This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

An anecdotal examination of confirmation bias

#31DarkContractorPosted 4/25/2013 6:48:08 PM
The way I see it, while we each have varying personal standards of what would convince us, God ought to know exactly what it would take to cross that line for us to conclude he is real.
---
"If God exists why did I stub my toe this morning?" - Me "Well If God doesnt exist how do we bacon CHECKMATE ATHEISTS" - TheRealJiraiya
#32JonWood007Posted 4/25/2013 7:37:16 PM
Moorish_Idol posted...
God using fire to burn a bull is using natural means, not unnatural. It may convince you personally, but others would rationalize it as a natural coincidence.

Also there is no reason to believe that event ever occurred in the first place, so using it as a comparison to apologetic today is being inconsistent and ironically appealing to anecdotal evidence.


A pillar of fire coming down and burning a bull is a pretty extraordinary event.It's true it doesn;'t necessarily point to God, but it's definitely a step from what we have currently.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#33almasbabyPosted 4/25/2013 8:06:00 PM
I don't think there's any event that would convince an atheist of God's existence, simply because atheists just don't fill in the blanks with "God diddit". They'd simply look for natural causes because that's the only way they'd be able to approach the phenomena. If they couldn't find a natural cause for it they'd leave it as simply unknown, an event for which we have yet to find an explanation. Who are you atheists kidding?
#34Moorish_IdolPosted 4/25/2013 8:28:41 PM
^ Exactly.

People who are against "god of the gaps" arguments wouldn't be so eager to make a "god of the gaps" argument.
#35bratt100Posted 4/25/2013 8:48:16 PM
FlashOfLight posted...
JonWood007 posted...
@ Flash of Light. I'm just gonna leave Judges 6:36-40 there for ya.


Truth can not be isolated into its own corner and ignored, those who deny God's miracles in the past, are those who deny history, as those who go so far as to say that either Jesus Christ did not exist, or that he wasn't crucified, or that he did no miracle, etc...



We deny miracles because they have nothing outside of the bible to back them up. I can use that same reasoning and claim that most religious people are denying history by placing wishful thinking over our own observations.
---
"If the victim was a mute, then she shouldn't really be out alone."- OrangeWizard on rape
#36bratt100Posted 4/25/2013 10:46:12 PM
almasbaby posted...
I don't think there's any event that would convince an atheist of God's existence, simply because atheists just don't fill in the blanks with "God diddit". They'd simply look for natural causes because that's the only way they'd be able to approach the phenomena. If they couldn't find a natural cause for it they'd leave it as simply unknown, an event for which we have yet to find an explanation. Who are you atheists kidding?


Are you saying that a god couldn't prove he existed to an atheist?

Did you just place a limit on the limitless?

All of these gaps will be filled in time and many people are happy to say they don't know. It's okay to say that. Just because we don't know now doesn't mean we won't know in the future and filling those gaps in knowledge with god is harmful.
---
"If the victim was a mute, then she shouldn't really be out alone."- OrangeWizard on rape
#37Julian_CaesarPosted 4/26/2013 2:33:45 AM
From: Thuggernautz | #001
One final thought I had before coming inside to nerd it up was how people can invest so heavily in these ethereal spiritual 'signs' or answers to their prayers, when the Bible says God hates to be tested. Why would God answer prayers to reveal himself, is that not a test in itself, or is that verse somehow waived in the case of proving his existence?


Who are these people you speak of? I don't personally know many people who adhere to ethereal signs, although I guess I know some of think of God as a celestial ATM.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#38Julian_CaesarPosted 4/26/2013 2:56:01 AM
From: DarkContractor | #031
The way I see it, while we each have varying personal standards of what would convince us, God ought to know exactly what it would take to cross that line for us to conclude he is real.


I think most people, deep down, acknowledge and understand a desire to be chosen. Not due to any benefit or gift that we can provide (because that is choosing the benefit/gift), but to be simply chosen as we are. That is romance, to choose someone regardless of what they provide for us. To be logically compelled to "love" someone is not love, it is "duty." You damn sure better not tell a girl that you love her because "you have to." While duty has its place in a relationship (doing things you may not like because you have made a commitment), it certainly isn't part of romance.

In the same way, God doesn't want you to choose Him because you're logically compelled to do so. Duty has its place in Christian living, but only as a descendant of love....just as duty in a relationship is a descendant of the love (the free, uncompelled choice) that brought you together. You only ought to be compelled in a relationship insofar as you have already chosen the other person, and are prepared to fulfill your duty as a consequence of choosing to love. That's why girls (and most guys, to a lesser degree) desire romance, and it's why God desires faith (with the former being a reflection of the latter).

So my point is that God probably does know what it would take for you to cross that line. But He's not going to shove you over the line; He wants you to step across yourself.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#39DarkContractorPosted 4/26/2013 1:55:26 PM
From: Julian_Caesar | #038
From: DarkContractor | #031
The way I see it, while we each have varying personal standards of what would convince us, God ought to know exactly what it would take to cross that line for us to conclude he is real.


I think most people, deep down, acknowledge and understand a desire to be chosen. Not due to any benefit or gift that we can provide (because that is choosing the benefit/gift), but to be simply chosen as we are. That is romance, to choose someone regardless of what they provide for us. To be logically compelled to "love" someone is not love, it is "duty." You damn sure better not tell a girl that you love her because "you have to." While duty has its place in a relationship (doing things you may not like because you have made a commitment), it certainly isn't part of romance.

In the same way, God doesn't want you to choose Him because you're logically compelled to do so. Duty has its place in Christian living, but only as a descendant of love....just as duty in a relationship is a descendant of the love (the free, uncompelled choice) that brought you together. You only ought to be compelled in a relationship insofar as you have already chosen the other person, and are prepared to fulfill your duty as a consequence of choosing to love. That's why girls (and most guys, to a lesser degree) desire romance, and it's why God desires faith (with the former being a reflection of the latter).

So my point is that God probably does know what it would take for you to cross that line. But He's not going to shove you over the line; He wants you to step across yourself.



No matter how many times it's explained to you, you really refuse to acknowledge us saying over and over and over that we did cross that line and nothing ****ing happened.

Also, your analogy fails. It wouldn't be a sense of duty that would compel me, I would simply know there is a relationship to begin with. Admittedly, there would be some people that would only worship because they have to, but I can at least testify that that's not me, and while I'm not going to bring an anecdote into the equation, common sense ought to tell you that there are nonbelievers who would like to be believers but genuinely don't believe. Just like where the 'line' is, God would know who each and every one of these individuals are.
---
"If God exists why did I stub my toe this morning?" - Me "Well If God doesnt exist how do we bacon CHECKMATE ATHEISTS" - TheRealJiraiya
#40almasbabyPosted 4/26/2013 7:57:20 PM
bratt100 posted...
almasbaby posted...
I don't think there's any event that would convince an atheist of God's existence, simply because atheists just don't fill in the blanks with "God diddit". They'd simply look for natural causes because that's the only way they'd be able to approach the phenomena. If they couldn't find a natural cause for it they'd leave it as simply unknown, an event for which we have yet to find an explanation. Who are you atheists kidding?


Are you saying that a god couldn't prove he existed to an atheist?

Did you just place a limit on the limitless?

All of these gaps will be filled in time and many people are happy to say they don't know. It's okay to say that. Just because we don't know now doesn't mean we won't know in the future and filling those gaps in knowledge with god is harmful.


I don't think atheists are of a mind to use God to fill in the gaps. Let me ask you, if you saw Jesus walk on water or raise himself from the dead, would you believe he was God? You'd probably think he was a conjurer. No, if God wants to convince an atheist he exists he'd do it some other way, I'm sure. Some way that's not materialistic.
---
Hi ho. Hi ho. It's off to work I go. To post and troll, I know my role. Hi ho. Hi ho. Hi ho. Hi ho. - Suibom