Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 49
Thanks Tree15Thanks

Thread: What is evidence?

  1. #31
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,477
    Thanks
    17709

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    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?
    So, you seem to be asserting that "evidence" is an entirely internal mechanism, that is only of value to an individual. How, then, do you go about providing evidence to someone other than yourself that something you believe (and we're not even talking about religion, now; this applies to any belief) is rational, and logical? After all, what you seem to de defining as evidence is clearly not demonstrable to anyone other than yourself.

    Take for instance your "people were nice" example. That implies that the only reason that they were nice is because of the faith to which they belong. However, there are such people of every faith, and such people of no faith at all. How, then, is being nice (caring, loving, call it what you will) evidence of the validity of a particular faith? That seems to be just an emotional response to stimuli, not actual evidence of anything.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  2. #32
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,477
    Thanks
    17709

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by Slartibartfast View Post
    See, that obviously didn't match your beliefs. Sometimes beliefs 7 are wrong. Are you willing to learn?
    I'm always willing to learn. That was why I asked the question in the OP.

  3. #33
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    62,630
    Thanks
    31324

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Amelia View Post
    It would be evidence. It would be up to us to figure out how to fit it in with other evidence.
    Sure, the fact that one predicts an event that comes to pass would be "evidence," but the correlation would not establish the existence of precognition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amelia View Post
    Part of my belief is that science and religion are not inherently at odds.
    I agree with you as to that. However, science and religion really are two different, unrelated things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amelia View Post
    I'm not so wedded to any religious belief that I would continue to hold it in spite of scientific results which contradicted it.
    Wise beyond your years. (Of course, I do not know your age....)

    Quote Originally Posted by Amelia View Post
    I'm confident that G-d is really good at science.
    Since science is the exploration of the phenomenal world, and G-d created the whole phenomenal world, that would make sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amelia View Post
    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.
    Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. It is, of course, not magic, however.

  4. #34
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,099
    Thanks
    307

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    Yes.


    I am not sure I understand your question. Where one asserts the existence of G-d is provable fact, then factual evidence would be quite relevant. In that case, one is making an assertion of fact rather than engaging in a philosophical inquiry.
    There you go. You do not understand what you are talking about.

    The existence of god is an epistemological or ontological question, hence requiring epistemological or ontological facts. What you seem to be suggesting is that only scientific facts may be provided to ascertain epistemological or ontological truths -- which is ignorant in and of itself.

  5. #35
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,099
    Thanks
    307

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Except you, and other theists, keep insisting that this theological construct influenced, and continues to influence the physical world, which places it squarely in the arena of science.
    This is ignorant nonsense. Political philosophy and arts influence people, and by extension the physical world and yet, it is idiotic to presume you can apply the principles of the physical sciences to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Since the purpose of science is to observe, measure, and understand phenomenon in the physical universe, then any time a theist claims that some entity, being, or force affects that physical universe, then observing, measuring, and understanding that effect objectively should be more than possible.
    Since when did theology assert that god is 'measurable', hmmmm? Right there and then, science cannot say anything about god and your insistence on scientific proof is a straw man argument.
    Thanks from kmiller1610

  6. #36
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,099
    Thanks
    307

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Claiming that the universe has a creator is not a philosophical statement. It is a statement about the foundation of the physical universe, which is a scientific claim. The physical universe is the purview of science. You want God to remain purely a philosophical construct? Then quit trying to intrude on the purview of science with your claims about God.
    What nonsense.

    Science is claiming that the big bang arose from a space-time singularity. Is there anything measurable or knowable about space-time singularities? And yet, this is the foundation of the lambda-cdm cosmological model science is using today.

    And don't get me started on m-theory -- with its elegant, 11-dimension mathematics. Tell me, have you ever made measurements in m-theory's extra 7 dimensions?

    But of course, you are incapable of logical rigor with science because you do not understand science.

  7. #37
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    30,513
    Thanks
    3882

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    So, you seem to be asserting that "evidence" is an entirely internal mechanism, that is only of value to an individual. How, then, do you go about providing evidence to someone other than yourself that something you believe (and we're not even talking about religion, now; this applies to any belief) is rational, and logical? After all, what you seem to de defining as evidence is clearly not demonstrable to anyone other than yourself.

    Take for instance your "people were nice" example. That implies that the only reason that they were nice is because of the faith to which they belong. However, there are such people of every faith, and such people of no faith at all. How, then, is being nice (caring, loving, call it what you will) evidence of the validity of a particular faith? That seems to be just an emotional response to stimuli, not actual evidence of anything.
    Evidence is a word. Its meaning depends on context

    You don't prove faith, love or hope with science, But the evidence of the existence of those things is phenomenological and demonstrable.

    Proving that climate change is driven by man SHOULD be about measurements and numbers, but guess what, the advocates point to the opinions of groups of people as evidence.

    I have debated many atheists, many of whom I admire. And the root cause of their atheism is often the fact that some religious person hurt them or let them down. So even in a field of belief that often demands evidence, the kind of evidence you point to is not the causal factor in someone forming their life philosophy.

    Causes and effects, even those that are judged subjectively ARE evidence. They are not proof. You can no longer prove God does not exist than I can prove She does.

  8. #38
    Senior Member Loki's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,194
    Thanks
    3842

    From
    East coast USA
    I believe I'm God.
    Simple. I'm an Athiest also.
    I have no specific power, just a better rationalization.
    Seek and ye shall find.

  9. #39
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,099
    Thanks
    307

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    I don't know. See that's the cool thing about science. We don't have to have an answer for every question. "I don't know," is a perfectly reasonable response, because "I don't know," encourages, "Let's work to find out!"
    You do not even understand what you are talking about, do you?

    The heisenberg's uncertainty, like einstein's postulate of a constant speed of light is an UNBREACHABLE physical barrier of what science can know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    "It's God", or "God did it" on the other hand ends the discussion. "What's that big round thing in the sky?" "God". "Oh. Well, guess we don't have to think about that any more," "What makes the rain fall?" "God" "Oh. Well, Guess that's that, then," "Why are those lights in the night sky?" "God did it," "Oh, Guess we don't have to think about that any more"

    It was only when people came along, and said, "You know what? That's a bullshit answer," that we started to explore, and find real answers. So, do we know if there is anything smaller than planck length? Nope. Guess what? 50 years ago, we didn't know anything that small exists. Who knows what more we'll know in another 50 years?
    But that is what physical cosmology is saying -- that the universe came from a space-time singularity that went bang. By definition, a space-time singularity is scientifically unknowable.

    So, how is 'god did it' different from 'a space-time singularity that went bang', hmmmm?

    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    But we won't know anything more so long as "It's God" is the acceptable answer.
    Faith and science are not mutually exclusive.

    The thesis that faith and science are in conflict actually started as recent as the 19th century, perpetuated by atheists like what you are doing here.

  10. #40
    Veteran Member TNVolunteer73's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    32,278
    Thanks
    8276

    From
    TN
    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.

    So you have 100% Proof that the Universe existence is a Cosmic Evidence

    you have Several Studies that have prove this to be Scientific law.

    Hmm Nope

    Nuff said.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Where's the Evidence
    By John T Ford in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 513
    Last Post: 9th May 2018, 11:22 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