Three Powerful Books

[_honorentheos]

I'm sorry this is where it ended, MG. I sincerely think a discussion of the evidence for God would have led to a productive discussion. I guess we can point fingers as to why that didn't happen. But in the end the outcome reflects the issues that were inherent to the problems in the subject of evidence and bias when one or more parties won't engage honestly with the implications for bias and how engaging with those whose views are different is essential to finding truth, as it were.

I think you made a valiant effort to set up situations where subjective bias could be looked at as objectively as possible, and I really did like your probability quiz. Distinguishing between 1) what one believes (an assessment based on objective probability and subjective conclusions), and 2) what one is willing to set as an accurate probability (attempting objectivity outside of one’s belief conclusions) was quite interesting. in my opinion it got closer to an objective consideration of beliefs than we have gotten to on this board in a very long time. Maybe you could start a new thread to look at that.

Thanks Lemmie. :) I'm glad it was interesting even if it didn't make it all the way around the bases.

[_Themis]

What I think might be interesting is looking at a discussion with those that are agnostic/atheist dealing with the evidences that are highest on their own personal scale that would convince them of a personal God.

The problem for atheist's and agnostic is a lack of evidence. There is mountains of potential evidence that would convince most atheist's and agnostic's of a personal God/creator.

Would you and other ‘players’ be up for that? I think it might be eye opening to see what some folks might come with after excluding scripture, fine tuning, revelation, spiritual promptings/witness, ultimate truth, etc.

Scripture, as Honor has talked about, does more to provide evidence against the Christian God. Fine tuning also doesn't really provide good evidence, and the spiritual you have admitted is not free from error or bias. Does that admission include MG's involvement with the spiritual? I'm not sure what you mean by ultimate truth, since I would never exclude what I understand the term to mean.

[_Themis]

You bring up a good point on scripture. Maybe someone else can come up with a work-a-round? I’d hate to see the conversation fail simply because scripture can’t be used as evidence.

You do realize he is using scripture as evidence. No one has suggested it should not be used as evidence for or against.

A personal God would be kind of a big deal, right? Wouldn’t you think that there are other potential ‘witnesses’ or evidences besides scriptures, fine tuning, revelation, spiritual promptings/witness, ultimate truth, or what have you that could be brought in to the discussion?

People have asked you to provide any evidence including all those listed above. I have tried to get you to address the spiritual many times and how one would overcome it's errors and bias to make sure they are right about what interpretations they have from experiencing the spiritual.

[_mentalgymnast]

There is mountains of potential evidence that would convince most atheist's and agnostic's of a personal God/creator.

That’s what I’m talking about. If you folks could get together and present that evidence I think it would be worth the time. What are those potential evidences? Between the lot of you I think it would be interesting to see what you come up with.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

There is mountains of potential evidence that would convince most atheist's and agnostic's of a personal God/creator.

That’s what I’m talking about. If you folks could get together and present that evidence I think it would be worth the time. What are those potential evidences? Between the lot of you I think it would be interesting to see what you come up with.

Regards,
MG

There would be no need to present or be locked into subjective bias. This seems to be a path that honorentheos, Lemmie might like to pursue. To be the positivist would be a challenge, I’m sure. But like you said, there may be some potential evidence that you might all come to agreement on for a personal God.

Regards,
MG

[_Themis]

There is mountains of potential evidence that would convince most atheist's and agnostic's of a personal God/creator.

That’s what I’m talking about. If you folks could get together and present that evidence I think it would be worth the time. What are those potential evidences? Between the lot of you I think it would be interesting to see what you come up with.

Regards,
MG

A few examples would be gold plates with the story of Nephites and lamanites on them. Papyri that actually told the story of Abraham. God or angels showing up to the world regularly showing a being claiming to be God exists. There really is a mountain of things. Now MG do you consider your involvement in the spiritual to be free of error or bias, and if not, would that not mean your probability that God exists should be around 50/50 or at least not higher then 75% in Honor's probability assignments?

[_Lemmie]

You bring up a good point on scripture. Maybe someone else can come up with a work-a-round? I’d hate to see the conversation fail simply because scripture can’t be used as evidence.

You do realize he is using scripture as evidence. No one has suggested it should not be used as evidence for or against.

A personal God would be kind of a big deal, right? Wouldn’t you think that there are other potential ‘witnesses’ or evidences besides scriptures, fine tuning, revelation, spiritual promptings/witness, ultimate truth, or what have you that could be brought in to the discussion?

People have asked you to provide any evidence including all those listed above. I have tried to get you to address the spiritual many times and how one would overcome it's errors and bias to make sure they are right about what interpretations they have from experiencing the spiritual.

Many, many, many times he’s been asked.

So, go ahead, mentalgymnast. You are the one pushing this issue the most, what is your evidence? How do you address your own biases that you have admitted you have? How do you address the potential for errors in interpretation of such evidence?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I see we’re in the ‘going in circles’ phase with Mental “fEeLiNgS iS eViDeNcE! mY FeElInGs aRe rEaL! I hAvE sPeCiaL kNowLedGe!” Gymnast now.

- Doc

[_Dr Moore]

Yeah. I gave a fair effort to respond directly and thoughtfully to MG. He isn’t willing to return the favor. To me that’s trolling. Added him to my short list of Smokey and Markk on ignore. Whoever is behind the avatar, good luck.

[_mentalgymnast]

...what is your evidence? How do you address your own biases that you have admitted you have? How do you address the potential for errors in interpretation of such evidence?

The same things I listed I my post to honorentheos. Scriptures, Fine Tuning, etc.

I address biases through being self aware knowing that it’s always possible to be mistaken. Always gathering and evaluating new information. Using information and cross compare with previous biases and determine whether or not I need/should adjust the way I think and/or approach life. In approaching the potential for error I think patience and forbearance are key. Jumping to hasty conclusions is never a good idea.

Unless I’m judging the merits of ice cream.

Now, a couple of questions for you:

1. How would you expect to know or interact with a personal God if you believed in one?

2. How did you determine that you do not have a Father in Heaven who loves you? That you’re not a child of God?

Regards,
MG