Does this constitute positive evidence for a supernatural Source?

Question

The fact that nearly all people throughout history have believed they experience this on a personal level?

If not, can we also dismiss being in love as but a baseless trifle that doesn't exist?

I noticed a LOT of atheists just now arguing that no positive evidence of a Creator has been presented therefore there's no need to refute it, only to make outlandish and random claims about alternate, obviously far-fetched versions of God. But does this belief constitute a positive argument that the ubiquitous direct human experience is evidence?

No easy shots about believing the earth was the center of the universe - that is an external fact, this is internal like Love.

Thanks to all who give thoughtful answers instead of cheap insults so they can feel better about themselves.

I'm shocked how sloppy the logic is in most the atheist responses after all I've heard about what great logicians atheists are supposed to be....

One exception is the person below who said the "experience" of love and God can be real and verifiable but that can't be extrapolated to prove there is anything real in existence. The problem I have with this argument is that it violates the basic cause and effect framework that the scientific method imposes on all questions. We believe in quarks even though we can't see them because of the effects they have on other, larger particles. And at a root level, we'd have to deny ALL of reality because we might be the dream of a giant sleeping toad, therefore we can never take any cause or effect as related.

Answer 1

I believe the experience of God is as real as the experience of love. But this doesn't mean God or love actually exist as objective entities.

[edit] Obviously, the number of people who have "experienced" aliens, ghosts, angels etc are not proof of their existence. I don't think scientific skepticism necessarily becomes universal skepticism. Looking for verifiable, repeatable, or consistent evidence is not the same as saying sensory evidence is required.

Answer 2

Apparently you are confused as to the definition of the word evidence.

Love is not entirely internal, and even those parts that are can be evidenced. When a person feels love, there are metabolic changes, chemical changes, things which can be measured. When a person expresses love, there are words, deeds, actions we can observe. If a person loosely proclaims their love for another, what's the first thing you think? Talk is cheap. How do you DEMONSTRATE your love. Plenty of proclaimed love IS baseless and trivial.

Even if 99.9999999% of people claimed a deity existed, that does not constitute proof. It's anecdotal. There has to be demonstrable, testable evidence before a claim can be taken seriously.

EDIT:
"at a root level, we'd have to deny ALL of reality because we might be the dream of a giant sleeping toad, therefore we can never take any cause or effect as related."

The only "sloppy logic" you should be shocked at is your own. Atheists DO NOT make claims about god, because we don't believe in god. Period. This new age mumbo jumbo about thoughts determining reality is just the latest supernatural manure theists are trying to grow crops with. Real things are supported by evidence. Unreal things are not. There is no evidence for gods, so they are unreal. Its that simple.

EDIT:
To sdb deacon below:
Clearly you don't understand the criteria necessary to convict on circumstantial evidence. For starters, circumstantial evidence has to be PLAUSIBLE. If I say a man killed his wife and I want to convict him, I better be able to produce the man, and some sort of evidence that he had the ability or desire to kill her (i.e. he was having an affair, he took out a large insurance policy on her, he owned the same caliber gun that killed her, and he had no alibi for that night.) Those are plausible circumstances to accuse, and perhaps convict him.

If I say a being created the universe simply because the universe exists, then I damn well better be able to produce this being, and prove it has the power to do what I claim.

Answer 3

You are confusing an internal state or perception with an external being.

When someone says they are in love, they are describing their internal feelings. Saying the felt a supernatural presence is saying two things. One, that they had an internal feeling and two, that there is some supernatural agent causing it.

Accepting someone's report of their internal feelings is reasonable. We all have them, and they can be correlated with physical measurements (such as hormone levels, brain scans, etc.).

Accepting a claim of a supernatural agent is not reasonable. Without any external evidence of a supernatural agent, we can't be sure that these feeling actually correlate with the existence of said agent. Those feeling may be completely natural and have nothing to do with anything supernatural.

This is an important point. If you claim something external exists, there must be external evidence in favor of that thing. The only thing emotional feeling are evidence of is the simple fact that we have emotional feelings. They are definitely not evidence of the supernatural.

I understand how persuasive deep feeling can be. It's very difficult to be rigorous when you feel something deeply. However, to really look for the truth we have to discard claims that are not well supported.

Emotions are simple approximations, useful rules of thumb our bodies use to get by in this world. Who can you trust, who is a good mate, is this food good to eat? They give us instincts that work most of the time. However, they can go wrong. To really search for truth we need something more accurate. We need to put everything we believe to a stringent test to weed out the false ideas.

Answer 4

Love is a learned response.

If you look into native cultures in the pacific Islands, you will find the concept of love is something that was introduced by Europeans. Arranged weddings were the norm for human society in the past, because the theory of love and empathy is something that we have progressed into. In the past, life was about resources and survival, love and empathy were luxuries. We have evolved them because of our advanced abilities to provide sustenance and luxury time.

If you look at 3rd world countries, you will find that violence is much more prominent there, the reason for this is because survival trumps love and empathy in that part of the world.

The idea that the belief in many God's throughout time constitute proof of one God's existence, doesn't hold up. Man's need for answers doesn't verify the existence of his interpretation of those answers.

Mankind requires answers to tough questions, because in seeking those answers we better our lives and are more likely to survive. Striving to answer complex questions, doesn't mean that our assumptions about the answer must be correct, or that the action of seeking answers means there is one out there.

For years men tried to find the cause of the plague, to better mankind's plight on earth. Most of the doctors at the time thought it was caused by bad blood this idea was based on faith and had no evidence supporting it, so leaching was a common practice. The largely accepted belief in bad blood did not change the reality that the plague was carried by rats, and causes millions to die, because that theory caused many doctors to stop seeking alternative answers.

Religion acts in the same way. It proposes to offer peace and an afterlife, but results in war and discord, because it is sole based in faith.

Answer 5

Believing in God takes faith, since we cannot see Him, only His creation. That's the first step. Then when we seek Him, He does reward us with blessings that are material, and spiritual. I have felt the tangible presence of God, through the Holy Spirit and it's enough to knock your socks off and throw you to the floor. It's an awesome, supernatural experience that cannot be explained, only when it happens to you, you don't want to trade it for the world!

Answer 6

What you are describing does exist. The concept of God can have positive and negative effects on people. It's when you add in the external fact that God created us and punishes us is when atheists claim God does not exist.

Answer 7

No.

"can we also dismiss being in love as but a baseless trifle that doesn't exist?"
Old tired argument. Refuted extremely well many times.

Answer 8

To TRULY believe that something IS what it IS, we as humans have to know it's history and meaning of purpose.

God and religion have always been there since as far back as we have known it to be.

The act of "love" has obviously populated this world since the beginning of time.

We know in accordance to the bible that God created us in "likeness" and in His Image.

If we have come from one thing to the next, like from point A to point B with God's Laws (the laws of Love) then we know that through Ocean's Laws (that's me)= concept, principal and morale...
have to abide with ALL things.

Love is internal, because our future and past are external to us. Internal is the "moment".

Fortunately for us, through God's Will in Man, that we have this instinct to know what love and life are, and we have a bible that says and lets us know through literature, and a human example (Jesus) to show that God IS who He IS...

Love works from the inside out.. if you can't love yourself, then how do you know others will love you more?

We don't rely on others to love us and to make us be who we are, but from within, is where we make a difference.

Parable,
The earth from what we know, has living life CAPABLE of Love, the universe is a vast array of dark matter... concept, principal and morale... internal to external.

I have more teachings on Faith and Creation here if you want to see...

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/oceanremix
or
http://geocities.com/oceanremix/linesoftruth.html

Answer 9

Throughout history and in multiple societies people have believed in dragons. Does that make dragons real?

Love is real. I can see it, I can see it's effects, I can measure the physiological changes in a person's body.

Let's see you do that with your god, then I will start to consider it possible.


Meanwhile, if the universe needs a creator, then by the same argument that creator must have a creator. Care to explain where that comes from? And that creator's creator? And that creator's creator? And that creator's creator? And that creator's creator? And that creator's creator? And that creator's creator? And that creator's creator? And that creator's creator? And that creator's creator? And so on.

Answer 10

Experience is a subjective thing.

If I use that reasoning, then since I have never experienced god I have proof that he does not exist.

My subjective experience is just as valid as anyone elses...but still I haven't really proven anything and neither have you.