Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
we have agreed to put God's existence in abeyance, disregard the phrase, in re God's existence, in the title of the thread.
You may have agreed this but I have not. Given the title of the thread AND the fact this is the "Religion and Philosophy" forum, I think it perfectly valid to use the existence of god in my examples.
However the things I am saying apply to other things too. Astrology. Alien Abduction. Ghosts. Walking around on Astral Planes. Homeopathy. Psychic mind reading and seeing into the future. Elvis still being alive. Unicorns. You name it. What I am saying is true for all those things too.
In all these cases evidence is not a thing, but a procedure. A process. It is a simple 3 step process but no matter how simple it is the god people, the psychic people, the supernatural planes people.... none of them can do it. Ever.
07-21-2011, 03:54 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Evidence = Observation/Experience
Hypothesis = Generalization
E ----> H = Induction
-----> = Methodology (Ex. Scientific Method or Rules of Induction)
Question - what is the justifcation for the Methodology or Rules?
M or R presupposes the uniformity of nature - every event has a cause.
If not there is no ground for Induction.
The problem is that there is no ground for 'the uniformity of nature' becuase it uses induction - it is circular.
Humes answer to this is - Constant Conjuction of Resembling Instances - the thing we call the cause is always followed by the thing we call the effect. In other words - Regularity.
Regularity is just representations or patterns of nature.
Reasons develop from this Regularity.
Beliefs should follow from Reasons.
Therefore, your beliefs should be correspondent to and strengthened by regularity.
I think you can see that what others have been saying about what constitutes good evidence and that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Humans are built to experience the external world of nature and recognize patterns in the environment in order to make their lives more efficient and more likely to survive. This is why it is so difficult to really 'know' conceptual truths about reality particularly if they have difficulty corresponding to reality.
You may have agreed this but I have not. Given the title of the thread AND the fact this is the "Religion and Philosophy" forum, I think it perfectly valid to use the existence of god in my examples.
However the things I am saying apply to other things too. Astrology. Alien Abduction. Ghosts. Walking around on Astral Planes. Homeopathy. Psychic mind reading and seeing into the future. Elvis still being alive. Unicorns. You name it. What I am saying is true for all those things too.
In all these cases evidence is not a thing, but a procedure. A process. It is a simple 3 step process but no matter how simple it is the god people, the psychic people, the supernatural planes people.... none of them can do it. Ever.
Com'on now Nozz...it's Ryrges' thread...I would say, based on that, Ryrge gets to establish the parameters.
MOF...to intentionally do otherwise...is to "hijack" the thread...and is against the TOS.
If you want the debate to go off the topic specifically limited by the OP...to stay within the rules of this forum...you must start a new thread.
And I hope you do...because I have a rebuttal to/for you. Not that you don't already know what it is.........
But I promise to use your "simple 3-step process"!
Com'on now Nozz...it's Ryrges' thread...I would say, based on that, Ryrge gets to establish the parameters.
MOF...to intentionally do otherwise...is to "hijack" the thread...and is against the TOS.
I am sure that is for the moderators, not you, to decide. In fact by bringing this up with me here rather than in PM you have done more to derail the thread than I have given that all my replies were on the topic of the actual thread.... as in what is "evidence". My posts have been on that topic. Yours above is not. At all. Even a little bit. So which one of us has hijacked and derailed the thread??? Clue: It is not me.
However I pointed out that what I am saying stands regardless of whether we are talking about god or any of the other things I listed.... and that god is not required for my point to stand.... and you can take everything I have said and swap out god and swap in those other things.... so I am not sure what the issue even is or why you bring it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
And I hope you do...because I have a rebuttal to/for you. Not that you don't already know what it is.........
If you have something to say to me then start your own thread. It is not for me to do it for you.
Seeker...I assume you haven't read all the posts in the thread from the beggining...since the OP had revised the title question, and directed:
"On the matter of relevancy, please just abstain already from God's existence, proof from evidence, etc.
Because God is now out of this thread, it was not my intention to bring in God's existence to prove by evidence, but just to give an orientation to the topic of the thread.
So, just keep to the generic concept of evidence, the kinds of evidence, and important, how it operates....."
Of course, you could post about "God's Existence" anyway, in spite of the OPs request...but I submit, that's kinda rude, in light of said request to abstain from it.
I read the post and his summation of definitions he leans/leaning toward evidence for a god.
The thread is pretty silly as if there is no universal definition for evidence.
From Wiki (which is good enough for internet discussions)
Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.
These bait and switch threads are easy to spot and the OP usually wants to lead the participants into a trap or preconceived idea.
Debating what evidence means is moot, why the need to summarize to 10 words?
All I just did was cite the conclusion to where I think the thread is headed.
The evidence at a crime scene differs from the evidence of say evolution or any evidence of known scientific facts. A universal understanding of what the word means infers also people are able to adapt what evidence entails or what evidence will satisfy the postulated by the postulator.
The "evidence" we are showered with for deities and the supernatural are all anecdotal and as such equates too circumstantial evidence in a court of law. Although this type of evidence may be enough to reach a verdict, usually such matters do not go to trial as reasonable doubt has to be proven. IOW, the defendant is presumed innocent till proven guilty.
In science, evidence can never be circumstantial. One can make predictions and then search for the evidence to support them, this is called an hypothesis. It moves the quest for knowledge in the right direction, seeking the answers/conclusions.
In religion, the conclusion is assumed and then folk move out to find evidence that may support the conclusion. Nothing wrong with that as it is similar to the scientific way but what constitutes evidence is not based on existing accepted norms or proven theories. One has to "learn" interpretive skills to determine exactly what a specific text means as there are so many variables. Science eliminates the variables and follows the most logical course to reach a conclusion. This is called Occam's razor That conclusion can then be re engineered to attain the same result by someone different and is repeatable.
The conclusion is based on the preceding evidence. Should this evidence be found wanting the conclusion becomes moot and rejected or must be reexamined from another perspective.
The reverse engineering of evidence at a crash site is used to determine probable cause. This is an example of working backwards and in itself is scientific.
The equivalent theist approach will be to suggest that the fuselage ripped in two and then try and find out if the guess was right. See, this is working backwards from a conclusion or preconceived idea/notion.
I am no scientist but clearly I can see the benefit of the scientific method as being the most logical.
Take think tanks and brainstorming sessions. The process of elimination of ideas is not a scientific one but simple deliberation and putting it up to a vote. There is no evidence to consider as none has been offered yet.
I have much more to say but this post is already long.
I read the post and his summation of definitions he leans/leaning toward evidence for a god.
The thread is pretty silly as if there is no universal definition for evidence.
From Wiki (which is good enough for internet discussions)
Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.
These bait and switch threads are easy to spot and the OP usually wants to lead the participants into a trap or preconceived idea.
Debating what evidence means is moot, why the need to summarize to 10 words?
All I just did was cite the conclusion to where I think the thread is headed.
The evidence at a crime scene differs from the evidence of say evolution or any evidence of known scientific facts. A universal understanding of what the word means infers also people are able to adapt what evidence entails or what evidence will satisfy the postulated by the postulator.
The "evidence" we are showered with for deities and the supernatural are all anecdotal and as such equates too circumstantial evidence in a court of law. Although this type of evidence may be enough to reach a verdict, usually such matters do not go to trial as reasonable doubt has to be proven. IOW, the defendant is presumed innocent till proven guilty.
In science, evidence can never be circumstantial. One can make predictions and then search for the evidence to support them, this is called an hypothesis. It moves the quest for knowledge in the right direction, seeking the answers/conclusions.
In religion, the conclusion is assumed and then folk move out to find evidence that may support the conclusion. Nothing wrong with that as it is similar to the scientific way but what constitutes evidence is not based on existing accepted norms or proven theories. One has to "learn" interpretive skills to determine exactly what a specific text means as there are so many variables. Science eliminates the variables and follows the most logical course to reach a conclusion. This is called Occam's razor That conclusion can then be re engineered to attain the same result by someone different and is repeatable.
The conclusion is based on the preceding evidence. Should this evidence be found wanting the conclusion becomes moot and rejected or must be reexamined from another perspective.
The reverse engineering of evidence at a crash site is used to determine probable cause. This is an example of working backwards and in itself is scientific.
The equivalent theist approach will be to suggest that the fuselage ripped in two and then try and find out if the guess was right. See, this is working backwards from a conclusion or preconceived idea/notion.
I am no scientist but clearly I can see the benefit of the scientific method as being the most logical.
Take think tanks and brainstorming sessions. The process of elimination of ideas is not a scientific one but simple deliberation and putting it up to a vote. There is no evidence to consider as none has been offered yet.
I have much more to say but this post is already long.
I believe most reading this board would know most of what you wrote...and much of it has been offered many times over, on many threads.
You just may be correct about the intentions of the OP.
Most of what you offered goes along with Nozzs' "3-step process/procedure" for evidence, where you start with a claim and then present that which supports said claim.
This is good...but there are potential "issues" to be "ironed out"...Nozz even made specific mention of it: You have to EXACTLY DEFINE what is the subject/issue of your claim.
It is contingent upon first getting agreement on the definition...and Good Luck with that.
Unless, of course, you just accept the one making the claim as who determines the definition.
EXAMPLE:
Prove (provide convincing/conclusive evidence for) the claim: "Super-heroes Exist".
If I define "super-hero" as a concept and a title that can be assigned to anyone that's been perceived to have demonstrated extreme heroism, it is a much different "ball game" than someone that demands that "super-hero" must be specifically Spiderman, Batman, The Hulk, or the like, because that is what some are conditioned to think of when they hear the term "superhero".
If we can't agree on the definition, we are at an impasse.
And on issues such as those discussed on this board...most are steadfast, unwavering, and insistent upon their definition being the one that MUST be used. So that's a BIG problem to overcome.
Prove (provide convincing/conclusive evidence for) the claim: "Super-heroes Exist".
If I define "super-hero" as a concept and a title that can be assigned to anyone that's been perceived to have demonstrated extreme heroism, it is a much different "ball game" than someone that demands that "super-hero" must be specifically Spiderman, Batman, The Hulk, or the like, because that is what some are conditioned to think of when they hear the term "superhero".
Interesting choice of analogy and ironic that the super hero plays nicely into the realm of the theist. We all know super heroes are fiction
Quote:
If we can't agree on the definition, we are at an impasse.
If you wish to define each time what constitutes evidence, one will still be left with perhaps 3 standard approaches. When discussing real things or concepts they will likely work fine. When discussing abstract (my name for philosophy) applying the three workable approaches will fail.
Quote:
And on issues such as those discussed on this board...most are steadfast, unwavering, and insistent upon their definition being the one that MUST be used. So that's a BIG problem to overcome.
These are not moderated debates and are free flowing hence the thread topics do tend to drift.
Evidence for deities really are lacking as proofs ess. come down to citations from holy books which are all but refuted in their claims, anecdotal evidence (experiences) and based on that, one cannot really examine the evidence. The theist departs from the premise that the holy text is the word of their deity and expects this to stand as evidence. When the errors are pointed out be it failed prophesy, primitive assertions or extraordinary claims contradicted a few chapters later, we are met with the inevitable context argument OR you need to see it like I do OR you need the holy spirit to understand etc. a simple glance over the xian wall, we see all claiming to be led by the same spirit yet come to different conclusions. Point this out then crickets.
Or we now need to understand the culture of the time OR we are told the book has many interpretations hence all interpretations are correct as there are multiple layers. Really, this is just an excuse for making it up as you go along.
Can you imagine science following that form of logic? By inference, everyone is a scientist and every opinion is valid. We would still be banging stones against each other to start a fire to cook on.
My personal view has always been that religion should have evolved to now follow the scientific method as this is where the most revelation or discovery is happening. The bible has remained static and the dogmas pretty much the same as it was 2000 years ago. Of course had this happened, there would be no churches or religion and we would be here discussing and exchanging ideas that had positive impact on society.
We would be exchanging facts and ideas and not opinion.
As an off topic "aside": As per your "personal view" ^^ Seeker...Be reasonable, man!!
How do you expect the evangelists and denominational organization leaders to "cash in" if that happens?
You don't really expect them to get a job, do you?!
Well I payed a lot on the god lottery, they could take turns washing my car and mowing the lawn. I could settle for this as a very expensive car wash and garden services.
I respect your intellect. You're a good and smart fellow. With that said, I'd be open to the idea of atheism is there was some kinda proof the Univerise just came to be. All on its own. Like poof! And here we are. Well actually the poof thing is kinda mystical. But I digress.
Not the case, from what I see and know. Thoughts?
Atheists do not claim to know how the Universe came to be. Can theists say the same thing? Not in my experience...
There is measurable scientific data that indicates a "big bang" happened and that is how our universe got to its current state. Science makes no claims to have evidence of what the universe looked like prior to that event.
Don't be annoyed, please let us reconcile our respective definitions of evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt
[ From Hueff: Evidence is:
an observation by a human submitted by a human in support of an idea thought of by a human. ]
Forgive me, but you are starting to get annoying. I gave you a definition in 8 words, but then you asked me to put "man" in it, so I put "human" ("man" can be considered sexist) in it exactly where it needed to be and in every place it needed to be and now you want it in ten words or less again.
Sorry, but you requests are arbitrary, so I will not comply, take what I give you or don't. But, I refuse to accommodate your arbitrary requests anymore. If you are serious about discussing this topic, you can legitimately ask for clarification and you can make a substantive critique, but if you are serious, you will dispense with the arbitrary hoops.
Again, here is my 8 word definition of evidence, and if you want to you can mentally insert "by a human" after every other word:
an observation submitted in support of an idea.
Here I will do it for you:
From Hueff: Evidence is:
an observation by a human submitted by a human in support of an idea thought of by a human. (19 words)
Reduced to: [Evidence is] An observation by man in support of an idea. (9 words)
Here is my own 9 word definition of evidence:
[Evidence is] anything man knows leading him to know another thing. (9 words)
Compare that 9 word definition from you to my 9 word definition, we can see that we are both into an experience of man, I call it knowing you call it observation.
Your observation is in support of an idea.
My knowing is to come to the knowing of another thing.
Your definition of evidence, if I may, in my examination is more restricted in its embrace than my definition.
What do you mean by an idea?
You will ask what do I mean by a thing?
An idea is a concept in the mind of man, but a thing can be an idea in the mind of man or it can be an object in the realm of reality outside man's mind.
So, what is the purpose of man in his concern with evidence, to substantiate an idea in the mind of man, or to substantiate a thing to exist even just in the mind of man as a concept and/or also outside the mind of man as an object independent of man's mind, so that if man were not around at all, the thing still exists.
But of course if man were not around then there is no man to be concerned about evidence, still if there be conscious intelligent beings around though not human beings, then to these conscious intelligent beings they would also have a concern for evidence.
So, may I just suggest that we agree to reconcile our two definitions of what is evidence into the followiing formulation:
[Evidence is] an observation by man in support of a thing (instead of an idea). (9 words)
Is that okay with you?
Then we can everyone give comments on evidence as defined in the following words:
An observation by man in support of a thing.
Ryrge
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't be annoyed, please let us reconcile our respective definitions of evidence.
