What constitutes 'Evidence': is it different for science and religion? (paranormal, ghost)
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.
Like I said over and over, prove the supernatural exists and then you have to at least account for the possibility that God exists. The science that you worship as your god no longer makes sense and anything is possible.
If the supernatural is proven to exist it becomes by definition natural. The whole argument is a rhetorical trick to try to prove that the unknowns and unexplaineds are known and explained as unexplainable and thus nobody knows anything for sure and God could exist even if there is no good evidence for it.
Even if this was a valid argument, it doesn't help prove a god at all. It only makes it a possibility. Well, it's a possibility now but not a probability acording to the evidence and that falls far short of the certainty required to have a belief in it.
Jeff, you must see that your argument here for a leap of faith doesn't even leave the ground.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
I need less faith that it won't based on the evidence that gravity has never stopped working. You have NOTHING to base your faith on that there is no life after death.
Fair enough. You at least see the validity of assuming as a working belief that what has always happened will continue to happen and that an argument that just because something has always happened does not mean we can rely on it happening is an absurd argument - never mind a follow -on that we should believe as likely that the thing that never happened would happen (1),
It is valid to take what we have experience of on a regular a common basis as valid and appeals to uinknowns are worthless as as evidence of anything.
That said, of course we can't rule them out and an afterlife can't be ruled out, either. But the problem there, Jeff, is - can you rule out that, even if an afterlife exists, it is perhaps the afterlife of Allah or Vishnu or some other god or no god at all? In other words, how does a possible afterlife for which there the is no good evidence serve even as a possibility as support for a particular god?
P.s I endorse the appreciation of your engaging on the subject with the best arguments you can muster. To some posters, at least.
(1) I recall the argument made in the Hari krishna days by some Indian Faker that western Knowledge was flawed because just because everyone ever known had died did not mean that everyone would die. That convinced me that, if western Knowledge was flawed, this guy's knowledge was even flawder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ
This, I mean if it's down to "lack of evidence doesn't equate to evidence of lack," then for that matter maybe Santa Claus will come rising Jesus' back with a bit in His mouth and sprinkle donuts all over North America.
(Of course, that WOULD be cool and I hope we get advance warning so I can plan to be holding out a really big basket. I LOVE donuts.)
If we're going to go totally crazy and say you can't disprove a negative, therefore literally anything is possible, well then okay, in fact that's true, BUT in that case there is NO base to hang onto in this thread upon which to comment.
If OTOH we are still talking about evidence that's way different from saying "anything is possible".
That. The problem with admitting anything is possible is that it doies not make it probable and mostly what then of the endless possibilities are you going to credit and why? Persoanl preference is ok, but with no empirical validity whatsoever. To even beging to justify giving any credibility, let alone inventing life -changing Faith, must require some evidence. And once you start on evidence we are back to what is evidence and what if faith without evidence?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-08-2015 at 12:47 AM..
Reason: a few 2nd thots
Even if this was a valid argument, it doesn't help prove a god at all. It only makes it a possibility. Well, it's a possibility now but not a probability acording to the evidence and that falls far short of the certainty required to have a belief in it.
Right. This is exactly the problem. If we're talking possibilities - particularly based on "not being able to disprove" them - then literally anything is a possibility, but something being a possibility (there's a Biblegod, there's a Flying Spaghetti Monster, at night I can fly around on a broomstick - but I just don't feel like showing you right now, there may be leprechauns) doesn't mean proof or even evidence that any one of those given things exists.
As Arequipa has pointed out, were "the supernatural" proven it would no longer be "super"natural but instead a part of the world, hence natural...and it still wouldn't prove or even provide evidence for there being a God. For instance, what if it were proven that energy keeps vibrating after death, hence there really are "ghosts"? Why would that provide "proof" of God? We have energy. It vibrates. Just us walking around doesn't prove there's a God. If that energy keeps going after death there's no reason for a God to be proven that way either.
I can't see this connection between the paranormal and God. Not sure where that's coming from nor how one would prove or support the other. Why would they?
I really just don't know...personally, I feel never the twain shall meet, at least partially BECAUSE religion requires that one maintain "faith" which implies, maintain belief even in the face of refuting, well, evidence (or at other times, and in fact overall, with a lack of actual evidence).
Honestly I never find religious "evidence" compelling. If I did, I'd be religious, that's for sure. But it's always something like "how can you look into a baby's eyes and not see God's hand in this" or "I nearly died on the operating table, the doctor says I SHOULD have died, therefore God must have pulled me back" or "How could we just 'happen' to have exactly 5 fingers on each hand...exactly the right amount including the opposable thumb to grip things just right?" or "I KNOW I feel God..." things like that. Those things aren't evidence, they have scientific/chemical bases or OTOH may occasionally be full-on fantasy...I don't know.
I just don't think religious "evidence" is usually "evidence" in an actual, legitimate, scientific sense.
My mother's "evidence" for God, as stated by her about 2 1/2 to 3 weeks before she just happened to die, was expressed by her as such (character formatting added by myself):
"I know there is a God . . . because I feel it in my heart!
"I know there is a God . . . because it makes me feel good!"
Well, what can I say? What more convincing do any of us need? What more do we need to say or hear about the matter anymore? All the scientists, philosophers, theologians, academicians, and other great thinkers and learned persons throughout the ages can now just hang their hats up and give it up! My own mother figured it ALL out for all of us! What more need be said about the matter anymore?
Atheists and agnostics of the world: Concede defeat! Admit that you were wrong all along, and just hop on board! For UsAll's mother finally resolved, once and for all, this ages-old question for ALL of us humans for all eternity to come! We should all be eternally grateful to her for her contribution to promoting human knowledge and understanding!!
Right. This is exactly the problem. If we're talking possibilities - particularly based on "not being able to disprove" them - then literally anything is a possibility, but something being a possibility (there's a Biblegod, there's a Flying Spaghetti Monster, at night I can fly around on a broomstick - but I just don't feel like showing you right now, there may be leprechauns) doesn't mean proof or even evidence that any one of those given things exists.
As Arequipa has pointed out, were "the supernatural" proven it would no longer be "super"natural but instead a part of the world, hence natural...and it still wouldn't prove or even provide evidence for there being a God. For instance, what if it were proven that energy keeps vibrating after death, hence there really are "ghosts"? Why would that provide "proof" of God? We have energy. It vibrates. Just us walking around doesn't prove there's a God. If that energy keeps going after death there's no reason for a God to be proven that way either.
I can't see this connection between the paranormal and God. Not sure where that's coming from nor how one would prove or support the other. Why would they?
Thanks for the clarification. proof of 'the supernatural' could only be the evidential validating of something previously considered in the realm of the Unknowns - UFo's, Bigfoot, Ghosts or a god. That last highlights the problem. Validate one god, and you are rather tending to Invalidate the others. IOW, proving one supernatural claim and bringing into the world of testable phenomena does not a think to validate any other supernatural claim.
My mother's "evidence" for God, as stated by her about 2 1/2 to 3 weeks before she just happened to die, was expressed by her as such (character formatting added by myself):
"I know there is a God . . . because I feel it in my heart!
"I know there is a God . . . because it makes me feel good!"
Well, what can I say? What more convincing do any of us need? What more do we need to say or hear about the matter anymore? All the scientists, philosophers, theologians, academicians, and other great thinkers and learned persons throughout the ages can now just hang their hats up and give it up! My own mother figured it ALL out for all of us! What more need be said about the matter anymore?
Atheists and agnostics of the world: Concede defeat! Admit that you were wrong all along, and just hop on board! For UsAll's mother finally resolved, once and for all, this ages-old question for ALL of us humans for all eternity to come! We should all be eternally grateful to her for her contribution to promoting human knowledge and understanding!!
(all said here "tongue in cheek", of course)
I still remember at the beginning of the learning curve as a debator on the god -claim, and opponent flatly stating that "I Know God exists". It left unable to answer, particularly because the fellow stumped away so i couldn't.
I remember reading of "Parallax" (founder of the Flat -earh cult (1) picking up his hat and stomping out when worsted in debate (2) and the "I believe it; that settles it" plonking faith statement. And the many, many examples here of a debator trying to carry it off with plonking faith statements like: "It says so in genesis so it must be true". It doesn't matter that the person believes on faith. What matters is that it is not evidence that will convince anyone else. Though it may confirm the bias of fellow -believers.
(1) oh yes, it was started by one cult -founder and is not a 'Church' apologetic, which anti -evolution actually is. The Bible got dragged in by flat earthism as Evidence while the church aside from the creationists cult..there..I've sed it ..broadly accept evolution, even if there are occasional rumbles from the vatican that they would love not to have to.
Then you demonstrate a bias that makes you incapable of accepting evidence for the God of the Bible.
Here's a test:
So if I prove to your satisfaction that God is real, will you worship Him or choose to go to hell so you can give Him the middle finger on judgement day?
False dichotomy Jeff. Just because a god exists does not mean that I am going to worship him. Depends on how he shapes up. And I have one for you. If Jesus comes back and appears on the Vatican balcony denouncing Protestantism, will you change to the Catholic faith?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
How?
Bible quotes are circular, so that doesn't prove anything. How does a god prove itself to you?
Yes. Personal convictions and Biblequotes are not valid evidence of anything but personal feelings and a holy Book.
Something to use, eh Jeff? A bit of an eyebrow raiser to me, too. But Understandable, becasue the god of the Bible is so nasty, and the micromanaging god of tsunamis, Katrinas and doing nothing to prevent tragedy and atrocity doesn't merit much admiration, either.
Stephen Fry was spot on when his response to 'What if you were put in front of God?' was to ask him a few pointed questions.
Which brings us to Mordant's post asking why people worship such an appalling father.
"No wonder so many Christians can only envision a harsh, demanding, ungracious, even punishing father ... one who you can never please no matter how hard you try."
If I had to risk a bank balance, I'd put it on the same instinct that a population has in adulating and loving as a Good Father this or that Dear Leader whose harsh and autocratic rule merits a knife where it would do most good rather than adoring praise.
You are correct; I was god's to lose. I wanted to believe, and did, until evidence mounted sufficiently against belief.
First the lifestyle, then the world according to that lifestyle. Materialism will only provide evidence for itself.
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.
The problem with admitting anything is possible is that it doies not make it probable and mostly what then of the endless possibilities are you going to credit and why? Persoanl preference is ok, but with no empirical validity whatsoever. To even beging to justify giving any credibility, let alone inventing life -changing Faith, must require some evidence. And once you start on evidence we are back to what is evidence and what if faith without evidence?
I still remember at the beginning of the learning curve as a debator on the god -claim, and opponent flatly stating that "I Know God exists". It left unable to answer, particularly because the fellow stumped away so i couldn't.
..broadly accept evolution, even if there are occasional rumbles from the vatican that they would love not to have to. 
Just because a god exists does not mean that I am going to worship him. Depends on how he shapes up. And I have one for you. If Jesus comes back and appears on the Vatican balcony denouncing Protestantism, will you change to the Catholic faith?
Something to use, eh Jeff? A bit of an eyebrow raiser to me, too. But Understandable, becasue the god of the Bible is so nasty, and the micromanaging god of tsunamis, Katrinas and doing nothing to prevent tragedy and atrocity doesn't merit much admiration, either. 