Evidence for God from Science

All people, whether believers or skeptics, believe their view to be superior to the opposing view.
That is why we have that view.
Very few people subscribe to a view that they KNOW to be inferior.

Now, putting myself in the crosshairs, I do believe that my belief in God is superior to a non-belief in God and I can cite reason and rational and so forth for believe as I do.
Of course so can the skeptic.

What MAY be the difference ( and not I say MAY) is that, for the believer ( and I am speaking of myself and my circle of friends/acquaintances) believing their view to be superior does NOT equal BEING superior.
I mean that, even though I believe my belief in God is superior to non-belief, I do NOt think that belief makes me better or superior to ANY person that believes differently.

That said, I am sure there are SOME that believe that way ( I don't personally know of any).

Now, we all know of vocal and public skeptics that DO claim that their non-belief does indeed make THEM superior ( recall the famous movement by some to call atheists "brights").

I have debated and visited and read many atheist websites and what tends to happen, more often than not, is the caricature of the believer as being uneducated, ignorant and lower IQ ( and yes I am aware of the study that showed that atheists tend to high higher IQ's and I accept that).

That said, I have also seen my fare share of skeptics being characterized in very poor taste by believers simply because they were non-believers.


My point is that why we all believe our view to be correct and by default superior, it does NOT mean that WE are superior to another that has a different view.

There is a level on which (some would call it "in God's eyes") we are all equal.

There is also a very wide range of cognitive abilities. "Superior" and "inferior"
seem too laden to be appropriate, but the range is there, however described.

One thing I see over and over is what I call "SEDI" or, "same evidence, different interpretation", with its implied claim to full equality with all other readings of evidence.

It is true that sometimes evidence is sketchy or ambiguous, and so competing
interpretations are equally supportable with the available data.

There are also times that only one interpretation is fully consistent with the known
facts, and that others just are not consistent with the data.

Well, Im not going anywhere in particular with this, just tossing in some thoughts.

(PS, "superior to" )

Did Audie actually just write an entire post without attacking somebody?

Min,

You're not feeling sick, are you?

RickD wrote:Did Audie actually just write an entire post without attacking somebody?

Min,

You're not feeling sick, are you?

So ya thinks ya s superiot of me, or what??

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:Did Audie actually just write an entire post without attacking somebody?

Min,

You're not feeling sick, are you?

So ya thinks ya s superiot of me, or what??

Googling "superiot".

Very true. I think there's no room to be disrespectful on either side because when it comes down to it, beliefs about God are beliefs, not hard knowledge - we could die and find out we were wrong after all (or not find out anything ever again, of course), then how would we look if we'd been calling people with different beliefs idiots? I don't think it's normally a good way to win someone to Christ anyway.

Nicki wrote:Very true. I think there's no room to be disrespectful on either side because when it comes down to it, beliefs about God are beliefs, not hard knowledge - we could die and find out we were wrong after all (or not find out anything ever again, of course), then how would we look if we'd been calling people with different beliefs idiots? I don't think it's normally a good way to win someone to Christ anyway.

Do you feel that no belief is idiotic, no basis for any belief is idiotic?

I've had people try to "wind me to Christ" with some really stupid ideas.

Audie wrote:...Do you feel that no belief is idiotic, no basis for any belief is idiotic?

That is a logical contradiction not idiotic. How can one really have belief in no belief?

As winding one to Jesus - no one can. We can pray... God has cracked tougher nuts than you...
-
-
-

Audie wrote:

Nicki wrote:Very true. I think there's no room to be disrespectful on either side because when it comes down to it, beliefs about God are beliefs, not hard knowledge - we could die and find out we were wrong after all (or not find out anything ever again, of course), then how would we look if we'd been calling people with different beliefs idiots? I don't think it's normally a good way to win someone to Christ anyway.

Do you feel that no belief is idiotic, no basis for any belief is idiotic?

I've had people try to "wind me to Christ" with some really stupid ideas.

Not really, when it comes to religious beliefs anyway. Of course there are many that I think are wrong but there don't seem to be any that have absolutely no chance of being true. I'm pretty live-and-let-live anyway; I like to be respectful. The Bible says that God is love and that we need to be loving (to 'have love' - 1 Corinthians 13). As the OP said, we don't think ourselves superior to other people even if we think our beliefs are superior.

One reason I'm still a Christian, however, is that I often hear from people who've had quite amazing things happen, which seem like just what you would expect if God was in charge of their lives - things like deciding to give financially to God, or really step out in serving him, and having their financial needs met in a miraculous way; or couples who both independently felt God was telling them to do something in particular and, discussing it later, found they'd received the same prompting at the same time. Those accounts make me feel as if I'm really in touch with the truth.

Nicki wrote:

Audie wrote:

Nicki wrote:Very true. I think there's no room to be disrespectful on either side because when it comes down to it, beliefs about God are beliefs, not hard knowledge - we could die and find out we were wrong after all (or not find out anything ever again, of course), then how would we look if we'd been calling people with different beliefs idiots? I don't think it's normally a good way to win someone to Christ anyway.

Do you feel that no belief is idiotic, no basis for any belief is idiotic?

I've had people try to "win me to Christ" with some really stupid ideas.

Not really, when it comes to religious beliefs anyway. Of course there are many that I think are wrong but there don't seem to be any that have absolutely no chance of being true.

While I recognize the lack of 100% certainty in anything is a reality, I cant help thinking
too that a person can be too accepting of "it is possible". For my view of things, the
J Smith gold book story, or Scientology, while technically having that "could be
going for them, could properly be compared to buying one lottery ticker at age 65, figuring it was the retirement plan.

I'm pretty live-and-let-live anyway; I like to be respectful. The Bible says that God is love and that we need to be loving (to 'have love' - 1 Corinthians 13). As the OP said, we don't think ourselves superior to other people even if we think our beliefs are superior.

Do unto others is a good rule.

The golden rule is a very good place to start, though I think that correctly, and to avoid some embarrassing situations, it is best expressed:
Do nothing to others that you would not have them do to you.

Do unto others as you would have them do to you can be used to justify some pretty naughty things, LOL !
I mean, if I wanted Adriana Lime to sneak into my bedroom and do all sorts of naughty things to me, then i would be justified in doing that to her?

PaulSacramento wrote:The golden rule is a very good place to start, though I think that correctly, and to avoid some embarrassing situations, it is best expressed:
Do nothing to others that you would not have them do to you.

Do unto others as you would have them do to you can be used to justify some pretty naughty things, LOL !
I mean, if I wanted Adriana Lime to sneak into my bedroom and do all sorts of naughty things to me, then i would be justified in doing that to her?

So Jesus said it wrong?

Well, not to be a stickler to proper verbiage but he said to treat others as we would like to be treated.
Semantics, I know.

I think for that time, it was well stated BUT in our morally ambiguous society with so many people believing that morals are subjective, that everything is subjective, I think we need to be more clear.

And then there's the other preversion: Do unto others BEFORE they might do it to you.

Philip wrote:And then there's the other preversion: Do unto others BEFORE they might do it to you.

AKA The W. Doctrine.