Divinity itself is so far-fetched that it really shouldn't be considered. Faith is only what people call it when they don't have a clue, call it defeatism. I don't know why apples fall down and not up, and God is the reason for it. If Newton had been such a defeatist, someone else would've done his work. Only those who do not lean back on divinity/other vague wishful actually get anywhere within any science. Look at how Einstein triumphed in (almost) everything, except where had already made up his mind about universal pantheism.

I'd say the biggest looser is the one that doubts something sure for something vague and silly. The famous "The band's gonna make it!" mentality.

If I do not want to (seriously, thoroughly) consider the thought that the white house is ruled by an alien race, am I the looser? No, not until the evidence for it exists, which it don't. In religion there isn't evidence at all, and evidence isn't really possible to obtain at all, and is thus so much more far-fetched than my alien-theory.

__________________
To fill a world with ... religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used. - Richard Dawkins

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned

MY CAPSLOCK KEY IS BROKEN LOL - Will be stumbled upon several times on the web.

Clash

If we cannot say that we "know" we are perceiving our perceptions, then we might as well abandon any and all claims to any knowledge at all. I assumed that was not the stance you were planning on taking.

If a man says "I feel cold" it is absurd to say "No you don't," for only he can possibly know. You may tell him that he is, actually, suffering from a fever and is actually quite warm and it is merely his increased internal temperature that gives the illusion of chill. But the fact remains that he feels cold and he knows it on the deepest possible level of knowledge.
Similarly, if I say "I see red" it is absurd to say "No you don't". You may explain the wavelengths of light and the functioning of the optic nerve, you may tell me that red lense is being employed to make things appear red or that a red light-bulb has been installed in my room. But the fact remains that I see red and I know it.

If it is mere perception, merely "I see" or "I feel" or "I am experiencing" then it has no logical component, no argument, no inference or duduction. How could someone possibly be mistaken about such things?

Did you read the article? No.

Nemo, the article (sans the bibliography) is 13,000 words and 28 pages long.
I will happily discuss any points you'd care to bring out of it or sections of it you'd like to quote and comment on.

There would be little point in discussing the matter if you have not even read the cited authority. I shall not trouble you with it further.

Dilettante, there can be no evidence of divinity. None. It simply isn't possible.

That does not mean that divine interaction (and therefore divinity itself) cannot exist. It just means that it can't leave evidence and, thus, the question you pose is futile to ask. Unless it solely refers to faith, of course. Only the one who is ready to make up evidence where no evidence can exist is willing to ask such a question. And it doesn't take a vivid imagination to speculate why anyone would want to fabricate such evidence.

Of course, if you think that I'm the one making presuppositions here and that evidence of divinity can indeed exist then please show me how.

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here.

What do you mean by "evidence"?
What sort of thing would constitute evidence for the supernatural/divine if it did/could exist?
Phenomena unexplainable via known natural processes? Well, I'm sure any scientist worth his salt will admit that we have not succeeded in explaining all the phenomena observed in the universe.

Testimony of supernatural/divinely-caused events?
We have millions of different testimonial accounts of supernatural events; they come from every culture, race and civilization. Many have been explained as merely natural, some have not. How are these not "evidence"?

What is "evidence" except that which must be explained by a theory? To say "there can be no evidence for divinity" seems to me tantamont to saying "divinity cannot be used to explain anything", which is obviously false as people use it to explain things all the time.

Now, before you reply to that, let me hasten to admit that something might be very poor evidnce or very inconclusive evidence, and still be evidence none-the-less. But those terms, "bad" and "inconclusive" are inherrently subjective, are they not? Perhaps others find them better than you do?

Some people consider the mere existence of their conciousness to be evidence of a divinely conscious creator. They have formulated a theory (a creator-God who creates man) and this observation (their consciousness) fits into that theory and is explained by it. That is the very definition of evidence. Now you may think that a different theory better explains human consciousness (i.e. that consciouness is better explained by something else), but again, that is subjective.

As best I can tell, when you say "there is no evidence" what you mean is "there is no good evidence." You may replace "good" with "reliable" or "trustworthy" or "sufficient" or whatever word you think best suits you. But whatever word you use it will always be subjective.
You may feel about God as I do about the Loch Ness monster. I have seen some of the evidence for it (the grainy pictures, the ripples in the water, the numerous personal accounts). I don't believe the evidence is very good and I think quite a bit of it has been forged or made up. But it would be absurd for me to say "There has never been any evidence for the existence of the Loch Ness monster", the wealth of testimoney and photos clearly contradicts that. I can only say "I don't think any of the evidence presented is any good; certainly not good enough to make me believe the monster exists."

(SMadsen, most of this was copied, with some tweaking, from another post made some time ago in a different thread. I hope you don't mind the recycling, but it seemed to fit in here just as well, and I don't think you were involved in that earlier thread)

So now Dilettante is an expert on "evidence"? Do you have any authorities to support your arguments - or are your just spouting off?

Please feel free to bring up anything you disagree with and I'll happily discuss it.

his post sounded rather logical. Ever consider logical coherence an 'authority'?

or are you one of those guys who thinks that people with PHD's are the only ones who can logically approach a subject?

is that why you cite articles like mr twain and run and hide behind them? afraid of homegrown discussion are we?

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

"Mrs. Palin, which specific journals and news sources do you read? (after being asked once)"

"Oh, All of them!"

It is not an authority - and his argument has all the consistency of liquid crap.

Though I appreciate the defense, htperr, I'd rather not see this thread turn into a discussion on the quality of my (or Nemo's) posts; it isn't worth it.

If Nemo chooses not to discuss things unless they originate from someone he deems to be "authoritative" that is entirely his choice. My comments will merely have to stand on their own, to be accepted or rejected by their own merits rather than my degrees or prestige in the field. If chooses to ignore them, he is free to do so.

Wow, still logged on to USPOL. I'll try answer what time allows. The rest must wait, sorry.

See below, please.

Of course. But from this follows what? That divinity exists?

First, I hope that "some have not" does not mean that supernatural events have been explained in the same way that natural events are explained in light of evidence. Supernatural events are explained on a solely fictive basis and acceptance of the explanation depends on faith alone. Hence its supernaturality.

Second, anyone who explores a phenomenon will want testimony from the phenomenon in question. However, you must not confuse "testimony" created by physical phenomena with testimony as it really means, namely an attestation made solely by the process of thought.

Take something like the Gilgamesh tablets. One could say that they exhibit several kinds of testimony. For example, we could immediately deduce that, at the time of their creation, at least one human possessed knowledge and skills of a written language and that at least one human had a desire to use those skills to preserve a story. By analysing the tablets, we could deduce things like age, geographic location, tools being used etc. etc.

But what could we actually deduce from the story itself other than things like the technical characteristics of the language and the story-telling? Are we able to break open the mind that wrote the story and hence turn this testimony of the mind into evidence of physical phenomena?

While there might actually be physical traces of a king (of the Homo sapiens type) called Gilgamesh, how exactly would you expect to find traces of the story character Enki, the god living in the subsoil water? Merely by saying that there is water in the ground? Or of his father An, the all-encompassing god of the sky? By saying that there is a sky? I sincerely hope you know it doesn't quite work like that, Dilettante.


Evidence is not that which must be explained by a theory. Evidence is one or more pieces of data that, whenever retrieved, points towards or away from a specific explanation (notice the insertion "whenever retrieved" .. it's crucial).

As for what would constitute evidence for the supernatural/divine if it did/could exist, as you asked above, that's exactly what I was asking you. Do you have a suggestion?

.. to be continued (perhaps) ...

Oh, I didn't realize the essay had to be entirely in my own words. I didn't realize we couldn't quote, notate, citate, or use bibliographic sources to back up arguments.

I guess Nemo & I should simply do as you do, and make things up from whole cloth. . .

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

What are you talking about, Mark? Anyone's free to quote, cite, reference or use any source they please. If they quote it in their post, summarize it, or link to a small peice I'll happily read and discuss it.

I just don't accept that stance that says "You must go spend an hour reading my link before I'll even discuss it with you." I'll discuss whatever you want to discuss, but I'm not going to promise to read any and everything that gets thrown at me, especially if the entire post amounts to "Read this: link".

Now, the post you're quoting here is in response to Nemo's post #83, where he seems to say that since I'm not an "expert on evidence" nothing I say matters and he needn't bother himself with the actual arguments themselves.
I pretty much flatly reject that too. I'm certainly not going to demand that you be a recognized "expert" or "authority" in the field your discussing before I deign to respond to what you said. If that's the standard than all of us without PhD's in political science had better stop all that political talk that goes on here.

In short, so long as we aren't talking strictly about empircal observations, then I think what matters is what your argument actually says, not what degrees or recognition you, as a person, happen to have.
If Nemo feels otherwise, he is more than free to ignore anything I say since I am not a recognized "expert" or "authority" in anything.

@Nemo, if I've misunderstood and/or misrepresented your position, I apologize.