David,
I don't think evidence is an elusive term. But evidence is like meat. One man’s meat is another man’s poison.

What about truth? If I’ve heard you correctly, you’ve said before that theologians (whom you don’t prefer) can’t find it, while scientists (whom you do prefer) are not looking for it.

Is truth so elusive?

Hi George,

Thanks for your comments and reply. I have evolved some of my thinking from our exchanges.

I do think there are testable “indicators” of religion essentially; commonality of spiritually, evidence of intelligent design and the various scriptures. What constituents “evidence” needs a methodology perhaps from psychology/neurology, physics and anthropology/history, respectively. Answering questions like:

- Why is there belief?
- Why is there existence?
- Why are there scriptures?

All the above can be sensibly and empirically investigated. Does the neo-cortex moderate the survival instincts of the lower brain? Can the universe be self-creating? Are the scriptures unified or differentiated?

Notice I said “indicators”. Sometimes, as suspect you would know, when modelling constructs, a T-Score between 1.645 and 1.95 at a 95% confidence, is taken to be theoretically noteworthy but not statistically significant. At OLO questions like three above are little like that. So one can read check ideas if not hard statically data. But in fashion, the same attitude can be assumed: A willingness to test and see where the results take one. My strongest tentative results on questions like those above posit more feasible alternatives. Ideas tentatively held do permit consideration of other possibilities that at this time might seem unlikely.

My assessment of the above suggests no God know to humanity. What of another God? That is a bit iffy too, for one whom sees only the smile on the Cheshire Cat left. So what have we left from the world-view of the skeptic: a weak understanding of belief systems, a growing theoretical understanding of the universe and probably a good under standing of history and cultural-anthropology. So, i’s are not dotted and t’s not crossed. Yet, the religions metaphorically speaking don’t have words. We compare some understating with predictable trajectories tono substantive traction.

The above is why I generalised “First Cause” to consider “Internal” versus “External” creation agencies. It clears the decks of the million and one faiths/scriptures. Like Anubis we bring out a scales and measure the claims of say Hartle-Hawking (weak theory) to a (diminutive theory). Today the former wins.

/cont...

david/f quote..<<..Believers in something..>>have belief..in lue of fact...these types/usually have a faulsifyable..[if of scientific mind]...that..if disproven...invalidates/their belief/or rather..any theory..underpinning their belief

those believing../something..<<beyond the natural..may/use the word,..truth,..to label..that..belief.>>in different ways..depending on how much/they are..able to prove...and how much/they..are able to take..on faith

a clear-case/in point..is that/belief/..species evolve/into new-genus[that..via small-steps..a cold-blood can...'evolve'..into a warm-blood...or a fish/into..a chicken...

that are..really/quite fancyfull..declarations...

at what point..was a fish..no longer cold/blood...or a fish..no longer/..a fish..or indeed fish/a chicken...some would see..that/as taking enormouse FAITH

<<I do not/think..the word,..evidence,..is used..in that way.>>>that/is..certainly correct...PROVE IT!

<<Religionists/..sometimes..try to/..label atheism/as a..form of belief...It isn't....Rejection of belief..is not belief.>>>its deneyal

i can/agree...decieved/deneyal..is hardly..'belief'....lets..call a fish/;a fish..and not a chicken..[and evidence;fraud...if/it hasnt any faulsifyable/replicatable..PROOF..!

<<I think/your statement/about evidence..and belief..is a variant of labelling..atheism..as/a belief.>>>oh lord..im in disbelief/at how the wise..can..sometimes..be so blind....

is this your science/..or belief..speaking dear-david?

if you have..'evidence''...present it...

but..lets be honest...were all grown-ups/here...
that's..your belief speaking...
or have athiests..no beliefs at all?...[asking incrediously..]

<<I don't think evidence/is an elusive term.>>>

evidence..is clearly..indisputable FACT...
if it can/be replicated..or has faulsifyables

no fact/then..there is a theory...that has been given credability/believability...by active faith...in the/theory..

or/faith..in the process..
or/faith..in others half-baked..opinions

i wrote/cred-ability...but should-have..written...creed-ability
or having/..a body of common-beliefs based on peers..or belief in the same delusionings/deception..

lets hear..the faulsifyables/of science
lets test..if you have..faith...in a/delusion..of evolution of genus

lets judge the fact...not..the belief*

some/are..decieved by peers..[ok many/are decieved..of peers..because even those..claiming proof....dont have enough/evidence..to prove it...

only enough..to finish of/..the unquestioning mind's quest-ioning..enough/just enough..to make others think/or..believe...it/..most likely-to..be true...

to wit/TO take...the rest..[they cant comprehend]..on trust/
to have faith...its all...*provable...all faulsifyable..when..its all/just belief..upon belief...upon deciete/deception...

mixed with dis-belief..if you dont..claim belief

but thats all fine
just dont turn..your own diss-belief...into others belief..if it cant be proved..you got..a theory

live with-it

or present your faulsifables
or the proof!

not theory/nor belief
i want fact...not faith

I am certainly prepared to accept there may be causation factors beyond classical physics and QM, and some of this stuff might prove to astonshing and counter-intuitive. Yet, if our understaning of QM is like Ptolemy's understing of the solar system, we have at least started with a primitibe kin, as Ptolemy to modern celestial mechanics.

We can ask: Does existence require an external agency? Are strong findings more/less likely to evolve from a weak theory or a diminutive theory? I posit, it is logical, to tentatively hold the former the stronger case. Herein, our knowledge of the universe is small but growing; our confirmation of divine (causation agent) intervention is lacking.

Regards.

oliver/quote..<<I do think there are/testable..“indicators”..of religion>>.but the point...'should/be...is there a cause?..

/is that cause god...is god good...
and yes there is ..and he is great

science/has even..dabbled in the field...using science
google..'the law of/pshychic phenonena'

or..'thirty-years'..ammoung the dead...which/im..currently wading through

[it works..via the spirits..'haunting'...succeptable.../persons..[those..with phsycic potential]...that attract..lost-spirits...to them...causing madness...

[they/are..curing insanity...by using nothing/more complicated..than static-electricity]..to..extract..those the bible/would call demons..but in reality/are..only lost-souls

it is..abouve all..a science study...
you could repeat..in any nut-house...curing these poor-souls....just like jesus..did....not medicating/them..into hell...

but..its/..such a nice money/earner..for the psycia-trick/industry
...they like/..their drug/perscription..bonus..more than/curing the sick..but..back to other/points

<<essentially;commonality/of spiritually,..evidence/of intelligent-design..and/the..various scriptures...>>lol<<What constituents..“evidence”..needs/a methodology..perhaps..from psychology/neurology,...>>>see/the..link
http://new-birth.net/booklet/30_years_among_the_dead.PDF
or

http://new-birth.net/books_life_after_death.htm

i can..only..point
only you..can egsamin/..the proof

<<physics/and anthropology/history,>>>simply wont get near/..explaining..the path/to god

nor <<<Answering questions/like:..Why is/there..belief?>>.because it allows us..a certainty..in an uncertain-reality

<<Why..is/..there existence?>>.because god/is...and gods-rule/is..we know..*ourself...just-like/we are..because god../sought..to know..himself*

<<Why/are there..scriptures?>>.because..we alone amoung/the experiments..of god..are created..in his image...

we alone/have freewil*..enough..to dare ask/the same..questions...

the/scriptures/are..a taste..of that..which was...
giving clues as to where we go...a starting point...to infinity...

knowing only one..is eternal...and he/is..loving and most mercyfull...grace/love/life

<<All/the above..can be sensibly/and empirically investigated.>>>!

and/..they have been/read..swedenberg...or the many clue's/..messengers...god has sent...

there/..comes a time...we must/grow-up...and validate..the one eternal..is all loving...that..he did*..the right-thing..giving us mind/love/life/logic/free-will

<<Does/the neo-cortex/..moderate..the survival-instincts..of the/lower-brain?>>>you are*..so close...

you..have/great questions..oliver...
but..listen*..to the heart...not the brain*

<<Can/the-universe..be self-creating?>>>
did you/..have a cause*?
what/can you..name that..dont have/a..'cause'*

is/not..action/reaction..a law...?

<<Are/the scriptures..unified/or..differentiated?>>>are we all equal?...of course..its not..unified*...

we have..ETERNITY*..to catch up/with god*...
KNOW..we are each/*unique...
we each/..have..our own*..memories..our own*questions...

only/..one has dared to ask..them all..before us*...god

you/are..walking..in the steps of..*self-discovery*...at-one-meant*
just like/your father..before you

do you..dare..to become..one..with/..the only?
do you/..dare see..what you..really are/allways..were*..?

be..one/with..the/living-loving-light
be..the sun/..of good/god..made you..to realise....YOUR-self to be
HE..*made you..to become...as one..with him..who is the all

sustaining/even the least..onto..the path of..greatness*
in..our/own time...
in..our/own..way

be/...the love..oh-liver

I think you’re blurring the line between two different kinds of beliefs here, George.

<<So a statement like “I shall believe in God if you show me evidence that will convince me” is in a certain sense a tautology.>>

Not really. Firstly, atheists tend to request objective evidence and this is the fundamental part you’ve left out here.

Secondly, you are making religious belief sound like it were just any old casual belief like, ‘love can conquer all’, or ‘what goes around comes around’. But no theists that I’ve ever known would put their religious beliefs into that category. Most would more likely put their beliefs into the same category as something like ‘the sun will rise tomorrow’.

There would be little point in asking for evidence for the examples of more ‘casual’ beliefs that I gave - in that sense, asking for evidence could be seen as tautological. But there would be nothing tautological about requesting objective evidence for religious beliefs that are presented as fact. After all, if god really does exist, then it’s in all of our interests to know.

<<I do not understand what it means that somebody has no belief at all, i.e. does not believe in anything about this world...>>

Theists are the ones making a claim. Atheism is simply the response to this claim.

Actually, from memory, I think I’ve mentioned this to you several times before, so I’m a bit surprised that you didn’t catch on to the point that david f was making.

Now sure, there are some responses to the god claims that are simply an absence of the religious belief, and there are some that respond to the god claims with the belief that the claims are wrong (explicit and implicit atheism), but either way, they are still just responses to the claims.

I think your failure to acknowledge that theism and atheism are not just two equally opposing views is the reason why you often have trouble here. It’s as though you insist on comparing the two as if they were both on equal footing.

Continued...