Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 49 of 49
Thanks Tree15Thanks

Thread: What is evidence?

  1. #41
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,099
    Thanks
    307

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    I'm always willing to learn. That was why I asked the question in the OP.
    Ok. You are willing to learn, are you?

    Newton's first law of motion: An object at rest or in constant motion will remain at rest or in constant motion unless an outside force acts upon it. (Do I need to remind you what a scientific law is?)

    Fact: The universe is undergoing expansion at an accelerating rate (not constant motion).

    How then can you account for these two rudimentary facts if nothing outside the universe exists, hmmmm?
    Thanks from TNVolunteer73

  2. #42
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,099
    Thanks
    307

    From
    Irrelevant
    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.
    Let me remind you that any logical exercise has, within itself, an internal consistency. Mathematics and predicate logic for example.

    Which leads me to godel's incompleteness theorem:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B...eness_theorems

    The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of the natural numbers. For any such formal system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system.

    So you see, all your proof-whoring is nothing more than a fool's errand.

  3. #43
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    4,629
    Thanks
    4835

    From
    Englewood, Fl
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    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.


    I agree with you as to that. However, science and religion really are two different, unrelated things.


    Wise beyond your years. (Of course, I do not know your age....)


    Since science is the exploration of the phenomenal world, and G-d created the whole phenomenal world, that would make sense.


    Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. It is, of course, not magic, however.
    I like that Clarks third. Reminds me of the works of Von Daniken.

  4. #44
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,099
    Thanks
    307

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by namvet69 View Post
    I like that Clarks third. Reminds me of the works of Von Daniken.
    Clark's laws are science fiction.

  5. #45
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    4,629
    Thanks
    4835

    From
    Englewood, Fl
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Clark's laws are science fiction.
    Yeah, and so are the works of Von Daniken. So what's your point?

  6. #46
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,099
    Thanks
    307

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by namvet69 View Post
    Yeah, and so are the works of Von Daniken. So what's your point?
    Merely a reminder that clark's laws have no standing in a discussion of scientific evidence.

  7. #47
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,099
    Thanks
    307

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    And yet a vast majority of them insist that evidence to support their faith exists. Which leads back to the question, what precisely do theists understand the word "evidence' to mean. Interestingly, not a single theist seems to want to answer the question. I can only assume that, either Ian is right, and they don't really know the answer, or, they do know what evidence means, and don't want to admit that they are well aware that what they are calling "evidence" isn't.
    What you have posted pertains to SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

    Theists understand that god's existence is an ONTOLOGICAL question hence requiring ONTOLOGICAL proofs.

    Here is st. anselm's ontological proof:

    1. God exists in the understanding but not in reality. (Assumption for reductio)

    2. Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone. (Premise)

    3. A being having all of God’s properties plus existence in reality can be conceived. (Premise)

    4. A being having all of God’s properties plus existence in reality is greater than God. (From (1) and (2).)

    5. A being greater than God can be conceived. (From (3) and (4).)

    6. It is false that a being greater than God can be conceived. (From definition of “God”.)

    7. Hence, it is false that God exists in the understanding but not in reality. (From (1), (5), (6).)

    8. God exists in the understanding. (Premise, to which even the Fool agrees.)

    9. Hence God exists in reality. (From (7), (8).)

  8. #48
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    4,629
    Thanks
    4835

    From
    Englewood, Fl
    Von Daniken suggests that the so-called evidence in the bible that describe the "miracles" men saw in those times, can be explained scientifically under the premise of advanced technologies witnessed by ancient peoples and therefore described as "magic" etc.

  9. #49
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,099
    Thanks
    307

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by namvet69 View Post
    Von Daniken suggests that the so-called evidence in the bible that describe the "miracles" men saw in those times, can be explained scientifically under the premise of advanced technologies witnessed by ancient peoples and therefore described as "magic" etc.
    Catholic teaching says that miracles are events within the realm of the natural world whose cause is hidden or unknown to human understanding.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

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