# evidence for god? some one said so. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 21, 2013, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896 "2013-01-21T08:55:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2013, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/141 "2013-01-27T06:38:22Z")
> [@Raging\_Bull](#): > > On the first day God created man. > > OR > > On the first day Man created God > > You decide (neither is wrong neither is right,spiritual beliefs cant be proved especially by science as science only deals with things that we already know) That’s nonsense. Science has discovered and analyzed all sorts of things we never even conceived of much less “knew before”. And the reason that “spiritual beliefs” can’t be proved by science is because they don’t exist. There’s nothing there to prove. if there was anything to such beliefs, there’s no reason to think that science wouldn’t be able to study them like anything else. > [@Zoe](#): > > I don’t see that I am very different from anyone in these groups. We are all more alike than we are different. I am the Nazi. I am the Jew, I am the Arab, I am the neo-con, and the slave owner. Do you understand? Sure I understand. You are trying to protect fundamentally indefensible beliefs, organizations and belief systems by convincing people that criticism of them is out of bounds. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2013, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/142 "2013-01-27T06:39:29Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > At least a couple of us have expressed that we have “seen” evidence. Why should we expect Atheists to see things as being created by God? Fractals are evidence to me, but not necessarily to scientists. > > Are you talking about testimony in a literal courtroom? I can understand that – especially with eye witnesses. Some personal religious experiences are different too, but not necessarily contradictory. Are you actually trying to wave away the vast amounts of testimony that is contradictory by pointing out that some of it isn’t? I’ll tell you what: If you can show non-trivial accepted aspects of the various deities worshiped that they all share, that are non-contradictory in nature, I will seriously take a look at it. Until then, religious testimony consists of “He was a tall short red-headed quadruple amputee blonde bald woman running down the street in the middle of the river in a wheelchair in the middle of the night at approximately 3 pm waving a gun in one hand, a knife in the second hand, and a Bible in the third.” ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2013, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/143 "2013-01-27T08:19:11Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > At that point, it’s a little hard for me to say that they “believe” what they say, as much as they are simply mouthing it for purposes of partisan advantage. I was mostly thinking of the people who, in all good faith, really do believe the ideas in question (or have simply never given it much thought at all, but simply repeat what they have been taught all their lives.) > > For these people of good faith, I separate the belief from the person…delicately. If they truly do believe it, there is a better chance that they have formed an emotional attachment for it. > > For those people of bad faith, I haul 'em down to the BBQ Pit and tell 'em what I really think of 'em! :mad: I’m not saying they are lying about their beliefs, but that they have personalities which for some reason lead them to believe in things which are easily disproved, even if there is no social pressure or indoctrination going on. Thinking that all creationists actually accept evolution is just as wrong as believing all atheists are theists in drag. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2013, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/144 "2013-01-27T08:25:12Z")
> [@huck](#): > > But “I saw God” or “I felt God” is still testimony and still evidence, just not evidence most people are inclined to accept unless it fits with their own experiences and thinking. I’d love to see you try to use someone’s testimony that God told him John Smith was innocent in court. Someone saying that they felt God is testimony that they thought they felt God, and I believe them. It is not even close to being evidence that there is a God for them to feel. Look at the many people who felt they were abducted by aliens back when that was popular. Do you give them equal credence as you want us to give you? We know that the brain is a wonderful thing, and generates all sorts of internal stimuli. When I am in a boring meeting after lunch and sleepy I hallucinate all kinds of things, but I’m not prepared to create a religion based on them. Next time you have a God experience, ask him for something solid and verifiable. If not, I put your experience in the same class as alien abductions and mirages. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2013, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/145 "2013-01-27T08:35:47Z")
> [@Raging\_Bull](#): > > On the first day God created man. > > OR > > On the first day Man created God Well, sixth day actually. > [@](#): > > You decide (neither is wrong neither is right,spiritual beliefs cant be proved especially by science as science only deals with things that we already know) So, we already knew about the Big Bang? We already knew about subatomic particles? We already knew about Pluto and Neptune? > [@](#): > > They may be a God, they may be many Gods and they may not be any. Arguing doesnt make any of these sentiments any more true, no point really Quite right, arguing doesn’t do much. What does do a lot is to look at evidence claimed for god. We see that despite the claim that things in the Bible are revealed (either perfectly or imperfectly) it basically gets everything we can check pretty much wrong that would come from any sort of inspiration. Hell, they even got their own history a few hundred years back wrong. If someone said that their god revealed to them that George Washington rode a dragon, would you consider this god reliable - or even existent? How come each separated culture had a different god? Why would the God of all the universe only show up to my ancestors? Go and create a model, from first principles, of what you would expect your God to do and compare it to the real world - and don’t cheat by twisting things so you get the “right” answer. (He works in mysterious ways. Actually showing up kills faith. Etc.) That will take care of the god concept well. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2013, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/146 "2013-01-27T08:43:00Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > There are denominations that teach that the Bible is literal (dictated by God, I suppose) – that every story really happened and nothing is contradictory. There are other denominations that teach that the Bible is [_not_ the literal word of God, but rather inspired by God and a general guideline on faith and practice. Who knows? Can’t we learn from many sources, including some myths? Do we have to believe that everything written in the Bible is rock solid literal or everything is trash? There are other viewpoints between those two extremes. Why would God inspire a book full of untruths? You’d think that if God wanted to get us to believe the moral parts of the book as coming from a trustworthy source, he’d get the creation part right at least - especially since he’d know that in a few thousand years we’d figure out that Genesis is bunk. If chunks are inspired and other chunks are just made up, how do we tell which is which? How do we tell which moral precepts are inspired and which are as made up as the Flood? Sure we can judge them using non-theistic ethical reasoning - but if we have to do that, why not just use our ethical reasoning in the first place, and toss the whole thing except as the source of interesting examples. That would make the Bible and Shakespeare equal as a source of ethical inspiration. And other myths also, of course. That the Bible and modern religions is exactly equal to myths and Aesop as a source of morals is something even atheists can get behind. ---
**Author:** ![Critical1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@Critical1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Critical1)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2013, 9:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/147 "2013-01-27T09:36:10Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > At least a couple of us have expressed that we have “seen” evidence. Why should we expect Atheists to see things as being created by God? Fractals are evidence to me, but not necessarily to scientists. > (Snip) > Evidence can be very minor and still be useful. We aren’t talking of _proof_. When I said that I have had evidence of the existence of God, I specified that it wasn’t _scientific_ evidence. My evidence was personal to me. I don’t expect anyone to believe it except for the ones that have experienced something similar. Even then, some just don’t know what they think about it. Pretend for a moment that there was no bible, you have never heard of god or Jesus or anything like that. What you think of as evidence of god is just evidence that your brain is subject to bias like everyone else. Personal bias is not evidence, it is you, having an experience, and attributing that experience to a preconceived idea. Also non scientific evidence is not evidence. You are using the [argument from ignorance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) (sort of) to try and justify your evidence. (which is not evidence at all) ---
**Author:** ![Raging\_Bull](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/43a26b/32.png) [@Raging\_Bull](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raging_Bull)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2013, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/148 "2013-01-27T10:01:56Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Well, sixth day actually. I didnt specify any religion > [@](#): > > So, we already knew about the Big Bang? We already knew about subatomic particles? We already knew about Pluto and Neptune? I didnt word that correctly, apologies. But the point i was trying to make is that Science can only tell us about things which are physically observable. And the Big Bang is a Theory not a law so it is not definitively true > [@](#): > > Quite right, arguing doesn’t do much. What does do a lot is to look at evidence claimed for god. We see that despite the claim that things in the Bible are revealed (either perfectly or imperfectly) it basically gets everything we can check pretty much wrong that would come from any sort of inspiration. Hell, they even got their own history a few hundred years back wrong. If someone said that their god revealed to them that George Washington rode a dragon, would you consider this god reliable - or even existent? > How come each separated culture had a different god? Why would the God of all the universe only show up to my ancestors? Go and create a model, from first principles, of what you would expect your God to do and compare it to the real world - and don’t cheat by twisting things so you get the “right” answer. (He works in mysterious ways. Actually showing up kills faith. Etc.) That will take care of the god concept well. I personally dont have a religion and a “GOD” so i cant do what you suggested. But just because i dont believe in others religions doesnt make them anymore true or false than my beliefs ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2013, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/149 "2013-01-27T10:06:24Z")
> [@](#): > > **Czarcasm** : Are you actually trying to wave away the vast amounts of testimony that is contradictory by pointing out that some of it isn’t? I’ll tell you what: If you can show non-trivial accepted aspects of the various deities worshiped that they all share, that are non-contradictory in nature, I will seriously take a look at it. Until then, religious testimony consists of “He was a tall short red-headed quadruple amputee blonde bald woman running down the street in the middle of the river in a wheelchair in the middle of the night at approximately 3 pm waving a gun in one hand, a knife in the second hand, and a Bible in the third.” I’m really confused about what “testimony” you are talking about. I made a reference to testimony in the courtroom. But I don’t really understand that personal experiences are contradictory. (I am speaking only about Christianity – not the various deities that others believe in.) I just said that I was open to other faiths and to Atheism and that everyone must follow their own pathways. I didn’t even bring up the subject of religious testimony. I was talking about _personal experiences._ (No wonder people hesitate to talk about these experiences.) I consider much of the Bible to be very contradictory, BTW. Somewhere along the way I read that most of the “Great Religions” (whatever that is) have teachings that are similar to “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” But I don’t even know that that is true. What you look into is your business. I’m telling you what I believe, not telling you what you should believe. > [@](#): > > **Voyager** : Why would God inspire a book full of untruths? You’d think that if God wanted to get us to believe the moral parts of the book as coming from a trustworthy source, he’d get the creation part right at least - especially since he’d know that in a few thousand years we’d figure out that Genesis is bunk. I didn’t say that I believed that God inspired the Bible. “Untruths” and “fiction” are two different things. I can’t learn from untruths. I _can_ learn from fiction. The Bible is a collection of a lot of different books. I believe some books have more fiction than others. And believe me, I’m not going to try to second-guess “the great cosmic glue.” I do not believe in the story of creation as presented in Genesis. I don’t believe in Adam and Eve. I don’t believe the story of Noah and the Ark. BTW, someone mentioned that there were two of each animal. Part of the scriptures says that there were seven of each animal. I value both science and historical accuracy. Genesis isn’t either. > [@](#): > > If chunks are inspired and other chunks are just made up, how do we tell which is which? How do we tell which moral precepts are inspired and which are as made up as the Flood? Sure we can judge them using non-theistic ethical reasoning - but if we have to do that, why not just use our ethical reasoning in the first place, and toss the whole thing except as the source of interesting examples. That would make the Bible and Shakespeare equal as a source of ethical inspiration. And other myths also, of course. I wish each person who is interested would do much as you suggest: Use their own reasoning. But I would add to that “intuition.” And they have to keep in mind that what may be believable and helpful to them may be different from what someone else believes and finds helpful. I would approach Shakespeare much the same way. He could mess up too. He did have an anacronism from time to time. But can we learn truth from him even if historical information is concocted? I think so. > [@](#): > > That the Bible and modern religions is exactly equal to myths and Aesop as a source of morals is something even atheists can get behind. I’m not sure what you mean by “modern religions.” But I’m all for learning from other writings. You pick. You decide. You weigh the value. Or not. I’ve even heard a sermon on _The Velveteen Rabbit._ One minister that I know said that we can’t conclude from the story of the woman who was about to be stoned for committing adultry, that all adultry is a sin. Jesus said to her, Go your way and sin no more." But the minister said he was talking to that one woman when he said that. For her it was a sin. For someone else it might not be. BTW, one of my students who had just read Aesop’s fable of the fox with the grapes in his mouth, said that the moral was “Don’t talk with your mouth full.” Now I don’t even remember what the original moral was, according to Aesop. But I loved that child and her answer. ---
**Author:** ![Raging\_Bull](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/43a26b/32.png) [@Raging\_Bull](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raging_Bull)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2013, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/150 "2013-01-27T10:23:44Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > That’s nonsense. Science has discovered and analyzed all sorts of things we never even conceived of much less “knew before”. And the reason that “spiritual beliefs” can’t be proved by science is because they don’t exist. There’s nothing there to prove. if there was anything to such beliefs, there’s no reason to think that science wouldn’t be able to study them like anything else. Because Science cant prove something then it automatically means it doesnt exist? Three quaters of the universe is supposedly made up of “Dark Energy”. dark energy explains how the universe continually expands keeping in tune with what we already know about the universe. Yet no one has been able to find any proof of any dark energy. Does that mean it doesnt exist? Science claims it exists yet cant prove it, well thats not very scientific of the worlds leading scientists ---
**Author:** ![Critical1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@Critical1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Critical1)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2013, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/151 "2013-01-27T10:47:39Z")
> [@Raging\_Bull](#): > > Because Science cant prove something then it automatically means it doesnt exist? > > Three quaters of the universe is supposedly made up of “Dark Energy”. > dark energy explains how the universe continually expands keeping in tune with what we already know about the universe. > > Yet no one has been able to find any proof of any dark energy. > Does that mean it doesnt exist? > > Science claims it exists yet cant prove it, well thats not very scientific of the worlds leading scientists Science does not claim “Dark Energy” exists, dark energy is a placeholder, it is a term used to explain a gap in our knowledge. Both dark energy and matter have visible, testable, and demonstrable effects on our universe, we just don’t know what they are. (they as in dark matter/energy, we know what the effects are) So Again you are using fallacy to argue, and failing badly because of it. The evidence for dark matter/energy is vast and undeniable. The evidence for the supernatural is nonexistent. > [@Raging\_Bull](#): > > I didnt word that correctly, apologies. But the point i was trying to make is that Science can only tell us about things which are physically observable. And the Big Bang is a Theory not a law so it is not definitively true Theory/Law are nearly interchangeable terms in the realm of Science. Dark energy is not physically observable,(yet) but its effects are. Once again I would love to see an argument for the supernatural that doesn’t come from fallacy or bias. (no I am not holding my breath) ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2013, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/152 "2013-01-27T11:10:55Z")
> [@](#): > > **Der Trihs** : You are trying to protect fundamentally indefensible beliefs, organizations and belief systems by convincing people that criticism of them is out of bounds. Not at all. What organizations and belief systems have I tried to defend? It’s the individuals that you prejudge _as individuals_ (even though you don’t know them)just because they are part of a group. Further, I don’t object to criticism of my beliefs. I object to misstatements of what my beliefs are. And I do object to opinions that are stated as if they are facts. You know the saying around here: “You have a right to your own opinions, but you don’t have a right to your own facts.” > [@](#): > > **Critical1** : Pretend for a moment that there was no bible, you have never heard of god or Jesus or anything like that. What you think of as evidence of god is just evidence that your brain is subject to bias like everyone else. Personal bias is not evidence, it is you, having an experience, and attributing that experience to a preconceived idea. Well, if I had never heard of God, I probably wouldn’t attribute any experience that I had as evidence of God. That is true. And I didn’t even originally associate the experience with God. (I didn’t see or hear either God the Father or God the Son.) But much later it made sense to me when looked at in that light. And since I’m the only person who sees evidence of God within that experience now, I know what is evidence to me. Remember, I didn’t say that it was scientific evidence. And it certainly wasn’t _proof_. > [@](#): > > Also non scientific evidence is not evidence. You are using the argument from ignorance (sort of) to try and justify your evidence. (which is not evidence at all) I don’t have to justify evidence (that is on a personal level) to anyone. I haven’t even talked about what that evidence was. My thoughts are mine and my feelings are mine and no one else is an authority on them. I will take a look at “the argument from ignorance.” (Back now) I am not fond of Wikipedia as accurate information and this article is lacking in some areas – as pointed out by Wikipedia itself. I had completely forgotten about “the argument from ignorance” and I used to teach debate. Since I am not trying to convince anyone of my personal experience, I am the only judge of what is evidence to me. I value logic and the scientific method in most areas, but I don’t when it comes to matters of religious faith and personal experience. I wish I could discuss “the argument from ignorance” idea with you on a more intellectual level, but I’m just not very intellectual anymore. Your comments are appreciated, however. ---
**Author:** ![Raging\_Bull](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/43a26b/32.png) [@Raging\_Bull](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raging_Bull)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2013, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/153 "2013-01-27T11:18:16Z")
> [@Critical1](#): > > Science does not claim “Dark Energy” exists, dark energy is a placeholder, it is a term used to explain a gap in our knowledge. Both dark energy and matter have visible, testable, and demonstrable effects on our universe, we just don’t know what they are. (they as in dark matter/energy, we know what the effects are) So Again you are using fallacy to argue, and failing badly because of it. The evidence for dark matter/energy is vast and undeniable. The evidence for the supernatural is nonexistent. Scientists work off the theory that dark energy exist, there may be reason to believe it does there is no disputing this, but there is no definite proof of its existence. > [@](#): > > Theory/Law are nearly interchangeable terms in the realm of Science. Dark energy is not physically observable,(yet) but its effects are. Theory and Law are not interchangeable! The earth is flat is a theory that used to exist but was proven otherwise The laws of motion however will always prove correct, if you claim a knowledge of science and then state that theory and law are interchangeble your credibility then comes into question. Theories are statements which havent yet been disproved Laws cant be disproved > [@](#): > > Once again I would love to see an argument for the supernatural that doesn’t come from fallacy or bias. (no I am not holding my breath) Im not arguing in favour of the supernatural as im not a Theist, but the arguments against it are no better than the arguments for it. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2013, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/154 "2013-01-27T13:24:50Z")
> [@Hottius\_Maximus](#): > > You bring up some age-old philosophical points that humans have struggled with for centuries. That being said, I really don’t understand what your response has to do with what I posted. My point was, that if Howard was an intellectual doesn’t mean he is right about anything supernatural, any more than any other person, and I don’t believe God necessarily wants any religion, or honors one’s opinion over another. Every human (in My opinion) has a right to their own beliefs but to me that doesn’t mean they have the facts, and that includes myself!Nor should anyone’s religious beliefs be the law of the land. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2013, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/155 "2013-01-27T15:48:16Z")
> [@Raging\_Bull](#): > > The laws of motion however will always prove correct, if you claim a knowledge of science and then state that theory and law are interchangeble your credibility then comes into question. > > Theories are statements which havent yet been disproved > Laws cant be disproved Newton’s Laws of Motion have not always proved correct, and have been amended. And what is interesting is that a scientific theory amended Newton’s Law of Motion. Einstein’s theory of relativity changed everything. See Newton and Einstien’s different views [here.](http://www.gravityforthemasses.com/Page2.html) Also google laws of conservation. ---
**Author:** ![Hottius\_Maximus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hottius\_Maximus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hottius_Maximus)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2013, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/156 "2013-01-27T17:58:09Z")
> [@razncain](#): > > **Hottius Maximus** in reference to your post #92 how seriously can you take [Howard Storm’s](http://www.examiner.com/article/predictions-from-jesus-given-to-howard-storm-after-he-died) predictions of Jesus or anything about him? And no, Storm didn’t die. NDE (near death experience) means what? Near death, or temporarily without a heartbeat or however one may describe it, is not the same as stinking rotting dead. You’ve got to quit putting so much emphasis on personal testimony. It does sell things, and that’s why they are used exclusively in info-commercials to sell all kinds of worthless junk including books and religion. You said you have no reason to doubt Storm’s claim. There are plenty. Read Hume instead, and apply his scale. So are you saying that a man who had the same attitudes and non-beliefs about God and religion that many atheists on the SDMB have MUST either be lying or delusional? Howard Storm applied the same arguments that many atheists on this board are applying because Howard Storm never saw the evidence before and he too believed that science trumped any religious beliefs someone may have. Howard Storm’s atheism was well-known to his family and colleagues, and dare I say it, BEFORE his experience, he easily could have been any one of the atheists posting here, including those who hold all religious beliefs in contempt, and dare I say it, many of the atheists here would be agreeing with him. NOW all of a sudden he has this experience where he meets Jesus and he “sees the light.” Okay now all of a sudden the atheists who up to this point would have agreed with him and applauded his arguments NOW say that he must have been lying or delusional or trying to sell books on infomercials. Okay, yeah, fine. Why don’t you try to send the man an e-mail sometime? I’m sure you could find out the church where he’s currently serving as pastor. Go ahead and dialogue with him one on one; I would not be surprised if he will gladly discuss his experience and his current beliefs with you. BTW I know it can be shaky to address hypothetical situations, but just out of curiosity, if the same thing had happened to Bill Maher or Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins or Penn Jillette, would you be saying the same things about them that you currently say about Howard Storm? Does somebody’s celebrity status make a difference? I’m just asking. Finally, what books by Hume do you recommend? ---
**Author:** ![Hottius\_Maximus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hottius\_Maximus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hottius_Maximus)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2013, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/157 "2013-01-27T18:02:19Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > My point was, that if Howard was an intellectual doesn’t mean he is right about anything supernatural, any more than any other person, and I don’t believe God necessarily wants any religion, or honors one’s opinion over another. Every human (in My opinion) has a right to their own beliefs but to me that doesn’t mean they have the facts, and that includes myself!Nor should anyone’s religious beliefs be the law of the land. Nowhere did I ever say that someone’s religious beliefs should be the law of the land. In Howard Storm’s book he brings up exactly what you brought up about religion when he asked Jesus what the best religion is. In a nutshell, it was “whatever religion leads you closer to God.” There’s more to it but you can read the book if you wish. As for Howard Storm being an intellectual not necessarily meaning that he is “right” about anything supernatural: My point was that you had brought up people in mental institutions having similar experiences. Perhaps I misunderstood but it appeared that you were trying to say that because mental patients had similar experiences that suddenly that invalidates everything Howard Storm experienced. ---
**Author:** ![Critical1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@Critical1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Critical1)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2013, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/158 "2013-01-27T19:45:19Z")
> [@Raging\_Bull](#): > > Scientists work off the theory that dark energy exist, there may be reason to believe it does there is no disputing this, but there is no definite proof of its existence. > > Theory and Law are not interchangeable! > The earth is flat is a theory that used to exist but was proven otherwise > > The laws of motion however will always prove correct, if you claim a knowledge of science and then state that theory and law are interchangeble your credibility then comes into question. > > Theories are statements which havent yet been disproved > Laws cant be disproved Um, [Wilstar](http://wilstar.com/theories.htm) The word you are looking for is hypothesis. The earth is flat is a hypothesis, a bad one granted but that’s what it is. As pointed out up thread the “Laws of motion” have already been amended by the Theory of Relativity. I really suggest you read the link before continuing this line of reasoning. > [@Raging\_Bull](#): > > Im not arguing in favour of the supernatural as im not a Theist, but the arguments against it are no better than the arguments for it. What arguments are there for the supernatural that are even slightly believable? there is not a single post in this thread anywhere that would convince anyone who did not already believe. So far all I have seen from the side of the believers is rampant [confirmation bias](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias). Which as I stated in the OP one of the things you are not supposed to use in your arguments. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2013, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/159 "2013-01-27T21:57:05Z")
> [@Raging\_Bull](#): > > I didnt word that correctly, apologies. But the point i was trying to make is that Science can only tell us about things which are physically observable. And the Big Bang is a Theory not a law so it is not definitively true We can talk about things which we can’t observe if we can observe their effects on the universe - such as cosmic background radiation. And nothing is absolutely true. F=ma is a law - but it turns out not to be totally correct. But we are pretty confident that the Big Bang did happen, since we see that things predicted by the theory exist as expected. > [@](#): > > I personally dont have a religion and a “GOD” so i cant do what you suggested. > > But just because i dont believe in others religions doesnt make them anymore true or false than my beliefs Right, your belief has nothing to do with it. But if your beliefs are based on evidence and logic, and some other belief is based on discredited evidence, wishful thinking, and the lack of logic, you can certainly say that your belief is more true than the other one. Not all beliefs are created equal. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2013, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/160 "2013-01-28T03:31:59Z")
**Hottius Maximus,** from what little I know of him, I don’t think anyone knows the extent of his atheism or if he even was an atheist. And becoming a believer doesn’t make those arguments he had as an atheist go away, they would be just as valid if he ever gave these things any thought at all. I never see any address this aspect after they convert. Surely some could come forward and recall if he was really like this. He could possibly direct us to something in print prior to conversion, or some interviews, students, family, or other people that can at least try to substantiate some of this. Do you know if he does? But I don’t think that is his biggest problem. Look at the conversation he claims he had with Jesus and angels from that site I gave you. The questions he’s asking Jesus and the angels are like lobbing soft balls, with the standard answers you’d get out of any charlatan, astrologist, mind reader, psalmist, mentalist etc. Not sure why it doesn’t send up a huge red flag with some. There would have been many convincing things he could have come back with that would have changed plenty with certain answers to certain questions or to events in the near future he could have predicted, but instead he gives us what we read in the link. Concerning Hume, most go to his Miracles section in the _Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding_ that you can read on-line. Hume doesn’t dismiss miracles outright, but does say the evidence must be as extraordinary as the claim before one should accept them as true. He basically relates to you how we know nature works, but also know how men knowingly or not bend the facts and is common occurrence, and asks you to weigh one with the other. Storm provides us with his personal testimonial which doesn’t appear to have any other evidence to go on. There are hundreds, probably thousands of such testimonials in book form like his in Christian book stores shelves everywhere. It comes down to what you want to accept as good evidence, and too many times believers and unbelievers have different standards on what constitute such. Believers seem to always be more easily swayed by testimonials, power of suggestion, anecdotes, and are much more trusting of those that tell them such stories. Unbelievers tend to put more credence in nature, and trying to understand how it works, and doing what Hume did, and wait for the extraordinary evidence to match the extraordinary claim. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896.md?page=9)