Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 49
Thanks Tree15Thanks

Thread: What is evidence?

  1. #21
    We choose both. Amelia's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    45,963
    Thanks
    27968

    From
    Wisconsin
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    How can you know something like that?
    *sigh*

    That does not justify any explanation that can simply be made up. That is the fallacy of the argument from ignorance.
    *sigh*

    How? That does not make sense. Or are you talking about the postulate that there are other universes? But even if you are, how could they possibly explain - or even verify the existence of - precognition?
    Did you catch the part where I said science might not ever explain it? The existence can be verified by recording someone's accurate predictions and waiting for them to transpire.

    I mostly wasn't thinking of other universes, though the thought flitted by. I was thinking of the number of dimensions which physicists need to resolve the math of the Theory of Everything.


    Well, G-d would "live" everywhere and everywhen. But that is not a scientific question.

    That is _your_ belief of the nature of God. Not everyone thinks that God would live everywhere. So there's that.

  2. #22
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    58,455
    Thanks
    28578

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Amelia View Post
    *sigh*

    *sigh*
    I do not understand. I thought those questions would be answerable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amelia View Post
    Did you catch the part where I said science might not ever explain it? The existence can be verified by recording someone's accurate predictions and waiting for them to transpire.
    The fact of an accurate prediction does not establish precognition, i.e., actual foreknowledge of what would transpire. Certainly, you may have a prediction followed by the predicted event, but that does not establish the person's prediction was based on actual foreknowledge, rather than facts available at the time. After all, a prediction from the facts can be wrong, too. What is missing is the causal nexus - i.e., that prediction was caused by foreknowledge; at most, you would have a correlation, but that would not establish the fact of the matter.

    If "science cannot explain it," then it probably is no such thing in the phenomenal universe (or multiverse, if you prefer).

    Quote Originally Posted by Amelia View Post
    I mostly wasn't thinking of other universes, though the thought flitted by. I was thinking of the number of dimensions which physicists need to resolve the math of the Theory of Everything.
    Ok. I do not see how either would have anything to do with precognition, however.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amelia View Post
    That is _your_ belief of the nature of G-d. Not everyone thinks that G-d would live everywhere. So there's that.
    Fair enough, but then you might be talking about a g-d (i.e., one among many) rather than the G-d (the only one, that created everything to begin with).

  3. #23
    New Member Slartibartfast's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    514
    Thanks
    180

    From
    UK
    Evidence is something that matches your beliefs!! Many have an opinion and diss everything unless it confirms their belief.

  4. #24
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,477
    Thanks
    17702

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by Slartibartfast View Post
    Evidence is something that matches your beliefs!! Many have an opinion and diss everything unless it confirms their belief.
    Your cynical snark is noted.

  5. #25
    We choose both. Amelia's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    45,963
    Thanks
    27968

    From
    Wisconsin
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    The fact of an accurate prediction does not establish precognition, i.e., actual foreknowledge of what would transpire. Certainly, you may have a prediction followed by the predicted event, but that does not establish the person's prediction was based on actual foreknowledge, rather than facts available at the time. After all, a prediction from the facts can be wrong, too. What is missing is the causal nexus - i.e., that prediction was caused by foreknowledge; at most, you would have a correlation, but that would not establish the fact of the matter.

    It would be evidence. It would be up to us to figure out how to fit it in with other evidence.

    I have had a precognitive dream of an unpredictable event. I recorded the details in advance of the event. I got one detail wrong -- I mixed up the names "Wendy" and "Wanda".

    There are probably people out in the world who do it better than I. Maybe one day the right experiment will be formulated.

    We don't know what science will be able to detect in the future. Our understanding of brain activity is growing but it is probably still crude compared to what we'll eventually know.

    We do know that we've often thought we've figured it out and then paradigm-shifting discoveries are made and we have to start rebuilding our assumptions and the conclusions which we've drawn from them.


    Part of my belief is that science and religion are not inherently at odds. I'm not so wedded to any religious belief that I would continue to hold it in spite of scientific results which contradicted it. I'm confident that God is really good at science. Some of what we can do now would have seemed like magic 100 years ago. Some of what people will be able to do in 100 years would likely blow our minds if we contemplated it today ... in spite of how sophisticated we feel ourselves to be.

  6. #26
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    31,176
    Thanks
    189

    From
    Tennessee
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    As I review the many discussions between theists, and atheists over the question of the existence of God, the issue always seems to boil down to the question of what is meant by the term "evidence". So, what, then is "evidence", and what is the purpose? Is evidence a subjective term whose only purpose is to convince one's self of a position, or is evidence an outward objective quality used to prove, or disprove a position to others looking for answers to questions?

    Logically, it seems to me that when one asks for evidence of a thing, they are asking for a quantifiable, verifiable quality that determines the rational expectation for the resolution of a question. For this reason there are various types of evidence, some more rational than others.

    Perhaps you should start with what it is not as in opinion, analysis and speculation.

  7. #27
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,477
    Thanks
    17702

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by roberthughey View Post
    Perhaps you should start with what it is not as in opinion, analysis and speculation.
    I would agree with the opinion, and supposition part. However, does not raw data need analysis in order to be adapted to useful information? Wouldn't that make analysis part of the process of collecting evidence?

  8. #28
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    31,176
    Thanks
    189

    From
    Tennessee
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    I would agree with the opinion, and supposition part. However, does not raw data need analysis in order to be adapted to useful information? Wouldn't that make analysis part of the process of collecting evidence?
    Sure, as long it is honest and not politically motivated.
    Thanks from Czernobog

  9. #29
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    30,146
    Thanks
    3818

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Nice story dude, but you didn't answer the question. What do you believe the term evidence means. What constitutes evidence, and why?
    This is a typical logic police answer. You have your predefined standard and a closed mind to anything else. There are many forms of evidence.

    For example, my wife married me because I took care of here when she had a really bad case of chicken pox at the age of 27. She needed evidence that I would be willing to serve her needs and she got that evidence and that's how she made her decision.

    Typically, faith is proven to individuals who accept that faith because someone invested in them, believed in them and showed caring to them. That was the evidence that the faith was worth embracing. I can imagine your local branch of the logic police intervening to persuade that lonely, needy, grief stricken or empty person to just ignore the love and consider the logic. Good luck with that. How is your anti-religious movement going? How do you prove to others it's worth the effort?
    Last edited by kmiller1610; 12th January 2018 at 11:49 AM.

  10. #30
    New Member Slartibartfast's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    514
    Thanks
    180

    From
    UK
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Your cynical snark is noted.
    See, that obviously didn't match your beliefs. Sometimes beliefs 7 are wrong. Are you willing to learn?

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Where's the Evidence
    By John T Ford in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 499
    Last Post: 11th June 2017, 06:37 AM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 13th October 2016, 01:57 PM
  3. where is the evidence?
    By nonsqtr in forum Current Events
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 30th August 2013, 02:10 PM
  4. Evidence of Heaven, or ...
    By Leo2 in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 4th December 2011, 08:31 AM
  5. Evidence for God
    By lakeman in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 280
    Last Post: 5th April 2007, 09:50 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed