Not at all. I’m just saying that it’s not a position that can be arrived at through empirical method.
Diogenes, Othersider:
Given the nearly 1.3 million “Is there a God?” threads in GD, and the ability of both of you to create a new “Is there a God?” thread if you feel the need, do you really need to keep debating the topic of “Is there a God?” in a thread started to condemn the hijacking of religious threads with “Is there a God?” type arguments? 
That, I might agree with.
So, we might say there’s no empirical evidence supporting God’s existence?
We can create new threads? I didn’t know that. I thought they just magically appeared and we’re stuck with them. 
That’s what I was asking.
I disagree – when I look at the complexities of every ecosystem on the planet, or even just human biology, the way that billions and billions of things come and fit together perfectly, I see evidence of a divine presence. (Yes, evidence. :))
You don’t, and that’s your interpretation. But your interpretation is not objective fact, no matter how much you stamp your foot and say it is.
– I think a lot of our more literal-minded Dopers are having trouble with the concept that God (at least, the Judeo-Christian God) doesn’t play in the Logic and Physical Evidence squash court. In matters of faith, scientific method is not the be-all and end-all of analysis. (Check Proverbs 3 for more on that.)
And thanks to faithfool for a lovely, eloquent post.
Not all religious people agree on that. God seems to play on that squash court when it’s convenient.
Sorry, should have clarified: doesn’t always play on that squash court.
Well, that right there proves the existence of a God to me. SOMEONE actually read a too-long (as usual) post from me. Thank you Tracy, very much. 
You are too kind.
I’m just sad that most people, probably rightly so, can’t wade through all my blather to get to any of the meat that IS decent and help me out with my questions. Someday I will be rich enough to hire an editor. Or take a class on “How To Make Your Point,” remedial version.
You can hire me. I’ll make your point for you. 
Explain the appendix.
As I’ve said before, we all need our myths to keep us going through life, and if theists need to believe in a loving deity that watches over them, I can’t quarrel with that. I get angry when theists think that their beliefs are self-evident and supported by evidence, when it’s clear they aren’t. Terry Pratchett said it best:
I’d disagree with this statement. Diogenes, what would be the logical reaction upon meeting Someone (a person, a force, a whatever) that convinced you that it was, in fact, God? Either you’d be crazy (a rather unsatisfying hypothesis, as if it’s true, you can’t prove it), mistaken (same thing; if you can’t evaluate this conclusion correctly, you have no reason to think you can evaluate any conclusion) or God would actually exist. Now, you couldn’t prove the existence of God with this experience, telepathy currently being unreliable, but for as for yourself, you would still be sure that God existed, and for yourself, this would be a perfectly rational conclusion.
So, now what? Knowing this, you aren’t going to be swayed by logical proofs against the existence of God, any more than a person with a few pennies will be convinced that two plus two is five.
Ordinarily I’d be proud of this burst of intuitive thinking. However, as Polycarp flat-out stated something similar earlier, I claim no credit. So, Diogenes, given an experience described above, and positing that you’ve checked your pipe after the experience and found nothing unexpected, what is the logical conclusion?
Again, that’s your opinion.
That’s what I’ve been trying to say for several pages. I have my interpretation, and people like gobear are free to disagree with it. He has his interpretation, and people like me are free to disagree with it.
Well, that depends. Since it seems we’re both in Texas, the commute probably wouldn’t be too much to compensate, but I’d have to know your rates. Should I send you an email to enquire or an application?
Evolution. Which is something else that I see as evidence for a divine presence: creating life to evolve and adapt is brilliant.
Clear to you, is of course the implication.
So, in conclusion: no one knows. grin
Without wading through several pages of posts first, I’ll put in my $0.02.
The phrase, “There is no God,” is a fact in the same way that “There are no aliens manipulating government officials with mind control rays” is a fact. Neither premise can be proven or disproven, but both are the negations of positions that make extraordinary claims backed with little-to-no evidence. Unfortunately (in my opinion, at least) many people have a very strong emotional attachment to the truth-value of the first phrase. This leads to all kinds of nasty encounters when the two side clash.
Now, I know that many of you on the “God exists” side will take exception to my “little-to-no evidence” crack, so let me do my best to break down the kinds of evidence that are normally presented for God’s existence. From what I’ve observed, this evidence normally falls into one of four categories:
[ul][li]Personal Revelation – People often report internal phenomenon, ranging from feeling a “presence” or a “warmth” at the mild end of the spectrum, to actually hearing the Voice of God at the other. Unfortunately, such experiences are personal in nature, and cannot be used to convince someone else. It would be like touching a surface, and pulling your hand back from the sudden burning sensation. “Damn, this thing’s hot!” you exclaim. The guy next to you might not believe you, though, and when he touches the surface, he doesn’t feel anything at all. Worse, even though it felt like you were burned, you show no physical symptoms. This is analogous to the effects some people report from praying. Some people can pray, and report “feeling God’s presence”. Other can pray, and get no response at all. Something that isn’t repeatable doesn’t make for very useful evidence.[/li][li]Miracles – People often cite events that were very improbable, yet still occurred, as proof of God’s existence. Little Timmy was in a coma, and the doctors said that he had only weeks to live. His parents and their church prayed for Timmy, and he miraculously recovered! Praise be to God! Except, what were the odds that any person in that situation would have spontaneously recovered, prayer or no prayer? Sure, the doctors thought he would die, but doctors have been wrong before. If we start claiming that every recovery that is directly opposed to a doctor’s professional opinion must be a miracle, then aren’t we placing way too much faith in our doctors?[/li]
And it’s not just medical recoveries. Granny can’t pay for her hip replacement, and then she wins the lottery. It must be a miracle! Susan is in a car accident, and the steel beam that pierced her windshield missed her head by mere inches. She must have had an angel watching over her! It seems as if those who are looking for God in the world around them have a tendency to throw the entire concept of probability out the window.
[li]The Universe is too Perfect – Change any arbitrary physical constant in the universe by the tiniest fraction, and you’ll have a universe that can no longer support life as we know it. The thing is, I’m sure that you could tweak the physical constants of the universe in such a way as to make human life entirely impossible, yet make some other form of life possible instead. This other form of life would then look at the universe and comment on how perfect it is, and how that must prove that it was created. “I mean, look at what happens when we change the universal constants to this random configuration,” which just so happens to be the constants we have right now. “See? With these slightly altered parameters, life becomes impossible!”[/li]
Or, to make a long exposition short, only those configurations that make sentient life possible will ever be examined by a sentient mind. Thus, if the universe happens to end up supporting sentient life, that life will look upon the universe and comment on how “perfect” it is.
[li]Biblical Evidence – I hesitate to include this category, since only the most extreme fundamentalists think that the Bible makes for good evidence. Mostly you hear about how a character in an anthology that purports to be a factual account must be divine, because he fulfilled prophecies that were laid out in another part of the same anthology, and no one would ever dare alter the words of these collected works, because it says right here on page xxx that no one would ever do that. [/li]
Of course, everyone here at the SDMB is wise enough to realize why circular proofs are not at all useful, so I won’t elaborate further.[/ul]
It’s pretty obvious, from my vantage point, that any evidence one can offer for God’s existence holds very little weight with someone who doesn’t at least lean toward believing already, much like the tin-foil hat crowd will see evidence of the government’s mind control rays all around them, when most other people will not.
And please, don’t take offense that I’m comparing those who believe in God with the tin-foil hat wearers, because I’m not trying to belittle anyone. It’s just that, from where I’m sitting, both beliefs are equally plausible (as is belief in the Tooth Fairy, the Loch Ness monster, and Batboy). I absolutely respect your right to believe whatever you want. However, that doesn’t mean that I respect the beliefs themselves. I don’t. I wish I could, but I can’t. To me, belief in one mythical being is no more of less valid than belief in any other mythical being.
Here’s a mental excercise: Attempt to imagine someone, in this day and age, believing in the Greek Pantheon. I mean sincerely believing, as in praying to Poseidon to help protect the coral reefs, or to Ares to help the soldiers in Iraq fight the terrorists. Imagine how silly you’d find their behavior. That’s pretty much how I feel about people who believe in any god.
Oh, wait, this is the Pit, isn’t it? In that case, FUCK!
Much better.
All of the above, if y’please, ma’yum.
Actually, I don’t find any of the Greek reconstructionists or non-reconstructionist followers of those gods that I know terribly silly. I even attended a religious service last April, and will probably do so again this year if they share it with non-co-religionists again and I manage to get off my arse to schlep into town for it.
Then you must be much more – I was going to say “tolerant” – than I am. But “tolerant” doesn’t quite fit. Neither does “accepting”. Hmmmm…
I guess you just find a wider range of activities to be non-silly than I do.
To end our hijack… it’s coming to you PRIORITY!! With delivery confirmation. 