Yes the theory of gravity is subject to revision. However, the evidence needed to bring gravity in to question must be significantly greater than what we have now. I am not saying that gravity is immune to all criticism. I am saying that the theory is ubiquitous enough that minor less ubiquitous scientific attack will not be enough to overturn the theory. The shear amount of evidence need to be overcome is large. You have to at least amid this. I am then saying that for a religious person we treat God the same way as we see the evidence.
OK but the theory of gravitation is supported by verifiable, repeatable, evidence that is falsifiable. Other competing theories are rejected because the theory of gravitation is superior and/or these other theories do not adequately satisfy the burden of proof.
What support is there for your God (as opposed to other proposed gods) that is verifiable, repeatable, and falsifiable?
Or are you merely trying to claim that you have a similar
conviction for your beliefs like scientists do for gravity. Except scientists believe gravity is true because it is based on that which is verifiable, repeatable, and falsifiable where support for your God is not?
And if you look at the average person's belief about gravity, even your own if you are honest, changing your mind about the theory of gravity is so improbable that you will N-E-V-E-R change your mind either.
I don't see how I can put a probability on beliefs. That seems silly to me.
If evidence for a contradicting theory came out and was in all ways superior (that list was specified earlier) then I would stop believing that the theory of gravitation was true.
This is gravity we are talking about. We prove it every second of every day of our entire existence.
You are confusing these two things:
1) observations that things fall down
2) the theory of gravitation.
That things fall when you drop them is what we call gravity.
The theory of gravitation is a scientific theory that (among other things) explains why things fall, at what speed they can be predicted to fall, and in what circumstances such predictions can be made.
The theory of gravitation =/= the observation that objects fall when you drop them.
I think you are wrong here. I think science and religion do treat their beliefs similarly. Religious individual verify, repeatably their interaction with God.
Individuals may believe they are communicating with some entity or person. How do they verify that they are communiating to:
1) a god
2) the christian god
What evidence or tests are done to verify such things? How can others objectively verify the integrity of these tests?
Now they are not the same completely. I will give you that. But to suggest they are incomparable is not accurate either.
Further, I am not saying that the theory of gravity and God are equal. I believe I said this in my first post. I am saying that that religious people treat them the same here. It is a fundamentally different position.
I never said science and religion were incomparable. I just disagree in the way which you have attempted to compare them so far.
The religious often acknowledge the great things science has achieved but then others, such as yourself, attempt to project that greatness onto their religious beliefs without submitting to the same rigors that scientific theories are put through. Your religious claims are NOT justified to the same extent scientific claims are if you don't submit them to the same rigors and criticism that scientific claims are.
I agree that the religious and nonreligious may be equally convinced of the truth of their beliefs. However,
that does not mean that we are forming and evaluating beliefs in a similar manner.
Its my position that God hasn't been proven to anyone except perhaps those who have repeated personal visitations with their favored God(s). However, such personal experiences are necessarily 1st person and unsupportable in debate.
This belief is fine; it just isn't a scientific one. You don't get to speak for anyone but yourself. You can say you that the evidence doesn't yet support the idea of God and I respect that. You can't say God doesn't exist to anyone based off of evidence as clearly some religious people believe.
I challenge you to DEMONSTRATE that your God claims are true. To support them with evidence and not your imagination, opinion, speculation, and holy-book tales.
In honorable debate, participants are required to substantiate their claims and statements or to withdraw / retract them. Doing so does not imply that the person no longer believes they are true, but simply acknowledges that they have said something that they cannot substantiate – realizing that it is not admissible in debate wherein unsupported claims / statements are nothing more than opinion and cannot ethically be presented as truth or evidence.
Many fail to distinguish between what they believe and what is factual or supportable information. Challenges “keep them honest” (even though “ducking the issue” is relatively common – perhaps thinking that the tactic is unnoticed by readers).
In my experience, many who attempt (in debate or in person) to promote or defend religion are very prone to make unsupportable claims and statements – and to refuse to withdraw them when challenged or asked for evidence (and often become indignant, irate or downright hostile). They may think that obstinate refusal to “back down” from unsupportable claims is a tribute to their “faith” or their dedication to “god”; however, those who observe such action can rightfully conclude that doing so is an indication of an indefensible position based upon emotion and indoctrination rather than reason.
I'm fully aware that the religious believe their beliefs are justified. But as often is the case, a belief that something is true doesn't mean it actually is. It is my observation that many believers THINK that they are somehow more right than others, or superior in ability or knowledge without any basis except their own beliefs (or deceptions). I challenge such CLAIMS made in public debate when they cannot be shown as true.
How is this anything but your belief that you are superior and more right. It is just your personal opinion that these people are wrong.
Because such people cannot prove reason and evidence for the TRUTH of their claims. That is why.
Perhaps such people are right. But if they cannot demonstrate why their answers are true then in debate there is no reason for anyone to accept them.
Think of it this way. If I do have a personal relationship with God, even one where I directly hear the voice of God, that is superior to your position. Your lack of experience is essentially a neutral. Now this doesn't mean you have to accept my personal experience as you clearly have stated you wont. But if you have a personal relationship with God, one where you directly hear the voice of God in any manner you want to quantify this as, what do you actually think it would take for me to dissuade you from that belief. IMO, It would take a lot.
Personal experiences that cannot be verified by others, have no value in debate. They are indistinguishable from a false observation, lie, or delusion.
In honorable debate, participants are required to substantiate their claims and statements or to withdraw / retract them. Doing so does not imply that the person no longer believes they are true, but simply acknowledges that they have said something that they cannot substantiate – realizing that it is not admissible in debate wherein unsupported claims / statements are nothing more than opinion and cannot ethically be presented as truth or evidence.
Many fail to distinguish between what they believe and what is factual or supportable information. Challenges “keep them honest” (even though “ducking the issue” is relatively common – perhaps thinking that the tactic is unnoticed by readers).
In my experience, many who attempt (in debate or in person) to promote or defend religion are very prone to make unsupportable claims and statements – and to refuse to withdraw them when challenged or asked for evidence (and often become indignant, irate or downright hostile). They may think that obstinate refusal to “back down” from unsupportable claims is a tribute to their “faith” or their dedication to “god”; however, those who observe such action can rightfully conclude that doing so is an indication of an indefensible position based upon emotion and indoctrination rather than reason.
I do not claim that Gods do not or cannot exist. I simply find insufficient reason and insufficient evidence to believe in the existence of any of the gods proposed by man. Do you understand the difference?
I understand the difference. My point was that if you debate, you should be able to at least rationalize the other person's position.
The burden is not on me to rationalize another's position or make their arguments for them. That burden is solely upon them.
I am asking that you temporary flip your position here to understand why absolutes are likely on the religious side.
Having believed in God at one time (though never being a fundamentalist) and being told the many different positions of theists, I am quite familiar with a believer's "shoes".
If you have a personal relationship with God, one where you directly hear the voice of God, what do you actually think it would take for me to dissuade you from that belief.
I would question how you verified that its:
1) a god that you are talking to and not another God or force or nothing but your own mind.
2) how you know its the Christian God and not some other god or force.
