# Present evidence for the existence of your deity **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 23, 2012, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/present-evidence-for-the-existence-of-your-deity/619737 "2012-04-23T19:45:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2012, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/present-evidence-for-the-existence-of-your-deity/619737/281 "2012-04-24T22:21:41Z")
> [@TravisT](#): > > The two opposing ideas of An Eye for and Eye and Turn the Other Cheek, in themselves point out the hypocracy and the lack of independent thought. Straight Dope pedantic moment: The _Lex Talionis_, (“an eye for a eye”), was an effort to impose more just responses to injuries. It required that the punishment for inflicting harm not be excessive. Earlier forms of response, pure revenge, led to Lamech’s statement in Genesis 4, that he had slain a man for wounding him and that if Cain was avenged seven times, he would be avenged seventy-seven times. By setting forth a proportionate response to violence, the commands in Exodus and Deuteronomy were setting boundaries to reduce violence and feuds. [/Straight Dope pedantic moment] ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2012, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/present-evidence-for-the-existence-of-your-deity/619737/282 "2012-04-24T22:25:19Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > Which just goes to show that you should always let sleeping gods lie. Certainly that would be true for Cthulhu and, earlier, MANA-YOOD-SUSHAI. ---
**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:** [April 24, 2012, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/present-evidence-for-the-existence-of-your-deity/619737/283 "2012-04-24T22:27:29Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > Maybe someone has already said this (I am not going to wade through a 5 page GD thread), but asking a religious believer for evidence of their god is a bit like asking a scientist why we should worship the Schrödinger equation. Science isn’t about worshiping anything and religion isn’t about evidence, at least not the sort of evidence that science might recognize. > > If you actually want to understand what is going on with religious people, don’t ask them why they think their god exists, but why they worship Him (or He, or It, or whatever). > > People who ask about evidence of the existence of gods, and (perhaps more surprisingly) religious people who try to offer answers (or seek a space in which to fit evidence of God by denying already well established scientific explanations), just aren’t getting what religion is really about. The religious believers who do real harm are those who do not really understand religion and who think it _is_ meant to do something like what science does so much better. If they were merely ignorant of science, it would not really matter very much, but they are ignorant of religion. That’s just fairly historical revision by the defenders of religion. The religious have historically assumed that they were _right_ and that the facts would back them up; it was when science came along and started disproving all their claims that it became “unreasonable” to expect evidence from religion. And religion isn’t “about worship”; religions have all sorts of components that don’t involve worship, and some don’t involve worshiping anything. Religion is about making claims about the world that are based on faith; “there is a god who wants to be worshiped” is just one such claim. Religion does try to do many of the same things as science; science just does it much better. ---
**Author:** ![TravisT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ea5d25/32.png) [@TravisT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TravisT)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2012, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/present-evidence-for-the-existence-of-your-deity/619737/284 "2012-04-24T22:31:19Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Straight Dope pedantic moment: > > The _Lex Talionis_, (“an eye for a eye”), was an effort to impose more just responses to injuries. It required that the punishment for inflicting harm not be excessive. Earlier forms of response, pure revenge, led to Lamech’s statement in Genesis 4, that he had slain a man for wounding him and that if Cain was avenged seven times, he would be avenged seventy-seven times. > > By setting forth a proportionate response to violence, the commands in Exodus and Deuteronomy were setting boundaries to reduce violence and feuds. > > [/Straight Dope pedantic moment] That’s good information. But most Christians I know do not know that. So they use it to wiggle out of Turn the other cheek. Again, I’m from a small southern town originally, so that may have something to do with my viewpoint and my bias. “It says right there in the Bible, by God, an eye for an eye!” Yeah, but it also says, turn the other cheek. So which is it? When 911 happened, do you know how many Christians I heard say that they should make a parking lot out of the entire Middle East? Under the banner of “And eye for an eye!” It seems to me for all the good that’s been done in the literal interpretation of the Bible, more damage has been carried out. Let’s not forget about those Middle Ages. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2012, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/present-evidence-for-the-existence-of-your-deity/619737/285 "2012-04-24T22:33:46Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Certainly that would be true for Cthulhu and, earlier, MANA-YOOD-SUSHAI. As long as Skarl keeps drumming the worlds are safe. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2012, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/present-evidence-for-the-existence-of-your-deity/619737/286 "2012-04-24T22:48:46Z")
> [@TravisT](#): > > Perhaps, but as we evolve shouldn’t our understanding evolve as well? Yes. That’s why more people are admitting they understand the idea is nonsense. > [@](#): > > When was god ever really recognizable? […] Yes, they have decided what God must be like, a long white beard (looking strikingly like Zeus) and rendering judgement and retribution from above, as if God is a seperate being. Asked and answered. > [@TravisT](#): > > “And as they say in the world of science, Goswami has done his math. Marshalling evidence from recent research in cognitive psychology, biology, parapsychology and quantum physics…” > > That suggest to me he’s gathering data. Interpreting, not gathering. It sounds to me like he’s not doing experiments- he’s jamming a bunch of unrelated data into a vague theory. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2012, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/present-evidence-for-the-existence-of-your-deity/619737/287 "2012-04-24T23:20:16Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > Several theories have been advanced to explain the divergence of the two gospel genealogies, most notably: > > That Joseph had two fathers—one natural and one legal—as a result of a levirate marriage involving uterine brothers. > Legal inheritance. > That Luke’s genealogy is actually through Mary rather than her husband Joseph. > That Matthew’s genealogy is actually through Mary rather than her husband Joseph. > That one or both of the genealogies are invented. You left out the most obvious and likely one: Pious redactors made this shit up because they thought it was the right thing to do. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > Still wading through it. I hope you wore your boots, it’s pretty deep. ---
**Author:** ![Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e47c2d/32.png) [@Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2012, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/present-evidence-for-the-existence-of-your-deity/619737/288 "2012-04-24T23:21:28Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > As long as Skarl keeps drumming the worlds are safe. “Is great evil when drumming stop. Now come bass solo.” ---
**Author:** ![sisu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@sisu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sisu)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2012, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/present-evidence-for-the-existence-of-your-deity/619737/289 "2012-04-24T23:28:31Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > No-that is _your_ “truth”. i have seen a number of posts through the years from Christians exclaiming that they have solid evidence(not just blind faith) of the existence of their deity, but that atheists would only dismiss it so why should they even bother to show it to us. Once again, the OP is absolutely valid because claims that evidence exists have been put forth over and over again. Until the claims(such as the one referred to in the OP) stop, requests to see the evidence in question will continue. If you have a problem with the request, then you should have an equal problem with the original claims. I cannot and expect never will be able to present evidence of my god but I am cool with that. Does not make me stupid or dumb just makes me faithful. Anyone who can show direct evidence of god then I am happy to review it but I don’t think they can. Again I am cool with that. Anyway this was always going to descend into a “look at the silly christians they have no scientific evidence they are stupid” discussion. ---
**Author:** ![TravisT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ea5d25/32.png) [@TravisT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TravisT)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/present-evidence-for-the-existence-of-your-deity/619737/290 "2012-04-25T00:25:09Z")
"Jacobo Grinberg, in 1993, at the University of Mexico, was trying to demonstrate quantum nonlocality for two correlated brains. Two people meditate together with the intention of direct (signalless, nonlocal) communication. After twenty minutes, they are separated (while still continuing their unity intention), placed in individual Faraday cages (electromagnetically impervious chambers), and each brain is wired up to an electroencephalogram (EEG) machine. One subject is shown a series of light flashes producing in his or her brain an electrical activity that is recorded in the EEG machine from which an “evoked potential” is extracted with the help of a computer upon subtracting the brain noise. The evoked potential is somehow found to be transferred to the other subject’s brain onto his or her EEG that gives (upon subtraction of noise) a transferred potential (similar to the evoked potential in phase and strength). Control subjects (those who do not meditate together or are unable to hold the intention for signal-less communication during the duration of the experiment) do not show any transferred potential. The experiment demonstrates the nonlocality of brain responses to be sure, but something even more important–nonlocality of quantum consciousness. How else to explain how the forced choice of the evoked response in one subject’s brain can lead to the free choice of an (almost) identical response in the correlated partner’s brain? As stated above, the experiment, since then has been replicated twice. First, by the London neuropsychiatrist Peter Fenwick in 1998. And again by the Bastyr university researcher Leana Standish and her collaborators in 2004. The conclusion of these experiments is radical. Quantum consciousness, the precipitator of the downward causation of choice from quantum possibilities is what esoteric spiritual traditions call God. We have rediscovered God within science. More over we have a new integrative paradigm of science, based not on the primacy of matter as the old science, but on the primacy of consciousness. Consciousness is the ground of all being which we now can recognize as what the spiritual traditions call Godhead ---
**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:** [April 25, 2012, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/present-evidence-for-the-existence-of-your-deity/619737/291 "2012-04-25T00:28:31Z")
> [@TravisT](#): > > "Jacobo Grinberg, in 1993, at the University of Mexico, was trying to demonstrate quantum nonlocality for two correlated brains. Two people meditate together with the intention of direct (signalless, nonlocal) communication. After twenty minutes, they are separated (while still continuing their unity intention), placed in individual Faraday cages (electromagnetically impervious chambers), and each brain is wired up to an electroencephalogram (EEG) machine. One subject is shown a series of light flashes producing in his or her brain an electrical activity that is recorded in the EEG machine from which an “evoked potential” is extracted with the help of a computer upon subtracting the brain noise. The evoked potential is somehow found to be transferred to the other subject’s brain onto his or her EEG that gives (upon subtraction of noise) a transferred potential (similar to the evoked potential in phase and strength). Control subjects (those who do not meditate together or are unable to hold the intention for signal-less communication during the duration of the experiment) do not show any transferred potential. > > The experiment demonstrates the nonlocality of brain responses to be sure, but something even more important–nonlocality of quantum consciousness. How else to explain how the forced choice of the evoked response in one subject’s brain can lead to the free choice of an (almost) identical response in the correlated partner’s brain? As stated above, the experiment, since then has been replicated twice. First, by the London neuropsychiatrist Peter Fenwick in 1998. And again by the Bastyr university researcher Leana Standish and her collaborators in 2004. > > The conclusion of these experiments is radical. Quantum consciousness, the precipitator of the downward causation of choice from quantum possibilities is what esoteric spiritual traditions call God. We have rediscovered God within science. More over we have a new integrative paradigm of science, based not on the primacy of matter as the old science, but on the primacy of consciousness. Consciousness is the ground of all being which we now can recognize as what the spiritual traditions call Godhead And the source for the above is…? ---
**Author:** ![TravisT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ea5d25/32.png) [@TravisT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TravisT)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/present-evidence-for-the-existence-of-your-deity/619737/292 "2012-04-25T00:51:22Z")
Right, sorry. A different interview with Dr. Goswami, I should have copied the link. I searched for it by typing in Peter Fenwick nonlocal consciousness. I believe. I wanted to see the data. Marley was right, Dr. Goswami was not conducting the experiments but instead was interpretting. But these people were conducting experiments. Leana Standish, 2004, Peter Fenwick, 1998, Jacobo Grinberg, 1993. ---
**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:** [April 25, 2012, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/present-evidence-for-the-existence-of-your-deity/619737/293 "2012-04-25T00:52:44Z")
> [@TravisT](#): > > Right, sorry. A different interview with Dr. Goswami, I should have copied the link. I searched for it by typing in Peter Fenwick nonlocal consciousness. I believe. I wanted to see the data. Marley was right, Dr. Goswami was not conducting the experiments but instead was interpretting. But these people were conducting experiments. Leana Standish, 2004, Peter Fenwick, 1998, Jacobo Grinberg, 1993. It would help if we knew how they interpreted their own data, and if they reached the same conclusions he did. ---
**Author:** ![TravisT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ea5d25/32.png) [@TravisT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TravisT)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/present-evidence-for-the-existence-of-your-deity/619737/294 "2012-04-25T00:54:52Z")
You’re right. I’d love to see more about these experiments. Here’s the link: [http://www.amitgoswami.org/science-religion-integrated/](http://www.amitgoswami.org/science-religion-integrated/) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/present-evidence-for-the-existence-of-your-deity/619737/295 "2012-04-25T01:17:52Z")
I would really wonder what is Leana Standish an expert of. > **[The Skeptic's Message Lab | Skeptical Inquirer](https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/skeptics-message-lab/)** > > Some thoughts on new ways to critique alternative medicine. > [@](#): > > Doubt and About > Chris Mooney > March 24, 2003 > > Here we go again: The federal government has put together yet another advisory body on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) policy, and once again, science-based skepticism seems to have been left off the agenda. This time the offender is the Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academies, which has created a committee to investigate the “Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine by the American Public.” The panel will be studying issues such as the licensing of non-mainstream health practitioners, but it will not bother to first “assess the safety or efficacy of CAM products.” What’s the point, you might wonder. > > And it gets worse. The Institute of Medicine committee recently had its first meeting; among its fifteen members are a pseudoscientific naturopath, Leanna Standish of Bastyr University, and Jeanne Drisko of the University of Kansas, whose credentials include signing an anti-evolutionist petition and also, according to a biography provided by the Institute of Medicine, serving as “Program Director” of the American College for Advancement in Medicine. This group, as those familiar with the complementary and alternative medicine field know all too well, promotes EDTA chelation therapy, which is not just unproven but downright dangerous. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/present-evidence-for-the-existence-of-your-deity/619737/296 "2012-04-25T02:06:49Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > How about providing some cites for your claims, or should I take your suggestive errors at face value? I’ll open a new thread to point it out, rather than hijacking this one. > **[Avoiding a hijack: a response to one version of biblical inerrancy](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=649537)** > > This thread is in response to the following post in the Present evidence for the existence of your deity thread, in order to avoid a further hijack of that thread. I will probably not spend a lot of time making any grand assertions, but the question... ---
**Author:** ![Blkshp](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blkshp/32/7135_2.png) [@Blkshp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blkshp)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/present-evidence-for-the-existence-of-your-deity/619737/297 "2012-04-25T02:34:54Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > My question to this is, how do you know that your experience originates from whichever deity you believe it does? Could it not be the result of an evil entity trying to fool you into believing in the wrong God? > > For example, what if it’s Ahiriman, attempting to convince you that your beliefs are correct. This would upset the true God, Ahura Mazda, and condemn you to oblivion. So Ahiriman has a reason for deceiving you - how can you tell that your experience is not from him as opposed to your God? You’re right. Fuck it, I’ll have Jameson’s, double, neat. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/present-evidence-for-the-existence-of-your-deity/619737/298 "2012-04-25T02:38:08Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > How about providing some cites for your claims, or should I take your suggestive errors at face value? Of course, this is the problem when I have to take on a dozen people attacking me from different angles. I have to suddenly be an expert in science, geology, and now geneologies. Otherwise, you insult my intelligence. > Christian apologists certainly have not run away from any of your challenges. > From a quick google search: > > From wikipedia: > > Several theories have been advanced to explain the divergence of the two gospel genealogies, most notably: > > That Joseph had two fathers—one natural and one legal—as a result of a levirate marriage involving uterine brothers. > Legal inheritance. > That Luke’s genealogy is actually through Mary rather than her husband Joseph. > That Matthew’s genealogy is actually through Mary rather than her husband Joseph. > That one or both of the genealogies are invented. > > Frankly, I’m more amazed at the numerous Messianic prophecies in the OT that came completely true with the life and death of Jesus Christ. These theories are not at all probable, they are only introduced when you presuppose inerrancy and any explanation will do, no matter how absurd. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/present-evidence-for-the-existence-of-your-deity/619737/299 "2012-04-25T02:39:10Z")
> [@Blkshp](#): > > You’re right. Fuck it, I’ll have Jameson’s, double, neat. You don’t think it was a legitimate question? ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2012, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/present-evidence-for-the-existence-of-your-deity/619737/300 "2012-04-25T02:40:15Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > These theories are not at all probable, they are only introduced when you presuppose inerrancy and any explanation will do, no matter how absurd. My bad - didn’t realize there was a separate thread. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/present-evidence-for-the-existence-of-your-deity/619737.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/present-evidence-for-the-existence-of-your-deity/619737.md?page=16)