Do you believe in God?

[Dotini]

Chalmers has argued that consciousness is, like mass or space-time, a fundamental property of the universe. This is not the mainstream view, but I can't say that I disagree with him.

 

[Dotini]

How you know you/we are not part of a computer program?

How do you know we are not a dream?

You claim that your personal experience establishes knowledge in these areas, but the actual truth is that it doesn't, you have not established by personal experience that you exist (or for that matter any of us).

Good point. Again, Chalmers argues for the "matrix" type explanation, which is theoretically possible.

Luckily for you, when I see a red light at the intersection, I will brake and stop without waiting for laboratory certification of the status of the traffic light.

 

[Scaff]

Chalmers has argued that consciousness is, like mass or space-time, a fundamental property of the universe. This is not the mainstream view, but I can't say that I disagree with him.

That's kind of the point isn't it.

Its a hypothesis.

Personal experience and observation can be used in creating a hypothesis, but more robust evidence is needed for the next step.

Good point. Again, Chalmers argues for the "matrix" type explanation, which is theoretically possible.

Luckily for you, when I see a red light at the intersection, I will brake and stop without waiting for laboratory certification of the status of the traffic light.

Ah a great example, my boss is red/green colour blind and based on personal experience only, as far as he's concerned for years that light was not red.

Fortunately a valid test can be established if need to determine the exact spectrum of the light and its colour, which would establish exactly what it was and allow those who are colour blind to be diagnosed and helped (and in this case to understand that personal experience can be deeply flawed).

Now no one here is arguing that what is established common knowledge needs repeated proof of existence (that in itself is an argument to the absurd), however extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. What caused the universe that we know to come into being, how life started on earth and if we really exist all fall into this catagory. As such a claim for any god(s) existence is an extraordinary claim and requires such proof, as does a claim that one religion is superior to another. How exactly would personal experience be of any use in this? Would not all religions claim they had the personal experience to make them the most valid? Of course they would, all could cite religious texts, credo and miracles. None of which would help at all.

 

[Dotini]

As such a claim for any god(s) existence is an extraordinary claim and requires such proof, as does a claim that one religion is superior to another. How exactly would personal experience be of any use in this? Would not all religions claim they had the personal experience to make them the most valid? Of course they would, all could cite religious texts, credo and miracles. None of which would help at all.

Personal experience proves, in its contradiction and variety, that ALL religions are lies. Every last single personal religious experience is a hoax and deception. But by whom, or what? Possibly, by an insane and evil god that manipulates the perceptions and experiences of the human animal?

I shall take the view that only consciousness, mass and space-time are fundamental to the universe, and that we live in a computer simulation- or matrix - created from outside space and time. So 100% everything we know is a lie, except that we are conscious. Or perhaps our brains are actually in a box somewhere, with electrodes wired to zombies in the "real" world. How would we know the difference?

 

[Imari]

The religious experience has been felt across the entire world population for thousands upon thousands of years. Only a tiny few in the last few hundred years have denied the religious experience and sought to stake out a more rational basis for knowledge.

You need to read more on the origins of rational and scientific thought.

The Greeks for starters, and that was thousands of years ago. The Islamic Golden Age was extremely significant in preserving a lot of the knowledge of the old thinkers, developing new and more rigorous techniques and making new discoveries, and that was about a thousand years ago. A lot of the scientific renaissance was simply the West catching up with what the Islamic thinkers had already discovered, and now we're finally getting up to relatively modern times of only a few hundred years ago.

People have been using rational thought and logic for a long, long time. They didn't necessarily apply it to everything, and there may have been very convincing reasons for not questioning the "religious experience". See the struggles Galileo had against the Church, and that was in relatively modern times.

For a great deal of history, religious types have reacted extremely violently against any attempt to actually approach their religion from a rational perspective. For all we know people have been approaching the religious experience rationally for thousands of years, but kept it to themselves for fear of violent death to themselves and those around them. And rightly so. They certainly had the rational thinking techniques to be able to do it.

 

[Scaff]

Personal experience proves, in its contradiction and variety, that ALL religions are lies. Every last single personal religious experience is a hoax and deception. But by whom, or what? Possibly, by an insane and evil god that manipulates the perceptions and experiences of the human animal?

Nope, it highlights the problems with personal experience very, very well, it doesn't however prove that they (religions) are all lies.

As an example, now evidence of a global flood exists at all, however the various river basins of the historical region the Abrahamic religions all share are very prone to flooding. As such this story does indicate that an element of truth exists as the core of the myth, however a local (by our standards) flood could well have been seen as the whole (known) world flooding.

It does however show that a greater standard is required.

I shall take the view that only consciousness, mass and space-time are fundamental to the universe, and that we live in a computer simulation- or matrix - created from outside space and time. So 100% everything we know is a lie, except that we are conscious. Or perhaps our brains are actually in a box somewhere, with electrodes wired to zombies in the "real" world. How would we know the difference?

Simple we don't at the present moment.

Which is once again why we need a standard that is repeatable, objective and falsifiable. We know that certain 'rules' exist within the universe and that events can be repeated objectively to the same outcome allowing the building of theories (models) for how the universe we exist in works. We also know that this standard for establishing evidence has worked in every test it has been presented with so far, which is clearly not the case for personal experience.

As such its a solid and reliable model for establishing what exists with the bounds of the universe (certainly its far better than 'because I say so').

 

[Dotini]

Nope, it highlights the problems with personal experience very, very well, it doesn't however prove that they are all lies.

It does however show that a greater standard is required.

Well, well, well. So Scaff believes there is one religion which is possibly true, and that a higher standard could prove it.

Simple we don't at the present moment.

Which is once again why we need a standard that is repeatable, objective and falsifiable. We know that certain 'rules' exist within the universe and that events can be repeated objectively to the same outcome allowing the building of theories (models) for how the universe we exist in works. We also know that this standard for establishing evidence has worked in every test it has been presented with so far, which is clearly not the case for personal experience.

As such its a solid and reliable model for establishing what exists with the bounds of the universe (certainly its far better than 'because I say so').

Just to be very, very clear. Are you asserting that in no case whatsoever is personal experience ever, at all, acceptable evidence for anything whatever, either as a technical matter or as a practical matter?

 

[Liquid]

Relevant to discussion on the last page.

 

[Scaff]

Well, well, well. So Scaff believes there is one religion which is possibly true, and that a higher standard could prove it.

I don't think you will find that I said that at all.

What I have said (and will restate for the cheap seats) is that the evidence for all religions is roughly the same, as such one is not 'superior' to the other.

Now if we are talking deities specifically then I have no belief in any gods, however as I have repeatedly said I will convert for evidence. Its simply the case that no one has provided any yet.

Just to be very, very clear. Are you asserting that in no case whatsoever is personal experience ever, at all, acceptable evidence for anything whatever, either as a technical matter or as a practical matter?

Personal evidence is accepted in courts of law (we have been down this route with SCJ many times before), however it is one of the lowest standards of evidence in such cases.

We are not however talking about a court of law here are we. As I have said, extraordinary claims (which I have already given examples of) require extraordinary evidence and 'personal experience' doesn't qualify as that.

 

[Dotini]

What I have said is that the evidence for all religions is roughly the same, as such one is not 'superior' to the other.

Yet you have denied that all religions are lies. Wouldn't the one(s) not to be liars have to be considered superior?

I have repeatedly said I will convert for evidence. Its simply the case that no one has provided any yet.

Personal evidence is accepted in courts of law (we have been down this route with SCJ many times before), however it is one of the lowest standards of evidence in such cases.

We are not however talking about a court of law here are we. As I have said, extraordinary claims (which I have already given examples of) require extraordinary evidence and 'personal experience' doesn't qualify as that.

So presumably personal experience is satisfactory evidence for ordinary claims. But not for extraordinary claims.

Let me ask you, if I say I'm seeing the color red at sunset, or feeling orgasm during sex, or smelling roses in the garden, would you say those are ordinary claims for which personal experience is satisfactory evidence?

 

[Danoff]

Let me ask you, if I say I'm seeing the color red at sunset, or feeling orgasm during sex, or smelling roses in the garden, would you say those are ordinary claims for which personal experience is satisfactory evidence?

None of that would convince me to believe in a religious sense, that you saw red, orgasmed, or smelled. Neither if I had had those experiences personally would they convince me to believe in a religious sense that I saw red, orgasmed, or smelled.

It's not that the claim is extraordinary, it's that the belief is extraordinary. You don't have to have religious, extraordinary belief to be able to act.

 

[Scaff]

Yet you have denied that all religions are lies. Wouldn't the one(s) not to be liars have to be considered superior?

No I said that your claim that "Personal experience proves, in its contradiction and variety, that ALL religions are lies" does not constitute proof.

Quite a different thing.

So presumably personal experience is satisfactory evidence for ordinary claims. But not for extraordinary claims.

I didn't say that.

I would strongly suggest that you start reading a little more carefully what I am actually saying, rather than assuming.

Let me ask you, if I say I'm seeing the color red at sunset, or feeling orgasm during sex, or smelling roses in the garden, would you say those are ordinary claims for which personal experience is satisfactory evidence?

Evidence for what?

 

[Dotini]

No I said that your claim that "Personal experience proves, in its contradiction and variety, that ALL religions are lies" does not constitute proof.

Quite a different thing.

Then let me be as direct as possible. Do you deny that all religions are lies?

Evidence for what?

Evidence merely that I saw the color red at sunset, experienced orgasm during sex, and smelled roses in the garden. Nothing more, it's not a trick question. @Danoff

Put in a slightly different way, is there a better way to convey to another what your experience was like, other than by your own report?

 

[Scaff]

Then let me be as direct as possible. Do you deny that all religions are lies?

Which part?

Religions are quite sizable in scope. Much of it has no evidence at all to support it (such as the existence of deities), however parts of it are clearly based around historic locations and/or events and as such may have started out as factual events that have been distorted to suit a wider agenda.

As such claiming that every part of every religion is a lie is a rather wide reaching claim, one might even say extraordinary.

Evidence merely that I saw the color red at sunset, experienced orgasm during sex, and smelled roses in the garden. Nothing more, it's not a trick question. @Danoff

Put in a slightly different way, is there a better way to convey to another what your experience was like, other than by your own report?

Conveying an experience doesn't mean it happened (you could be lying) or that it happened in that exact manner (because personal experience is subjective).

That aside you are now a long way from using personal experience as evidence to prove existence, but I seem to recall that the last time I made that distinction you saw fit to simply laugh at me!

I notice that now you seem to have moved the goal posts to that exact same place.

 

[Dotini]

Which part?

The theological part.

Conveying an experience doesn't mean it happened (you could be lying) or that it happened in that exact manner (because personal experience is subjective).

Yes, I could be lying. But ask 1000 or 1,000,000 people if they see the color red at sunset, have orgasm during sex, or smell roses in the garden, and you may begin to get the sense that most people report similar experiences similarly. But that's not my point. I ask you how to have these experiences in any way other than subjectively? Can a camera or spectrometer observe the sunset and have the same experience of red as you? How do you know what an orgasm is like, unless you experience it for yourself?

That aside you are now a long way from using personal experience as evidence to prove existence, but I seem to recall that the last time I made that distinction you saw fit to simply laugh at me!

But, now we're back to the matrix argument, which I actually accepted, and you did too, as a possibility.

Even so, I will reassert, that as a practical matter, the greatest bulk of human knowledge has been acquired by experience. Experience happens uniquely in every individual, and it is impossible to replicate another person's felt, inner experience. (The existence of people, places, things, events, emotions is all cumulative experience shared by people.)

You replied that personal experience was useless as evidence of existence, and I laughed at the absurdity. Not you.

 

[Liquid]

@Dotini Are you a religious man? Or a spiritual enthusiast in a romantically philosophical kind of way? Quite interested to know.

 

[Dotini]

@Dotini Are you a religious man? Or a spiritual enthusiast in a philosophical kind of way? Quite interested to know.

Neither. I am a little old man with glasses. A retiree with money and time on his hands.
My favorite thing in life used to be kart racing, now it is classical fencing (French foil). I'm an agnostic, with no fixed opinion on life after death. I believe in chivalry.

I was raised a Unitarian - a very obscure sort of Christian, but denying the divinity of Christ. My boyhood pursuits were
girls, cars and chess, later backgammon. I began car racing on a forged license at the age of 16. I have a formal education in history and humanities. I'm a libertarian.

So, mainly an atheist, never been interested in the religious experience until it occurred to me I might have had one myself when I and a bunch of other folks saw a fleet of UFO's. Came to the conclusion UFOs were natural, not extraterrestrial. In retirement for the last 10 years, it has amused me to study physics and consciousness, so I'm on a physics forum. This GTP forum provides a terrific opportunity to speak with people of wide diversity. I'm very grateful for it.

 

[huskeR32]

Let me ask you, if I say I'm seeing the color red at sunset, or feeling orgasm during sex, or smelling roses in the garden, would you say those are ordinary claims for which personal experience is satisfactory evidence?

Evidence merely that I saw the color red at sunset, experienced orgasm during sex, and smelled roses in the garden. Nothing more, it's not a trick question.

Yes, I could be lying. But ask 1000 or 1,000,000 people if they see the color red at sunset, have orgasm during sex, or smell roses in the garden, and you may begin to get the sense that most people report similar experiences similarly. But that's not my point. I ask you how to have these experiences in any way other than subjectively? Can a camera or spectrometer observe the sunset and have the same experience of red as you? How do you know what an orgasm is like, unless you experience it for yourself?

You've missed something really important as you keep banging on about this.

The wavelength of red light can be measured, repeatedly, by anybody who cares to do so, at any time they care to do so, and the result will always be the same. The presence of red light receptors in the human eye is also something that is objectively observable, by anybody who cares to look for them.

An orgasm may not be 100% understood yet, but there are certainly objective and repeatable experiments that show which parts of the brain are active during orgasms, and seem to consistently respond to sexual stimulation.

A rose can be sniffed by anybody who cares to do so, at any time they choose to do so. While the pleasantness of an aroma is certainly subjective, the fact that roses contain a measurable chemical responsible for that smell, and that smell receptors communicate to the brain when a certain aroma is present, are observable through objective, repeatable experimentation.

Notice the multiple appearances of the word "repeatable?" Key word, that.


EDIT:

You replied that personal experience was useless as evidence of existence, and I laughed at the absurdity. Not you.

If it's not repeatable, it is useless. At least, to everybody other than the person who experienced it.

 

[Scaff]

The theological part.

So you are able to use personal expereince to prove that the theological parts of every religion are lies?

Please go ahead.

Yes, I could be lying. But ask 1000 or 1,000,000 people if they see the color red at sunset, have orgasm during sex, or smell roses in the garden, and you may begin to get the sense that most people report similar experiences similarly. But that's not my point. I ask you how to have these experiences in any way other than subjectively? Can a camera or spectrometer observe the sunset and have the same experience of red as you? How do you know what an orgasm is like, unless you experience it for yourself?

Now aside from the could be lying is enough to make personal experience so limited as to be useless from an evidentiary point of view, you seem to have forgotten my boss. He doesn't see the colour red at sunset, he is biologically incapable of doing so.

However lets continue. So Sunsets are the theme and we are looking at this as an example of how "the greatest bulk of human knowledge has been acquired by experience".

Issues:

• No two human eyes work the same - they differ by gender to quite a degree and even within a gender the ability to differentiate shades varies as does the ability to retain colour as light levels drop.
• The colour blind, the visually impaired and blind all see the sunset in very different and or limited ways
• Part of what those who are able to see are seeing is made up by our minds
• The ability of individuals to accurately recall and describe the details of the sunset will vary massively

Now that's just a start and all we have at the end will be variations on a description, so of which will almost certainly vary once you request detail from it. A description of a sunset alone does not come even close to "the greatest bulk of human knowledge" on sunsets. Its does cover how and why they happen, why the duration varies depending on the point of the planet you are standing.

Personal experience of a sunset covers only a small part of the "bulk of human knowledge" on sunsets, and even that will not be consistent.

The issue with taking personal experience as a form of evidence is that I had show you north of 1 billion Christians and Muslims who will go into great detail about the personal experience of their god. That is not evidence of god.

But, now we're back to the matrix argument, which I actually accepted, and you did too, as a possibility.

Even so, I will reassert, that as a practical matter, the greatest bulk of human knowledge has been acquired by experience. Experience happens uniquely in every individual, and it is impossible to replicate another person's felt, inner experience. (The existence of people, places, things, events, emotions is all cumulative experience shared by people.)

Covered above.

Personal experience is part of human knowledge, but it certainly is not the root of the bulk of human knowledge.

You replied that personal experience was useless as evidence of existence, and I laughed at the absurdity. Not you.

Then objectively demonstrate why its absurd, as all you did was come across as dismissive and rude.

 

[Dotini]

all you did was come across as dismissive and rude.

If that is all I have done, then I'm getting off lightly.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

NO! NO NO NO NO NO!!

THE standard of evidence. The same standard that has been applied to every bit of human knowledge gained thus far in our history.

It is percieved by many to be the standard of evidence.
Actually, in reality, it is a standard of evidence.
For it to be, the standard of evidence, it would have to be infallible and comprehensive.
And of course its not.
Which BTW is not a claim of the standard, but those who by personal (I said so) opinion label it as such.
Also BTW, not every bit of human knowledge, just some of it.

Ah but @SuperCobraJet means the 'magic' that makes his culturally indoctrinated religion better that all the others.

He just can't provide any proof of it (despite claims) that can be repeatable, objective or falsifiable, so he resorts to a new invented standard that must be right because he says so (and anyone who asks for objective, repeatable and falsifiable standards is clearly biased - he just can't explain why, but boy will he say it).

The following statements, clearly prove why.

You are under the impression, since your standard says they are all the same, thats unbiased.
What you fail to realize is, your standard invokes "a particular tendency or inclination that prevents unpredjudiced consideration " right from the get-go.
That is factual, because one(religion) could exist that is more valid, but by your standard it is not presently recognizable.
That has also been true, proven and undeniable, regaurding practically every modern technological advancement known to man.

The standard that you tout as flawless, is only good for confirming certain physical aspects that already exist, and sometimes, identifying potential in others.
And that is a ever changing, hit and miss process.
The fact is the great standard, being point in time dependant, has a track record of abject failure, in identifying practically everything, that there was no evidence for yesterday, but exists today.
Some standard.

Here's one for you.
The year is 1800, give me repeatable, objective and falsifiable evidence of the internet, or how about, the internal combustion engine, or the airplane, or modern day metallurgy, or open heart surgery, or antibiotics, or jet propulsion, or mechanical refrigeration, or synthetics.
Just remember, if you can't, they don't exist.

 

[GBO Possum]

@SuperCobraJet, yes, acceptable evidence IS limited to things that actually exist. Glad you joined the rational world at last! Welcome!!

 

[Danoff]

Here's one for you.
The year is 1800, give me repeatable, objective and falsifiable evidence of the internet, or how about, the internal combustion engine, or the airplane, or modern day metallurgy, or open heart surgery, or antibiotics, or jet propulsion, or mechanical refrigeration, or synthetics.
Just remember, if you can't, they don't exist.

In 1800 they didn't exist. They weren't created until later.

 

[Scaff]

The following statements, clearly prove why.


You are under the impression, since your standard says they are all the same, thats unbiased.

I didn't say they were all the same - I said that the same amount of evidence roughly exists for all of them.

What you fail to realize is, your standard invokes "a particular tendency or inclination that prevents unpredjudiced consideration " right from the get-go.
That is factual, because one(religion) could exist that is more valid, but by your standard it is not presently recognizable.

Could exist, currently doesn't or has not been proven. A rather siginifcant point that is utterly lost on you.

That has also been true, proven and undeniable, regaurding practically every modern technological advancement known to man.

And he we go......

The standard that you tout as flawless, is only good for confirming certain physical aspects that already exist, and sometimes, identifying potential in others.
And that is a ever changing, hit and miss process.
The fact is the great standard, being point in time dependant, has a track record of abject failure, in identifying practically everything, that there was no evidence for yesterday, but exists today.
Some standard.

Here's one for you.
The year is 1800, give me repeatable, objective and falsifiable evidence of the internet, or how about, the internal combustion engine, or the airplane, or modern day metallurgy, or open heart surgery, or antibiotics, or jet propulsion, or mechanical refrigeration, or synthetics.
Just remember, if you can't, they don't exist.

So did the internet, the internal combustion engine, the aeroplane, modern metallurgy techniques, open heart surgery, antibiotics, jet propulsion, etc exist in 1800?

No they did not.

Does the lack of evidence for them in 1800 then preclude them existing at a later date?

No it does not.

Seriously, you just claimed that we should be able to provide evidence of things before they were created.

Really - you did that!

You are also still missing the point by such a margin its almost mind boggling. A lack of evidence to a scientific standard does not mean that something doesn't exist, as an atheist that is the one and only core point. Its a absence of belief in gods, not a belief in no gods. Do you know what every single one of the things you have been so absurd about have in common? The scientific method was the core methodology behind discoveries in every single one of them. This method you say doesn't work and is fallible is the reason why they work (and the reason you are able to post here).

It can be used to prove every single damn one of them, now how about doing that with god? Do so and you have me (as I have said so many times its unfunny), the thing is you can't so its back to magic, 'cos I say so' and a lack of critical thinking on a stellar scale.

 

[PlatinumWash]

Arguments. Arguments everywhere.

 

[GBO Possum]

---
Seriously, you just claimed that we should be able to provide evidence of things before they were created.

Really - you did that!
---

@Scaff, I'd like to lower you down gently on what's happening here. @SuperCobraJet sees evidence for things that don't exist, such as his god. It therefore makes perfect sense that he should be able to see evidence for things which do not exist today, but might in the future.

Things that don't exist fall into two classes. Those which will exist and those which will not.

For rational people, seeing evidence which doesn't exist makes no sense. For faith/belief based people, it makes perfect sense.

That difference is what makes it impossible for us to have an actual conversation in this thread.

Who was it said "If we could have a rational discussion with religious people, there would be no religious people"?

 

[Scaff]

Arguments. Arguments everywhere.

Discussions. Discussion everywhere.

On a discussion forum too.

@Scaff, I'd like to lower you down gently on what's happening here. @SuperCobraJet sees evidence for things that don't exist, such as his god. It therefore makes perfect sense that he should be able to see evidence for things which do not exist today, but might in the future.

Things that don't exist fall into two classes. Those which will exist and those which will not.

For rational people, seeing evidence which doesn't exist makes no sense. For faith/belief based people, it makes perfect sense.

That difference is what makes it impossible for us to have an actual conversation in this thread.

Who was it said "If we could have a rational discussion with religious people, there would be no religious people"?

On the contrary. I've had many a discussion with theists who are quite happy to accept that god can't be proven and accept that for what it is, belief.

Its SCJ's fundamentalist view that god can be proven, but in some magical way that defies the standard that has been used to prove everything else. If that wasn't not fun enough, it then gets expanded to a superiority for his culturally biased religion over all others. Based on a magically indefinable way again.

He claims proof, but is unable to provide it and seems quite a fluster that we don't just accept 'because I say so'.

 

[Dotini]

Along with Chalmers, I suspect that consciousness, like mass and space-time, is a fundamental, irreducible property of the universe. But the study of consciousness works much more easily if subjective experience is allowed into evidence. So it is not possible to have a conversation about consciousness without both parties admitting a certain amount of common ground on the value of subjective experience.

Likewise, the same thing is true about the religious experience. The study of the religious experience cannot be undertaken without the consideration of the subjective experience which is at the core of the question. No successful conversation is possible between believers and non-believers if subjective experience is entirely excluded from acceptability into the discussion.

 

[LeMansAid]

I don't believe in god. I have enough trouble deciding what pants to wear!
Edit: Actually, it comes from a run in with the church about 40 years ago

Have you been re-incarnated, or have you been telling little lies for effect?

I am 15 and I've not done any "sex acts". What sexuality am I?

Although I now remember that you've also written about pre-teen siblings before. I think.

 

[Scaff]

Along with Chalmers, I suspect that consciousness, like mass and space-time, is a fundamental, irreducible property of the universe. But the study of consciousness works much more easily if subjective experience is allowed into evidence. So it is not possible to have a conversation about consciousness without both parties admitting a certain amount of common ground on the value of subjective experience.

The subjective experience is evidence of what is a reality for the individual, don't have a problem with than (and I never have), however to automatically make the leap that subjective experience is the same standard of evidence as something that meets the scientific standard is something quite different.

To make that leap would lead to the conclusion that anything and everything that someone believes they have experience of is true and exists, which is clearly not the case. This is also a rather important point from a consciousness point of view, is what we see as our subjective experience actually real or simply how we perceive it to be real. That however is arguably a conversation for a different thread.

Likewise, the same thing is true about the religious experience. The study of the religious experience cannot be undertaken without the consideration of the subjective experience which is at the core of the question. No successful conversation is possible between believers and non-believers if subjective experience is entirely excluded from acceptability into the discussion.

Its not been excluded at all from the discussion. A number of us have explained why we do not consider it to be evidence of the existence of god(s) and the serious issues that exist with its use as a standard of evidence.

SCJ and others have been given ample opportunity to explain why it should be used and to date a clear and viable example of why it should be used has never been provided.