Skip to main content

View Diary: God Does NOT (NOT) Exist (37 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  if there is a lack of evidence (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    where it would be expected if the proposition were true, that can be regarded as evidence of absence.

    Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

    by AaronInSanDiego on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 11:35:52 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Depends on the variety of evidence (0+ / 0-)

      you would accept. Subjective experience is as empirical (experiential knowledge) as any other kind of experience. But those who hear the testimony can always choose whether or not to believe it, depending on their own level of subjective experience and how it's been interpreted to the social mileau.

      Asserting that the lack of subjective empirical experience - or the rejection of subjective empirical experience by definition - constitutes evidence that subjective empirical experience does not exist is... downright illogical.

      these are beliefs-about the nature of reality and what our experience of reality means.

      •  I don't think the truth or falsity of my statement (0+ / 0-)

        depends on the nature of the evidence.

        Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

        by AaronInSanDiego on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 01:44:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sure it does. (0+ / 0-)

          Let's say I have direct experience of, say, a miraculous event. total remission of advanced end stage cancer, literally overnight (called "spontaneous remission" in the days before there were medical treatments beyond tumor removal). Let's say I attribute said miraculous event to the intervention of whatever deific being/belief system I subscribe to.

          "God cured me" for whatever reason, often times none. Just happened, it gets attributed.

          Now, you could claim that the miracle wasn't a miracle even though there's no medical or scientific explanation for it. You surely couldn't expect ME to believe that, though. It would be simply dueling assertions between us, anybody listening would choose their favorite or shrug and go amuse themselves elsewhere.

          All that can be considered objective evidence - that I suffered advanced cancer, that it disappeared literally overnight, that I'm now healthy as a horse - doesn't say a damned thing about cause, proximate or final. Nothing, zip, zilch. If the occurrence of the miracle is established but the explanation is up for grabs, people will decide for themselves based on their own experiences and beliefs what they will believe about it.

          Dueling metaphysics is the biggest waste of time ever invented.

          •  I guess I don't see how that example relates (0+ / 0-)

            to my claim. What evidence would be expected to be found, but isn't found?

            Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

            by AaronInSanDiego on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 03:53:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Evidence that said deific being (0+ / 0-)

              caused and/or granted the miracle, of course. Which in my example would be my positive assertion if I were convinced my prayers had been answered.

              All you could do is shake your head and say not so, but you'd have even less evidence to support such assertion than I have to support mine (that a healing miracle occurred). You thus could not claim that because I don't have a video of an angel casting healing light at me on my deathbed somehow "proves" that my deific being doesn't exist.

              Absence of objective evidence of a god/godling or angel in this example would in no way be considered evidence that god/godling or angel do not exist.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site