working.

You can't see an atom. For most of our history, we had no idea they existed, and confident people advanced all sorts of personal experience to support their claims about how the world is put together. It takes fancy equipment to see atoms and to manipulate them - and it is done, with processes very careful to examine the difference between belief and evidence.

Yet many think belief = evidence. Many times I have seen people advance the ridiculous idea that the number of people who believe a thing has an influence on reality.

I'll give you a clue about the rigorous meaning of "evidence": when it is included in a description of a repeatable process not dependent on the whim of a magically invisible being, you'll be close.

But not until.

Greetings, gcotharn. Please don't believe I was pointing to Westboro Baptist Church for anything, other than to point out they're sanctimonious hate-mongers who occasionally interest me with the extent they're willing to go.

I was first made aware of this by some Facebook friends of mine, who posted the article I shared.

First, his words do not misrepresent his thinking. His words perfectly represent his thinking. I am shocked at your misinterpretation of his thinking.

Second, Amy says:
"The guy ties the tragedy to our not wanting god around."

Now you are criticizing an argument which Gohmert did make. Congrats! Your descrip, of Gohmert's assertion of our not wanting god around, equates to my descrip of Gohmert's assertion: Our nation would experience fewer twisted acts ... if we did not put so many restrictions upon public expression of religion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Third, just an observation: so many arguments merely consist of disagreement over the existence of God.

For instance, if we present this argument:
1. God exists
2. society would be better off with more focus on God,

then counterargument should completely focus on #1. B/c: what you refuse to grant is that God exists. If you grant that God exists, then you would grant the #2 proposition. So, really, there is no argument about the #2 proposition. The entire argument is about the #1 proposition.

@Amy

re evidence

You are asserting that evidence, and even man, only consists of what can be scientifically or physically verified.

I am asserting that man can experience more, i.e. that man is not limited to what can be scientifically or physically verified. I am asserting that I have experienced more.

Which of our assertions - yours, or mine - requires more faith?

Patrick,
Noted. Thanks for sharing your observations.

One of the things I notice of these Falwellian prophets (so named for Falwell's ill-chosen words following 9/11, for which he did apologize), is that they pronounce that the doom is the wrath of God after the tragedy has struck.

The way prophets operated in the Bible is that man sins, prophet predicts dire catastrophe as a punishment, predicted catastrophe results (which rare exceptions, most due to the mitigation of the punishment because the sinner repents).

So, in the Bible, it's 1) the sin, 2) the prediction of punishment, and 3) the punishment.

But nowadays it's 1) disaster strikes, then 2) televangelists and other modern-day Pharisees claim it was God's punishment.

For the record of new arrivals, I am a Christian. And I'm also a firm believer in freedom of religion, which includes freedom from religion if anyone so chooses.

Based entirely on my own life experiences, having been dragged from one church to another by my psycho mother until the age of 11 when we landed in the LDS church, I have to say that Yes, I do believe that there is some sort of supreme intelligence, somewhere, doing something. Based on my life experiences, my attitude towards said intelligence is best summed up by this quote from The Chronicles of Riddick:

Richard B. Riddick: Think someone could spend half their life in a slam with a horse bit in their mouth and not believe? Think he could start out in some liquor store trash bin with an umbilical cord wrapped around his neck and not believe? Got it all wrong, holy man. I absolutely believe in God... and I absolutely *hate* the fucker.

I'll save y'all a seat in the hot tub!

"Which of our assertions - yours, or mine - requires more faith?"

Yours.

Look around.

In fact, it has escaped your notice entirely that you CANNOT have faith about things of which you are sure. Only those things you doubt require faith.

Now, time for your own mental "BSOD": Explain how, in a universe which is built entirely by God according to the tenets of your own religion, anything can be "supernatural".

I suggest that you have no idea just how far sensing apparatus has come. Did you know that rivers under the Sun's surface are detectable?
Keep in mind that the Higgs boson has been detected.

Feel free to explain ANYTHING not subject to observation and the recording of data.

That's all science is.

I know God exists.

I have faith, for instance, that I am designed to be in relationship with God, and therefore relationship with God will result in optimal fulfillment and satisfaction in this lifetime. I have faith, for instance, that heaven and hell exist.

re "Explain how, in a universe which is built entirely by God according to the tenets of your own religion, anything can be 'supernatural.'"

One does not need to believe in religion in order to make reasoned argument that a maximally great being created all existence. Reasoned arguments include, but are not limited to: the Cosmological Argument, the Ontological Argument, the Fine Tuning Argument, and more.

B/c I am confident that you understand that a Creator must necessarily exist outside the constraints of time and space, therefore I am puzzled as to why you quibble with describing such a Creator as "supernatural."

Finally, just to be clear: I am a BIG fan of science. Viva science!

No offense, but if you believe in God, why are you so bothered by those who don't? When I'm concerned about my fellow human beings and how well I can relate to them, I have a much more reliable yardstick than whether or not they believe in God. Some of the worst human beings I have ever known claimed to believe in God.

Shocking news update, violence has steadily been falling for years.

It seems removing god from public places has reduced violence not increased it

I am dismayed that I appear "bothered." And will try, in future, to not write as if I am bothered. Thank you for pointing this out.

Not a quibble, gcotharn.

In the engineering and scientific fields, words mean things. In the religious field, they do not.

a ridiculous conclusion.

The actual scripture would comport more with the materialist observation that bad things appear to happen randomly to people:

"He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." (Mat 5:45)

Although Joel Osteen wants to convince you otherwise, as has been stated previously, the orthodox position is that there is nothing owed you as an individual.

American Churchianity's peculiar doctrines of exceptionalism and special favor that can be earned are just as offensive when compared to what is actually written in the Bible as it is compared to what can be observed in the working of the world.

Haven't you heard the Carl Sagan line, those with extraordinary claims must present extraordinary evidence?

There's a reason why probability theorists don't agree: it's demonstrably false. If I win the lottery I don't need extraordinary evidence, I just need normal evidence. It depends on what it's conditionalized on. Look up Bayes Theorem. The "extraordinary claims" canard is just a talking point for evangelical atheists.

There's a reason why probability theorists don't agree: it's demonstrably false. If I win the lottery I don't need extraordinary evidence, I just need normal evidence. It depends on what it's conditionalized on. Look up Bayes Theorem. The "extraordinary claims" canard is just a talking point for evangelical atheists. -- Jim S. at July 22, 2012 1:43 AM

You are confusing unknown facts with a lack of facts.

Your example of the lottery is based on the facts that some organization dumped numbered ping pong balls into an air chamber that lifted them into a collection area and then pronounced them the winning numbers. You have the ticket, pre-printed, that has those numbers. There is nothing extraordinary about it.

Now the age old question:

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

The presumption is that it did when it fell from striking other trees and the ground.

If a tree falls in the forest and one person is around to hear it and said it didn't make a sound, does anyone believe it?

The question then comes back to needing extraordinary proof. If the claimant is deaf or near-deaf the presumption is he was not able to hear it. If the tree fell in the middle of a storm, the claimant would have to prove it wasn't hidden in the background noise.

To this day there is no normal proof of divine intervention anywhere.

Jesus rising from the grave? It could have been anything from hysterics, to a twin, to the Highlander effect, to a myth promulgated from Peter and Paul.

Moses leading the Jews through the Red Sea? Could there have been a cliff that disintegrated in a dry year? Could the Israelites have rented or commandeered every boat in the area?

And why have the miracles dried up post-Jesus? We don't believe enough? And if miracles still occur -- why has there never been a case of regeneration of a limb after an amputation?

Bayes' theorem generally addresses unknown, but presumptive facts. This is done everyday by LEO's. The cop assumes you know the details, but he can fill in the general story from what facts he has. This is the same thing a Tarot reader does.

Your claim that god talks to you would essentially require a EEG with your normal brain pattern and a foriegn brain pattern occuring at the same time. It hasn't happened yet.

Actually Jim P., it likely was not the Red Sea, in fact it was more probably an area called 'the Sea of Reeds" and investigation of the underwater area has identified outlines of marine life that grew around toppled chariot wheels and the like, suggesting that a significant force went overland there, and was consumed by the sea.

Now in that particular area, it was calculated that if a steady wind blew for a period of about a half a day, it would be able to temporarily create a temporary passage of land from one side to the other...and when the wind stopped...well naturally the water returned with a vengeance.

"God" was not required for any of that, just natural forces and a lucky occurance, or unlucky, depending upon which side you favor.

-----------

Whether God exists or not, is immaterial. If he does exist, then my disbelief will not change that. If he does not exist, my belief would also not change that.

The important question isn't "Real or Fictional", the important question is, "Useful or Not Useful".

For better or for worse, the idea, the story, the narrative of a given moral code and inevitable consequences, has its uses.

I don't care why a person chooses not to steal, rape, murder, defraud, etc. I only care that they choose not to do those things.

It would be great if humans would all behave themselves without anyone telling them to.

But that doesn't work very well. If a fiction about hell keeps a person from stealing, fine by me.

Obviously it won't work 100% of the time, but what the hell does? (no pun intended)

I say if it works, use it. If its not true, well if its working who gives a shit?

Can I tear my ears off now? I just sat through a spirituality discussion with the chaplain at the VA, and the man, who is supposed to lead a discussion group, would not shut up!

He would read a verse, then feel the need to explain it to us. Because, you know, it's an English translation and none of us can speak English, and of course, none of us have ever even heard of the Bible, much less could say a word about it.

Your example of the lottery is based on the facts that some organization dumped numbered ping pong balls into an air chamber that lifted them into a collection area and then pronounced them the winning numbers. You have the ticket, pre-printed, that has those numbers. There is nothing extraordinary about it.

Of course there is. You bought a ticket; you had a one in a million chance (or whatever) of winning; yet you won. That's incredible. It's not incredible when conditionalized upon other facts or claims -- which was precisely my point. Simply saying "incredible claims require incredible evidence" is demonstrably false and everyone who has studied probability knows it. In order for an incredible claim to require incredible evidence, it would have to be incredible in a probabilistic sense, and this requires showing it is improbable when conditionalized upon certain other facts or claims.

To this day there is no normal proof of divine intervention anywhere.

Jesus rising from the grave? It could have been anything from hysterics, to a twin, to the Highlander effect, to a myth promulgated from Peter and Paul.

Your countersuggestions are incredible claims, so by your standard, they require incredible evidence. At any rate, what miracles are conditionalized on is whether God wanted to perform them. In order to show that they're incredible in a probabilistic sense you'd have to show that God didn't intend to perform them. So you'd either have to prove that God doesn't exist or that, if he did, he would not have wanted to cause that particular effect. Until you do that you fail to show that they are incredible in the relevant sense. That doesn't deny that miracles would be extremely rare and so would be incredible in the sense of being out of the ordinary. But being out of the ordinary doesn't work for your position. Meteor strikes are incredible in that sense but we don't require incredible evidence that one has taken place.

And why have the miracles dried up post-Jesus?

I have no idea. Is there a reason I should? Does this support some point you're trying to make? What is it exactly?

Bayes' theorem generally addresses unknown, but presumptive facts.

Right. And since we don't have access to the facts that a miracle would be conditionalized upon -- whether God intended to perform said miracle -- we can't make a Bayesian probability assessment and so we can't say that a miracle is "incredible" in a probabilistic sense. Which is the only sense in which we can say it requires incredible evidence. That's my point.

Your claim that god talks to you would essentially require a EEG with your normal brain pattern and a foriegn brain pattern occuring at the same time. It hasn't happened yet.

What are you talking about? When did I say anything about God talking to me or anyone else? I only mentioned probability and Bayes Theorem. Who are you talking to?

"a ridiculous conclusion."

Based on years of observation - of claims like yours. Feel free to demonstrate how the special definition of evidence you use is actually consistent.

Perhaps you are confused, still, about evidence. Not only is valid evidence a map of the process leading to an event, it also excludes other causes. This is where the term is suddenly flexible to fit religious needs.

For instance, chariot wheels in a shallow sea have been mentioned in this thread. Well, if you think this actually supports historical events, as you might think were truly represented in the movie The Ten Commandments (I'm hoping you don't think movies are real), you would have to rule out the area as a trade route - and you might look in Egyptian historical records to see what happened to their slave inventory; I have heard there is no ancient record of slave ownership, so it becomes a problem illustrating that someone fled to the desert.

The really ridiculous conclusion many religious people have embraced is that an invisible being changes the physical world in their favor.

Sorry, no.

If so, that would completely invalidate the law of cause and effect.

-----

Meanwhile, a short lesson on the lottery seems in order.

The lottery is not truly "random". RANDOM is an absolute term, like "never", "always" and "unique". The lottery's solution is ALWAYS, by definition, a set of six balls numbered 1 - to - whatever for five, then another ball numbered identically to the others. It is unpredictable but NOT random.

The lottery serves as part of a good illustration why people throw up their hands and cry "Miracle!" when they see an extraordinary event, such as a baby untouched by a tornado that chews the rest of the town up. There simply isn't enough evidence presented at once to the observer to show that the tornado behaves entirely according to natural laws - the byplay of four fundamental forces: gravity, magnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces. These act on everything you see, but unless you know about them you don't know what you're seeing. "Miracle", really, means "I don't know what happened", and so all sorts of nonsense rushes in to fill that void (Godidit, etc.).

Of course there is. You bought a ticket; you had a one in a million chance (or whatever) of winning; yet you won. That's incredible.

in·cred·i·ble in-kred-uh-buhl]
1. so extraordinary as to seem impossible: incredible speed.
2. not credible; hard to believe; unbelievable: The plot of the book is incredible.

cred·i·ble [kred-uh-buhl]
1. capable of being believed; believable: a credible statement.
2. worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy: a credible witness

No, once I show the lottery ticket with the numbers on it, it is now credible. That you don't believe someone's statement is not credible or incredible. The odds on the Mega Million are 1 in 175,711,536 chances. That someone will get the right six numbers are not incredible. The chance that a single person could pick the right six numbers two drawings in a row starts to get into the incredible without manipulation. But it could be possible.

Right. And since we don't have access to the facts that a miracle would be conditionalized upon -- whether God intended to perform said miracle -- we can't make a Bayesian probability assessment and so we can't say that a miracle is "incredible" in a probabilistic sense. Which is the only sense in which we can say it requires incredible evidence. That's my point.

What facts aren't available to us? If I ask the amputee why his limb didn't grow back no matter how much he prayed, what facts are missing?

The lamestream media interviews the person to nth degree that a "miracle" has happened to and survived this deadly disease -- they can't explain it. I have even seen it attached to the woman who lost her limbs to MRSA. They ignore the fact that the physicians were pumping megadoses of antibiotics into the the woman.

It isn't a miracle, it's science.

You are saying The "extraordinary claims" canard is just a talking point for evangelical atheists..

I really don't need extraordinary evidence, I just want credible, repeatable evidence. Provide that to me -- and I will believe.

That someone will get the right six numbers are not incredible.

When conditionalized on other claims or facts, yes. When not so conditionalized, no. That's my point.

What facts aren't available to us?

I already said what facts aren't available: a miracle is a claim that God did something supernaturally. Therefore, what the claim of a miracle must be conditionalized upon in order to make a probability assessment is whether God intended to perform said miracle. That information is not available to us. I thought that was kind of obvious. In order to make a probability assessment you have to demonstrate either that God does not exist or that he did not mean to cause that effect. Have at it.

The rest of what you wrote about the lottery doesn't seem relevant to anything I've said. So my point still stands: it is demonstrably false that incredible claims require incredible evidence. Moreover, the occasions where they do are not applicable to claims of miracles. Of course that doesn't mean that any claim of miracle is true, or that God exists; it just means you have to find another way of arguing it.

You then, incredibly, resort to a dictionary to define incredible and credible. I thought it was obvious that we are arguing about how probability theorists use these terms. We are not working with colloquial definitions, we are working with technical definitions. The reason why is because that is what is required in order to investigate the claim that incredible claims require incredible evidence.

Then you say you don't need incredible evidence, just credible evidence. However, you define this as repeatable evidence. The problem with this is that any claim of a miracle is a historical claim not a scientific claim. Plus, much of science is not repeatable, such as geology, paleontology, astronomy, etc., so your claim of what would convince you leaves out quite a bit. It looks like credible historical evidence wouldn't convince you, nor would credible scientific evidence. This is probably wrong, though, so could you go into more detail about what would convince you that a miracle took place? Or that God exists?

If god exists, and is all-knowing and all-powerful as his supporters believe, then he must also be cool with this shooting, and all of the other evils of the world. God is a sociopath, because he cares not at all for suffering he could prevent more easily than we breathe.

I should point out that I'm not saying anything controversial. The claims I'm making about probability, conditionalization, and Bayes Theorem are standard fare and pretty elementary. I would be very surprised if any probability theorist denied them. Of course my claims about what this means for miracle claims is not what they usually think about, but I don't see why they would deny it.

Radwaste,

I understand your opinions. Now, I have questions for you:

What is the minimum which would be needed in order to you to believe a maximally great being exists?

Whatever is your minimum: would creating that minimum serve the purposes of a maximally great being?

gcotharn, you appear again to show a horrific lack of understanding about what constitutes objective evidence and proof.

I get this question, and I see it asked of others, all the time. I find this really, really strange, as if a car dealer were angling to sell me something: "What color would put you in a new car today?"

Point at it. That's all.

(You know, invisible looks just like non-existent.)

If you cannot show a corporeal being, you must then show cause-and-effect which rules out any other process. If you assert anything, you have the burden of proof. Period. "This happened this way because nothing else fits the description, and here is why."

Unfortunately for deists, there is no exception to the law of cause and effect. Prayer has no effect whatsoever. You can see how here.

To be clear about this, I am not asserting that no primary force set what we can see and measure today in motion, but it is clear that people who claim the Bible™ version of events have no idea how the real world works.

Be sure to avoid colloquialism. For instance, "creation" is not what you think it is, and in fact you cannot show it happens. Everything around you was converted, not created, and the formation of ideas in the brain is the result of chemical activity as well. That part is actually fun to think about. As Fred Saberhagen once said, "What is thought, that mechanism seems to bring it forth?"

Cowardly bullshit response.

God didn't make or let the tragedy happen. The tragedy happened because of the Free Will of James Holmes. James Holmes chose to disobey God's commandment. God is with you in the aftermath.

"Cowardly bullshit response."

Gee. Whom are you addressing?

Is that being a good Christian?

Further, you have a sickness about you - you simply do not recognize reason when you see it. I am not expressing my opinion, I am telling you what evidentiary investigation demands.

You have the burden of proof.
When you claim a thing, it must be that thing, and other causes of the event must be ruled out.
In the process, you will show understanding of the process. One of the things you will understand is the difference between a natural law and an anthropomorphic one, such as has confused hadsil.

And feel free to show any statement of mine to be false. Be sure to be objective. I'd hate to have you employ a fallacy.

yada yada. You are afraid to address the two questions. They won't bite. They are just questions. You must be able to imagine a minimum circumstance of what must happen in order for you to believe God exists.

What if dark clouds gathered, and huge thunder, and spectacular lightning, and an incredibly bright light appeared in the clouds, and a voice boomed out of the clouds: "I am the Lord your God. I am sick of you saying that I do not exist. I advise you to stop that. Now."

Would that do it for you? I suspect not. I suspect you would find a way to explain it away, based upon one of your myriad go to explanations. Maybe based upon the mechanism which brings forth thought. Or something else.

But, you tell me. You know what it would take: what is an example of minimum evidence which you would require in order to believe in God? And, does it make sense that providing that evidence would serve God's purpose?

gcotharn, you have the burden of proof, period.

Do you really think anybody demanded the criteria beforehand in the invention of radio, the atom bomb, rubber, the telescope... anything real?

And my position, my approach, is the one that has brought you everything you use today in modern conveniences.

Yours imprisoned Galileo for showing the Church the real world!

I have already shown you what would suffice. You're now just fishing for something you can point to and crow about a "proof" - even as you prepare an "out" for yourself, in asking if it would make sense for your favorite fantasy to reveal himself. Wow, there's honesty for you. Not.

You are afraid. The questions are simple. Conversational.

When I asked the questions, my goal was to get a tangible, meat and potatoes type sense of who you are regarding evidence. I was curious. And we were having a conversation. Conversational.

However, your refusal to share is an indication that you might fear your principles are self refuting; you might fear that, in thinking through what you would require in order to believe in God, you would discover that your avowed principles are self refuting. I suspect you fear self discovery.

I remembered a lecture, by philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig, in Sao Paulo in March. I have transcribed this section of Dr. Craig's remarks for you:

During the heydey of logical positivism, in the 1930s and 1940s,
it was widely thought, among philosophers, that there literally are no propositions about god. That is to say, that sentences including the word "god" are meaningless.

So for example, "god created the world" was a meaningless utterance.

This display of philosophical arrogance ... was the result of the "verification principle of meaning." According to that principle, which went through a number of revisions: a sentence, in order to be meaningful, must be capable in principle of being empirically verified.

Since theological statements could not be empirically verified, they were regarded as meaningless.

[However] the verification principle would not only force us to dismiss theological statements, but also a great many scientific statements, along with ethical, aesthetic, and metaphysical statements as well. So that the principle was wholly unreasonable.

Even more importantlly, it was realized that the principle was self refuting. For instance, ask yourself if this sentence:
"A meaningful sentence must be capable of being empirically verified"
... is itself capable of being empirically verified? Obviously not. No amount of empirical evidence would serve to verify its truth. The verification principle is, therefore, according to its own criteria: a meaningless combination of words [...] and has been almost totally abandoned by contemporary philosophers.

But it is sad how this attitude still persists in some non philosophical views.
Best wishes to you.

above, I committed blockquote fail. Everything below "During the heyday..." is Dr. Craig in his lecture, up until my own sign off of best wishes.

'tharn, you're just projecting with this whole "fear" thing.

I don't have anything to fear about investigating the universe.

But you do, because a great deal of the Bible™ doesn't stand up to the most basic investigation.

"Conversational"? No. The difference between evidence and simple assertion is deeper than that - but you simply don't want to go there. Look at the approaches you have attempted right here, twisting and turning to avoid the burden of proof.

A simple principle that governs all discovery, one that you have had to observe in schoolyard boasting, and which you adamantly deny now.

I said:
"Point at it. That's all.

(You know, invisible looks just like non-existent.)

If you cannot show a corporeal being, you must then show cause-and-effect which rules out any other process. If you assert anything, you have the burden of proof. Period. "This happened this way because nothing else fits the description, and here is why."

And you called it a "cowardly bullshit response".

I call it "reality", as do the others providing every tangible thing to you.

Best wishes, and get well soon!

Radwaste and Amy,

Think of how silly you are being: you refuse to say: here is a minimal type of example of what would need to happen in order for me to believe in God. It is the simplest thing. You are not in a mutual search for truth, or enlightenment. You perceive yourselves inside a vicious contest.

Both of you are afraid to specify an example. And you accuse me of dancing. Projection. You are creating the psychological defense mechanism (projection) in order to deal with your own fear that your standards might be unreasonable, or even self-refuting. If you discovered such a thing, it would shake up your conceptions of self and of reality. And you fear that.

Your silliness, and fear, is on display. You are too close, and cannot see yourselves.

Amy says:
"I require evidence before believing in something"

Wonderful. What is an example of minimal evidence which would cause you to believe?

Amy says:
"You also make all these conclusions...."

Yes. Of course. I would never deny that. And I allow for the possibility that my conclusions might be wrong.

Consider:
You recommended that I listen to your recent podcast. I did so. Enjoyed it very much. The gentleman mentioned that humans are social animals; that we notice when other humans treat us fairly or nicely or reciprocally, or when they do not.

The conversation, here, is a social conversation. Are you participating in a social conversation? Are you sharing yourself? Are you joined with the other person, me, inside a mutual give and take about our perspectives; inside a mutual search for truth or enlightenment?

No. You are inside your castle fortress, and will not show yourself, and are shooting arrows out of the slits in the castle walls. Why? I am comfortable with the weight of evidence which indicates that you are afraid. Your castle fortress, and Hitchens' castle fortress, are built with bricks of polemics, and with bricks of unreasonable and even self-refuting standards. And you shoot arrows of scorn out of the slits in the walls. Why? In absence of better evidence, I am happy to assume fear.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hitchens was a strong polemicist, yet was out of his depth when he encountered trained philosophers. Above, I quoted William Lane Craig. Craig has conducted at least 20 debates with well known atheists/philosophers. Richard Dawkins has received criticism, from prominent atheists, for alleged being afraid to debate Craig. Craig debated Hitchens in informal debate, and also in formal debate. Multiple atheist writers stated that Hitchens was out of his depth, and was soundly defeated by Craig. I watched those two debates, and I concur. Hitchens was a world champion at scorn, but not at reasoning.

And, I mention this, b/c, I know you are going to remain an outspoken atheist (or whatever you claim to be). Which is fine. But, you are smart, and fun. And you should up your game from what Hitchens offered. What he offered was fun polemics. But it was also shallow and inadequate. And the scorn betrayed fear: scorn, at bottom, is a method of shutting down dissent.

I'd want to be taken beyond the physical boundries of our universe without mechanical aid and witness the creation of matter and energy out of nothing.

Anything less could be supremly advanced inteligence with technology so far removed as to be as magic to our understanding

Thank you, lujlp. Since I know your mind, to some extent, from reading your comments over time, it is interesting to know an example of a minimum type of occurrence which would work for you.

'tharn, I'm wasting my time with you, but I post in the hope that some reader will recognize just what reason is.

Reason does not specify what a test result will be before the test is designed. This is because setting this goal, just one goal, really, only tests for one process.

Reason DOES specify goals. Stick around to find out how that goal can be a God (but it won't be the God™ of the Bible™).

Reason knows about the four (so far) fundamental forces at work on matter and energy, and is conversant with a number of other principles, such as the surface-area/volume ratio of masses, the inverse square law, gravitational constants, allotropy... basically, the limits of existing instrumentation.

Reason knows about the burden of proof, particularly the requirement - not an option, a requirement - that in order for a proof to exist that an effect was caused by an action, all other actions/drivers must be ruled out.

Reason knows what a fallacy is. It's one of the ways Reason uses to prevent formulating a result, then testing to get that result.

This last is where you fail, gcotharn, and utterly. As a religious person, you may be used to begging the question, but that is exactly what you're doing.

And, just to illustrate this: however complete lujlp's example may seem to be, it actually begs at least TWO questions and is therefore prohibited from being complete by the fallacies represented.

What are they? That "nothing" "existed" before the "creation" cited, and that the process shown is actually the one used to produce what we see today. No, you can't assume those things.

Here's a mindbender for you: I dare say most people think "the big bang" happened at a place, or point in space. No - there was no "where" for it to happen, no point source.

Now, back to the point: you don't get credit for anything without showing your work. If you want to show the action of a deity of any kind, noodly or not, the proof consists of a process, not a "Voila!"

-----

PS - there's another reason telling someone what "proof" of God™ would be fails. It is entirely possible for a deity to NOT do what you propose and still exist. That's another way in which begging the question is fallacious.

Take the lesson.

Radwaste,

To use your testing example:
why can't you merely say:
If we set up Test A, and result ABC occurs, then I would believe in God.

You would not be specifying a result. Rather, you would be specifying your own response to a conceivably possible result.

Separately, you are laboring under a misimpression that I have a goal - in this comment thread - to "show the action of a deity." I do not have that goal.

gcotharn, dont thank me. My proof would not prove the existance of your god. Simple deductive reasoning from the events and situations laid down in the bible prove your god is nonexistant

lujlp,

I did not ask for an example which would prove my god. And I did not ask for an example which would prove god to anyone else. I asked for a personal example of a minimum circumstance which would prove god - by which I meant a maximally great being.

I still do extend thanks for your sharing of yourself. Such is generous, and sociable.

I am concerned that my language was sloppy. I meant this: I did not request an example of an occurrence which would prove a maximally great being to a third party. I only desire a personal example.

"To use your testing example:
why can't you merely say:
If we set up Test A, and result ABC occurs, then I would believe in God."

This is why I say, in various ways, that you are totally at sea on what proper investigation looks like.

Result ABC must be unique to the circumstances which produce it.

That's why you must show your work - it is a process, not a result, which dtermines the validity of evidence.

Luj didn't produce an example that would show a deity. Period. Even though it was an attempt, and better-stated than other things I've seen.

Now you haven't asked for an example which would prove your god. Interesting that you would use the possessive term.

But anyway: if your goal is to show that "b" happens, what you get is that something occurred to make "b" happen. The process, not the result, determines the value of that something.

This was also not known to Bible authors.

Radwaste,

Is it possible for a human being to know that a maximally great being exists?

Gcotharn,

Why do you need one?

You are afraid.

gcotharn,

You're the one who desperately needs the approval of an invisible being - and a promise of eternal life.

That's why you didn't answer "Why do you need one?"

You ask about "possible" without even knowing what it means, and ask a question with "maximally great being" in it - an undefined term.

Lemme preach on it. You're talking about the perceptions of a race to which "Where's Waldo?" is a challenge, in a visible universe so big and complicated that if you truly appreciated how tiny you are in it you'd implode.

You both seem determined that you are inside an argument about whether or not god exists.

In this conversation, I am not proffering an argument for the existence of god. I am happy for all of us to happily maintain our beliefs.

You both have asserted, through the years, that there ought exist a certain level of evidence in order to sensibly believe in god.

Given your assertion, it is reasonable for me to request an example of an adequate level of evidence. Which is to say: if a maximally great being exists, is it possible for human beings such as yourselves to know he exists? If so, what is an example of a way in which human beings such as yourselves might know that he exists?

In answering a hypothetical which begins with "if a maximally great being exists", you would not be proving god. Rather, you would be clarifying the level of evidence which you have, repeatedly and over time, asserted ought exist for any reasonable person.

Such is a fair request. You only refuse the request b/c you are afraid that you will discover that you are demanding an unreasonable level of evidence. You only refuse, b/c, rather than perceiving yourselves on a mutual conversational journey, you perceive yourselves in a fight to the death, and you have taken refuge inside your castle walls. You are afraid. Simple as that. Were you not afraid, you, who have expended thousands of words on the subject, and who have eagerly proffered opinion after opinion, would happily expend a couple of sentences which outlined a minimal type of example of what would constitute acceptable evidence of the existence of a maximally great being.

Or, you would simply say: even if a maximally great being existed, I cannot imagine there could exist any acceptable level of evidence which could cause me to believe in his existence.

You would happily say either of those conclusions, except that you are afraid to more closely examine your own long time assertions about evidence.

btw, I am not curious as to how all human beings, as a group, might know of the existence of god. I am merely curious as to how an individual, such as Radwaste, or such as Amy, might individually know of the existence of god.

I am now going to argue that evidence of god exists. Note, I am not going to make an argument that god exists. I am speaking of evidence.

First, evidence exists via the Cosmological Argument, the Ontological Argument, the Fine Tuning Argument, and a number of additional reasoned arguments.

Second, and more importantly, evidence exists inside an individual's consciousness: I look at my surroundings, and my consciousness senses god. In all of history: the vast majority of human beings have sensed god.

The philosopher, Alvin Plantiga, argues that if God exists, then he would want us to know he exists, and he would create in each of us a consciousness which would sense his existence. He would create, in each of us, a desire to think about him.

Plantiga argues that the consciousness of an atheist is damaged, or malfunctioning, in a way which prevents the atheist from sensing God. Plantiga compares a malfunctioning consciousness to a malfunctioning brain which, for instance, might become compulsively fixated on a minor detail. Such a brain is not working as it is designed; is malfunctioning.

The philosopher and writer David Berlinski compares the consciousness of an atheist to the ear of a person who does not like Mozart: "they simply have no ear for it."

re evidence, I argue this:
I perceive multiple evidences of god, both in my consciousness, and in my reasoning, and in tangible physical manifestations such as are used to construct the Fine Tuning Argument. My evidence is not the type of evidence which you argue that I ought possess. But, it is evidence. Therefore, to say "There's no evidence" is to make an incorrect statement.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On video, Plantiga discusses three contentions of those who argue that it is wrong to believe in god:
1. believers have an intellectual duty to disbelieve
2. believers are being irrational
3. belief in god has no warrant (i.e. is not sufficiently grounded in knowledge).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV2IOp8dx0s&feature=plcp

The first part of Plantiga's two part discussion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojq6aBNhjYw
Plantiga, in this part of the discussion, concedes "evidence" to mean provable evidence (a concession which I, above, did not make), and Plantiga discusses which types of claims require evidence, vs. which types of claims do not require evidence.

'tharn, your entire last post is fallacious: it is the Appeal to Popularity fallacy. Basically, it's a repetition of the "so many people believe this, it must be true" fallacy.

No.

And wow do you have a damned strange idea of what "evidence" is: you cited hearsay!

If you have an incident, such as cancer remission, the survival of a child in an air crash, etc., you cannot use that as "evidence" of God (especially not the one in the Bible).

Not without showing your work.

You must show how there was special intervention, the overturning of the law of cause and effect, AND that nothing other than the intervention by the deity you assert happened.

How many times must this be said?

-----

Now, there are fundamental forces which always work on the matter and energy we can detect. The word "always" is based on observation, in that even nuclear research hasn't identified a single case in which they did NOT influence the substance being studied.

Now, you can postulate that the natural laws arising from the interaction of these forces were written by some force capable of causing what we see, but there is no evidence whatsoever that this is a PERSON concerned with humanity. That's an amazing leap of self-importance. Staring wide-eyed in disbelief at the immensity of the night sky doesn't excuse you, so you can think all of it was arranged just for you.

Fundamental forces do not respond at all to begging - which is all that prayer amounts to.

I'll be bold here, gcotharn, and ask directly, if rudely about your projection:

What the fuck do I have to be afraid of?

It's not The Invisible Sky Fairy.

But it might be... you.

You're the one with a vote, capable of banding together with others of your kind to stifle research, as it threatens your religion.

So far, I have defended myself from zealots insisting on wasting school time on "creation science", and other zealots insisting that I should be killed for being an infidel. These are both Abrahamic religions, pox be upon him. Christians in this country have continued the time-honored tradition of ridiculing the idea that we should engage in the sciences, even to the point of attacking their own when they suggest that the "evidence horizon" is simply out of range.

That they do this on the Internet is hilarious.

That religious people claim a divine mandate in actually subjugating women, minorities and anyone who disagrees with their special place on this world, obtained solely by their belief - is not.

Over time, this is your side of the conversation:

that is not evidence!
that is not evidence!
that is not evidence!
that is not evidence!
that is not evidence!
[in addition, you contribute maybe thousands of words and scores of opinions which you are eager to share]

My part of the conversation, reasonably is to ask:
given everything which you specify as "not evidence", let us define a parameter in this conversation, via discovering a distance between what has been proffered and what you believe ought be proffered. Therefore: if we create a sample circumstance in which god exists, what would constitute acceptable evidence of god's existence?

Whereupon you ... suddenly cease. You have written thousands of words, yet, suddenly, no more from you on this topic. You have proffered scores of ideas and concepts, yet, suddenly, no more from you on this topic. You have demanded responses to multiple of your ideas and concepts, yet you refuse to respond to my question, and you argue that your refusal constitutes virtue and reason.

Gimme a break. Your refusal constitutes fear. You are afraid that you might discover a need to tweak your opinion -- or, worse, make a significant shift to your opinion. Thus you demonstrate that you are not conducting yourself in a search for truth, but, rather, are conducting yourself in a quest for ... something. Victory. Validation. Pride. Ego. Something. Exactly what, I do not know. But not truth. You have written thousands of words. You love to see your ideas in cyberspace. If you were on a search for truth, you would expend a couple sentences on responding to my simple, and fair, question.

And, it might be the case that you see no possibility of "evidence" existing in a form which could be known to humans. Such would be good to know, and would be fine. Knowing this would clarify parameters and distances.

again: fear. When one fears to address an issue, one possible response is catcalls.

You two are avoiding examining your own adherence to what some call "scientism". You fear that your own examination, of your own standards, might reveal flawed premises. So, you scurry into your castle fortresses, and you shoot your arrows of scorn.

Father Barron:

The sciences - and their attendant technologies - have been so massively successful that people have come, understandably enough, to see the scientific way of knowing as the only epistemological path.

Time and again, my conversation partners on YouTube urge me to admit that the only valid form of truth is that which comes as a result of the scientific method: observing the world, gathering evidence, marshaling arguments, performing experiments, etc. I customarily respond that the scientific method is effective indeed when investigating empirical phenomena but that it is useless when it comes to questions of a more philosophical nature, such as the determination of the morally right and wrong, the assessment of something’s aesthetic value, or the settling of the question why there is something rather than nothing.

More to it, I argue that to hold consistently to scientism involves one in an operational contradiction, for the claim that all knowledge is reducible to scientific knowledge is not itself a claim that can be justified scientifically! But this appeal to metaphysics and philosophy strikes most of my conversation partners as obscure at best, obfuscating at worst.

Joe Heschmeyer:

Since the claim that all truth must be scientifically provable is not itself scientifically provable, it’s self-refuting (by the claim’s own standard, it renders itself false). More than that, such a claim would require us to disregard most of what we know (since most of our knowledge is not derived from scientific inquiry).

When you assert that you are bored, I believe you. The previous assertions, not so much.

If you take anything away from this conversation, let it be this:

your little runs into threads, and interjections of pithy Hitchens assertions, are inadequate, b/c Hitchens was inadequate to the task of seriously addressing trained philosophers and theologians who expended much of their lives in study of this subject. Hitchens did not comprehend their arguments - even admitting, late in his life: I've never confronted arguments, such as these, which are backed by reason.

Powerful arguments for god do exist. It is understandable that you do not with to expend the time to comprehend them. I've no problem with that, at all. But it does not mean you are either clever, or informed, regarding the subject. You are not.

And it does not mean that a self refuting, boutique definition of "evidence" equates to either a wise argument or a winning argument. I am so bored with that weak ass reasoning. So bored. So, you know, we are simpatico.

William Lane Craig said it. After Hitchens sat in an informal debate with four believers, including Craig, all the men gathered together for drinks and dinner. Hitchens said something to the effect of: I have not before encountered arguments, such as yours, in which faith is backed by reason. I always thought faith meant there was no reason involved.

I cannot find the Craig quote, and am reciting from memory. But, here is the YouTube video of the informal debate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcg3pKyRiK0

In this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc8F1t32M7E&playnext=1&list=PL5003848839551D78&feature=results_video
which is of the conclusion of the same debate, at the 5:28 mark, you can watch Craig close his remarks with a teasing, yet biting, encouragement to Hitchens to do some research before meeting Craig in formal debate a few days hence. Craig characterizes Hitchens as "needing to come to grips more rigorously with the argument", and as having offered "little substantive engagement". Which was true. I watched this debate. Hitchens was in over his head.

In the ending remarks of this same debate, another panelist, Lee Strobel, also expressed open frustration that Hitchens was so unprepared to respond to even the basic tenets of the philosophical and historical arguments which were offered.

found the quote, on this podcast from William Lane Craig:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/christopher-hitchens-debate

beginning at 6:30, both Craig and his assistant recount hearing Hitchens saying the same type of thing, i.e. Hitchens was surprised at this new trend in Christianity of having facts and evidence to back up belief.

and here is an article http://www.bethinking.org/resources/dawkins-refuses-god-debate-with-william-lane-craig.htm
with applicable quotes re Craig, Hitchens, and Dawkins alleged fear of Craig.

Following the [formal] debate with Christopher Hitchens in 2009, the website, Common Sense Atheism commented: “Craig was flawless and unstoppable. Hitchens was rambling and incoherent. Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child.”

Re Dawkins, whom I suspect of protecting his future book sales via avoiding the possibility of being embarrassed in debate with Craig:
atheist Oxford University philosopher Dr Daniel Came wrote to Dawkins, urging him to reconsider, saying his refusal to do so is “apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

and what is the point? Simply this: professionally trained philosophers and theologians wield powerful arguments for the existence of god. Their arguments might be right, or wrong. But their arguments were beyond the capability of Christopher Hitchens to rebut. Even if one disagrees with their arguments, the arguments deserve respect. And, finally, you should do better than to blithely slip into a comment section and issue a Hitchens assertion, and then scorn anyone who believes in god. Hitchens' assertions were shallow. There is superior scholarship attached to this argument.

"Your refusal constitutes fear."

No - it is the simple avoidance of a fallacy, that of "begging the question". You blink stupidly at the idea - it is beyond you. You have taken so much for granted, carefully fitting what you see to bolster, not challenge, your ideas.

"Simply this: professionally trained philosophers and theologians wield powerful arguments for the existence of god."

This is the fallacy, "appeal to authority". It is not the expert's status which makes her correct - it is the evidence backing her assertion.

It's pretty telling how fragile your position really is. Were this a card game, you insist on seeing the other player's cards before you ante up. I don't blame you - you have a problem with Saint Augustine.

Now, let me illustrate just one of the most fundamental blindnesses the devout have:

They cannot explain where God came from. It is totally unacceptable to leave an unanswered question, and so the common answer is "God always existed". Unfortunately, that's as useless a statment as the assertion that "Creation" occurred. You should know that we observe conversion, NEVER "creation", as the law of conservation of matter and energy is not set aside. But humanity hates unanswered questions so much they make total nonsense up all the time.

For those using reason, this not knowing IS acceptable - and it is not to be feared, but studied.

But as Thomas Paine once said, "To argue with a person who hasrenounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."

I was not appealing to authority as proof that an argument was reasonable. Many arguments for god are reasonable on their merits, and their truth is not dependent upon who conveys them.

I was pointing out that a professionally trained logician, philosopher, theologian ... is more skillful at conveying the arguments:
1) will recognize and counter the illogic which someone like Hitchens might proffer, and
2) will fully understand and support the powerful arguments for the existence of god (in ways in which I do not understand those arguments, and therefore in ways in which I cannot support those arguments).

I'll give an example. I have quoted William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantiga, David Berlinski, and Father Barron. Take a quick look at William Lane Craig's article re the necessary support for the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Even though the argument is VERY short and VERY simple, supporting it takes a good bit of educated knowledge. http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html

Craig and Plantiga and Father Barron are professionals at making and supporting this argument. I am not. They would not be flamfloozled by Christopher Hitchens style polemical stylings. I might be.

My point to Amy is this: there is superior scholarship, which is attached to this issue, than Hitchens and Dawkins and friends are able to deliver. She needs to understand that Hitchens and Dawkins and friends, in this matter, are amateurs who are in over their heads. Many arguments for god - such as the Cosmological, Ontological, and Fine Tuning Arguments - and more - are more profound than anything which Hitchens, Dawkins and friends have offered, or likely ever will offer.

which is to say: the arguments are more profound than anything offered by Dawkins, et al.

and which is to say: my citation of professional philosophers was not an appeal to authority, but rather was merely to point to persons who are professional communicators of those arguments, and are professional logicians.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I do not insult the intelligence of Dawkins and friends.

Rather, I am saying
1) a person (Dawkins) who makes a lifetime study of genes
2) is not an expert in logic, philosophy, or theology.

Just as a person who has made a career of philosophy, is not an expert in the study of genes.

If Dawkins had made a lifetime study of philosophy, then Dawkins likely would be able to play on a level playing field with philosophers.

But Dawkins has not led that lifetime, and Dawkins arguments (when compared to arguments such as Cosmological, Ontological, Fine Tuning) are shallow and inadequate.

Speaking of a Dawkins argument:
"where did god come from?"

This question is addressed in the William Lane Craig article which is linked in the above comment.

Separately, the question is the primary subject of this article: http://creation.com/if-god-created-the-universe-then-who-created-god

If Dawkins had made a career in philosophy, he would never have had to prove anything.

Which is apparently your desire. You're insisting that only a philosopher can come up with the drivel upon which you're insisting. Hey, any ten-year-old can invent a good story - provided they don't have to show their work.

I'll quote someone else who has actually had to put out real things that work:

About the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter taking a picture of the lander Curiousity:
"The simple and sheer amazingness of this picture cannot be overstated. Here we have a picture taken by a camera on board a space probe that’s been orbiting Mars for six years, reset and re-aimed by programmers hundreds of millions of kilometers away using math and science pioneered centuries ago, so that it could catch the fleeting view of another machine we humans flung across space, traveling hundreds of million of kilometers to another world at mind-bending speeds, only to gently – and perfectly – touch down on the surface mere minutes later.

The news these days is filled with polarization, with hate, with fear, with ignorance. But while these feelings are a part of us, and always will be, they neither dominate nor define us. Not if we don’t let them. When we reach, when we explore, when we’re curious – that’s when we’re at our best. We can learn about the world around us, the Universe around us. It doesn’t divide us, or separate us, or create artificial and wholly made-up barriers between us. As we saw on Twitter, at New York Times Square where hundreds of people watched the landing live, and all over the world: science and exploration bind us together. Science makes the world a better place, and it makes us better people." - Phil Plait

Meanwhile, you can't figure out when you or others are employing a fallacy.

Go outside. Find Mars in the sky - if you can - and look at the enormous gulf between yourself and the kind of people who built and landed that probe.

Which is dealing with fantasy?

"You're insisting that only a philosopher can come up with the drivel upon which you're insisting. "

A willful misrepresentation.

re the wonderful science on display with the Mars rover

I requote Father Barron:

"[T]he scientific method is effective indeed when investigating empirical phenomena but ... is useless when it comes to questions of a more philosophical nature, such as the determination of the morally right and wrong, the assessment of something’s aesthetic value, or the settling of the question why there is something rather than nothing.

[T]o hold consistently to scientism involves one in an operational contradiction, for the claim that all knowledge is reducible to scientific knowledge is not itself a claim that can be justified scientifically! But this appeal to metaphysics and philosophy strikes [advocates of scientism] as obscure at best, obfuscating at worst."

re science and assumptions and faith

David Berlinski:
"Western science is saturated in faith. [...] In order to advance scientifically, there is an enormous body of assumptions which have to be in place. And those assumptions cannot be defended. 'No science', Aristotle said, 'ever defends its own first principles.'

re the bias of scientists towards their own discipline (and against other disciplines, such as philosophy), more Berlinski
"A certain amount of education; a certain amount of immersion into a physical theory ... tends to displace any other kind of ideological affiliation. And that is transmitted into a form of denial [regarding truths which may more effectively be revealed via other disciplines].
[...]
The idea, that the world of matter is the world that matters, is simply not true."

Berlinski begins the above remarks, and expands on them a bit, beginning at the 31:00 mark of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyxUwaq00Rc

Moral "right" and "wrong" is also subject to real-world exercises showing the ROI for any action evaluated.

Gee, I'm talking to a BSOD here. He doesn't just not know something - he doesn't know how to start investigating something.

per your operating style, you now interject two NEW subjects into the conversation:
1. moral ROI
2. is gcotharn a BSOD?

while still refusing to address/admit the truth: you see no way for any human to encounter adequate evidence to prove the existence of a maximally great being.

Fear. You fear you might discover flaws in your own reasoning. You are not searching out truth. You are protecting yourself; hiding behind your castle walls. Coward.

"...per your operating style, you now interject two NEW subjects into the conversation:
1. moral ROI
2. is gcotharn a BSOD?"

while still refusing to address/admit the truth: you see no way for any human to encounter adequate evidence to prove the existence of a maximally great being."

Dishonesty: a central feature of the religious, it is exposed when seriously challenged.

Moral "right" and "wrong" is NOT the exclusive domain of the religious, especially one religious dogma. It can be shown to have a Return On Investment. Sorry to introduce yet another term of which you are ignorant.

The "BSOD" is my convention when describing the reaction of people completely at a loss when trying to understand something. It is analagous to the Windows Blue Screen of Death, signifying an operating system failure. I can find this when asking about a change in suction pressure at a pump during a startup, or I can talk about the enormous gulf between colloquial platitudes and investigative rigor.

Neither of these are new subjects. They are merely parts of the conversation which have confused you.

Now, while I can be said to have failed to communicate by using unfamiliar terms, it's very much not nice of you to invent things as if I have said them. You are still totally deluded about investigative rigor, as shown by your use of the term, "adequate evidence". What I have done - and this is visible to anyone who reads back - is point out that begging the question does not produce that evidence.

And I have denied your repeated attempts to introduce or accept or define "evidence" in your special way for the simple reason that you have no idea what it is yet - even though I have shown you: evidence consists of a consistent chain of observations which can be shown to have an exclusive relationship to the event of interest.

You must show your work to present evidence.

So now you're dishonest and a name-caller. Quite the accomplishment for a religious man. Nice going.

Coward. You are afraid to fully explain your opinion.

The joke of it is: fully explaining your opinion will not "win" anything for me. Rather, it will clarify where you stand. Nothing more.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now, I am going to shift the conversation a bit. B/c I have a curiosity about you:

You know I am Christian. Is it your opinion that we Christians consider ourselves to never be dishonest, to never be name-callers, to never use strong or profane language?

If that is not your opinion, then why do you believe that calling me out, for instance, for dishonesty, will have an especial effect on a Christian (over and above the effect which it would have on any person?)?

I ask the above b/c I can see that you desire to use Christian belief as a weapon with which to bludgeon Christians. I am willing to help you, b/c I know that Christian faith is not a bludgeon, but rather a gift. From your perspective, if you are to use Christian faith as a bludgeon, then you must accurately understand what Christians such as myself believe.

Tim Keller describes the three ways one can live http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQOkWULpW8g

1. the gospel approach
2. the moralistic, religious approach
3. the unbelieving secular approach.

When an unbeliever hears me speak of Christ, they assume I am simply asking them to become a better person: nicer, more moral ... and also, inevitably, a hypocrite and a Pharisee.

Yet, the gospel is like a branch to which I cling. The gospel means that I don't have to be a good person, I don't have to have great faith, I don't have to have a surrendered heart, or a perfect life: I just need to grab that branch ... and I am saved.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now, if you want to bludgeon me, the best approach is to bludgeon me about pride.

By pride, I do not mean satisfaction, or fulfillment, in a job well done. And I do not mean love for a child or a spouse, as in being filled with joy at the wonderful creature who is your child or your spouse.

Rather, by "pride", I mean being thrilled at being superior to another person. Therefore, if I take fulfillment and satisfaction in a job well done: wonderful. However, if I take satisfaction b/c I have done a job in a superior fashion as compared to another person: bad. Very bad. Very serious sin: the worst sin. If I take pride in my child b/c my child is superior to other children: bad. Very bad. The worst sin.

Pride is wicked, in part, b/c it is subtle. You do not look up, in the middle of sexual congress, and surprisedly exclaim: "Wait a minute, YOU are not my wife!?" But, in the matter of being proud of being superior, you DO look up and surprisedly exclaim: "Agh! Pride!" It sneaks up on you.

The above said, I don't think you can extra-bludgeon a Christian such as myself in the exact way in which you were trying to do so, which is to say: "don't you feel especially guilty b/c of your Christianity?"

We do not feel especially guilty. We just feel like, regular, fallible humans. We sin. And we are Christians. The two circumstances are not related in any way which makes us hypocrites. The circumstances merely indicate the we are human.

Now, if we follow the moralistic, religious approach: then it makes us hypocrites. But we do not follow that approach.

Second, if, in speaking of Christ, we are merely encouraging you to be a better person, and a more moral person, then we are being hypocrites. But we do not follow that approach. Rather, we are encouraging you to cling to the branch which is the gospel, and which will save you.

Third, if we are sinning via being prideful of our superior morals and ethics and personal discipline: then we would be acting as hypocrites. However, hypocrisy, and the gospel approach, are not related. The gospel approach explicitly accounts for inevitable human fallibility.

I hope this helps. I invite you to use this, and bludgeon away. I am confident that you will be doing God's work! :)

It's not an opinion, gcotharn. You have serious problems with definitions.

One of them is "coward". Note that it is YOU who must have someone watching out for him, listening to his personal problems.

And it is a signet feature of the religious that they can express "confidence" about a deity and their personal worth to it - when they do not know how mcuh they weigh, how tall they are or even what time it is to any level of precision.

Sloppy thinking, fallacious reasoning, accusatory nature... how far are you from demanding a national religion? How many ways do you personally discriminate against others, who do not mouth your dogma?

lets speak of your demand for scientific evidence, and of Jesus Christ.

Are you aware that the vast majority of historians, both atheist and theist, concede the likelihood of these circumstances re Jesus Christ:

1. He was crucified, and died
2. His tomb was found empty
3. The Apostles believed they encountered the resurrected Christ.
4. A nonbeliever, Paul, believed he encountered the resurrected Christ.
5. Jesus brother, James, also a nonbeliever, believed he encountered the resurrected Christ.

Now, suppose the Christian God exists, and decided to send His Son to Earth, as a sign of and indication of the Christian God's existence. And suppose the Christian God's son said: "Believe in Me, and have eternal life. Disbelieve in me, and experience agony in hell."

Suppose the Christian God, decided it was proper to give the world the above signs and indications, and decided it was proper to give human beings other signs and indications. Yet, for reasons which have to do with the suitability of our souls for heaven, the Christian God decided it would be improper to provide scientific proof of His own existence.

Will you concede that the above is a legitimate possibility? In other words: you do not believe it, b/c you do not see scientific proof of it, yet there does exist a possibility that God set things up in this way?

Will you concede that, if the above possibility is an actuality, then your demand for scientific proof amounts to a terrible miscalculation?

Wow, gcotharn: have you examined where you got the idea that the 5 items in your list are correct? Gee, I hope it's not the Bible™, or someone using the Bible™ as a reference or with the specific intent of proving it right (a directed result is invalid). That thing is FULL of errors.

Meanwhile, evidence is not a thing, it is a process.

Meanwhile...

...contrast your position with these.

And these.

Evidence, its very source, is always suspect.

-----

I'll back up and address the fallacy, "begging the question", that you embrace by asking what constitutes a "test" for the existence of God™.

Suppose I said this:
"The SI standard second is the interval spanned by 9192631770 cycles of the Cs-133 atom between two hyperfine ground states. AFTER you show me how to find Cesium, determine it has an isotope whch oscillates thusly, eliminate others from consideration as the atomic timepiece and then reliably observe its behavior to establish its reliability to less than one part in over 9 billion, pray to interrupt that process such that the interval becomes 9192631771."

Here's the rub: you then have to show that Zeus didn't do it, the operation of the Large Hadron Collider on another continent didn't do it, your measurements aren't wrong... you MUST show the direct causal relationship between the action called by your prayer and the change in the isotope.

This is being watched by a profession capable of measuring the gravitic influence of rainfall, and currents under the surface of the Sun.

I don't think you're even close to that level of reason. Neither am I, but I'm not the affiant.

I'm done with you. I've tried to prod you along towards conversing in good faith, to no avail. You are, in the beginning, middle, and end, a coward who is afraid to engage in open conversation which includes open and unguarded examination of your own assumptions. You fear of what you might find.

Thus you waste my time and you waste my good faith willingness to engage you. You are foolish to have done so.

BTW, although I am human, and humans are often dishonest: if you think I have been dishonest in this thread, then you have made another foolish misjudgment.

"I'm done with you."

You were as soon as you spoke, because you speak without actual reasoning.

"BTW, although I am human, and humans are often dishonest: if you think I have been dishonest in this thread, then you have made another foolish misjudgment."

As opposed to someone who might hold up a Bible™ to shield himself from the real world, and willfully disregard that world?

Your dishonesty is that subtle one exhibited by those who cannot express themselves fully in situations like these. You use the word, "coward" solely because you are inadequate to an implied challenge. In this case, it's that deep-in-your-heart conflict between knowing you can't prove something while being emotionally committed to it. The linguistic phenomenon is the same as when people are at a loss to explain how Mohammed Atta could fly into the WTC; they called him a coward, and that was just plain wrong. Evil, sure, coward, no.

And it surely isn't a mistake of mine to recognize that a man who simply won't "show his work" is being dishonest - even if he is being compelled by his faith in something he clearly doesn't fully understand.

I intended the above to be addressed to Radwast.

However, you are human. It is fully possible for you to be brave in many areas, yet cowardly in other areas; to be brave most of the time, yet cowardly some of the time. Your formulation, about your bravery, is fallacious.

Second, in this thread, beginning July 22 @ 1:43 AM, Jim S. spent several comments asserting and defending that Sagan's "extraordinary evidence" assertion is demonstrably false. I agree with Jim S. Sagan's reasoning was fallacious.

Third, re your claim that I haven't presented evidence:

I have not sought to argue that God exists. Rather, you have been convinced that you were inside a conversation in which I was arguing that God exists. You have been wrong, all along the way. Your head has been screaming out, so loudly, that you have missed the actual conversation.

Re evidence: I have quoted scholars re the fallacy of "scientism", which is a fallacy to which you adhere. I have quoted David Berlinski re innate bias of scientists in favor of their own disciplines, and against other disciplines which are more appropriate vis a vis a discussion of existence of God. I have pointed out that an expert in genes is not an expert in philosophy -- which is not to say the expert in genes is incapable of making strong philosophical arguments, yet the philosophic arguments of the expert in genes, and of the expert in polemics, are embarrassingly shallow, inadequate, sophomoric.

Esteemed philosophers and theologians agree: strong evidence, for a maximally great being, exists, for instance, via the Cosmological Argument, the Ontological Argument, the Fine Tuning Argument, and a number of additional strong arguments ... as well as via the evidence of our consciousnesses (and I have quoted Plantiga and Berlinski re this type of evidence via the human consciousness).

Amy, you can stick with scientism's definition of evidence - that is certainly your prerogative. But, you have to admit that much esteemed scholarship is opposed to your opinion, and many esteemed scholars are opposed to your opinion. And there is scholarship, and scholars, who agree with your opinion. But, the case is not open and shut. There is disagreement amongst esteemed scholars. You write as if no persons of consequence, or scholars of consequence, oppose your view. You are wrong. You write as if no respected scholarship exists which opposes your view. You are wrong. The above was Hitchen's main trick: he tried to win the day via scorn. It worked, to some extent, until he finally ran up against serious philosophers and theologians. Then he was exposed as an empty shell of shallowness. A good and decent person; a wonderful companion; yet a man who, when he encountered serious scholarship, had his lack of depth of knowledge exposed.

Finally, I must point out a final fallacy which was proffered by you: you look at your behavior, weekly, to see where you've been wrong and can do better.

Fully admirable. I genuinely admire it. But, it has exactly zero to do with the fact that you are fully capable of being cowardly about examining your own scientific and philosophic assumptions. The very fact that you examine your own behavior ... amounts to admission that you are capable of falling short of a preferred level of behavior.

Now, look, not that it matters, but, all the above said: I am an Amy Alkon fan. The world would be a more boring and less fun place w/o you in it. But, that doesn't mean you do not engage in some fallacious thinking, as outlined above. And that doesn't mean you are not being cowardly re examining your own assumptions (out of fear of what you might find). And that doesn't mean you are not ignorant of some of the outstanding philosophical and theological scholarship which is being done. You are. You have, for instance, placed a certain amount of faith in Hitchens. He was a wonderful guy, but your faith in his expertise, in this area, was misplaced. He was an expert in polemics, and in scorn. His theological understanding, and his philosophical understanding, had its limitations.

At one time, you believed Anthropogenic Global Warming was a thing which humanity had to immediately address. In that instance, you placed your faith in experts, and your faith was misplaced. The same happened with Hitchens: misplaced faith. Hitchens did not intentionally deceive you. Rather, he simply did not know what he did not know.

I addressed the above to Amy.

If you actually recognized that the number of people who say a thing has no bearing on whether it is right, you'd disabuse yourself of many of your misconceptions.

When I suspect I misunderstand something, I embark on systematic research on the subject, starting with whether my first assumptions are correct.

What do you do?

"Amy, you can stick with scientism's definition of evidence - that is certainly your prerogative."

This is possibly the best indication that the speaker has no intention of objectivity here - the code-word, "scientism" attempts to reduce the process of investigation and its proven utility to just another belief. And there it is: the admission that a special category of "evidence" exists in the mind of the faithful.

But go check those links I provided. The religious, while admittedly calming themselves with assorted sophistries, did not advance one damned thing rubbing their self-defined "holy" books.

I just hope that they don't succeed in yet another purge of scientists and engineers and the other learned members of society, in a totally mad yet sanctified murder spree.

Here.