Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 55

Thread: On Evidence

  1. #21
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It's an ASCII diagram you whippersnapper. In the olden days, we didn't have lines!

    It's an attempt to distinguish what I see as theistic arguments

    PE: Is physical evidence - artifacts, measurements and observations.
    A: Is some argument based on PE to show that something (X) exists.

    So philosophical arguments look like this:
    PE->A
    And X must therefore exists.

    The arguments I am seeking for
    PE->A->X or PE(X)

    PE(X) is physical evidence of X; e.g. some effect that could be attributed to X via the claims made in A.
    Yeah, we get that. You've made this claim about 50x thus far. We don't care about that. We understand it. We care about why claim that PE is required for the argument of the existence of God.

    I'm sure there is difference but whatever you mean by 'divine in origin' still requires that there be a deity behind it. So if we have physical things, a man born of a virgin, and the power of 'divine in origin' (DIO) then if we can show how DIO works then that would indeed show that God exists. Correct?
    No, it would just show that these events that are said to be caused by a specific God, the God of the Bible, would be attributed to the God of the Bible.

    This claim:

    God exists.

    Is entirely independent of any of the events you described. For instance, a deist does not believe the events you described occurred. The deist can still make the claim. Also, a Jew does not believe in many of those events, nor a Muslim, nor a Hindu, etc...

    Events, being said to be divine in origin, can only be examined with the intent to determine if they are indeed, divine in origin (vs natural or possibly not even true).


    But let's get back to the topic at hand, you have shown that it is entirely reasonable for there to be physical evidence of a deity.
    Where?
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  2. #22
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Just make sure to apply the same criteria to the arguments on Deities not existing.
    So you agree with the criteria?

    ---------- Post added at 10:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:41 PM ----------

    3. It must be physical
    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    I don't think you're going to find much agreement with your preconceived idea that the God is physical substance.
    I'm not saying that - I'm asking for physical evidence and arguing that it is fair to ask for physical evidence.
    Do you agree it is fair to ask for physical evidence?

    5. It must be proven that it is cannot be due to an alien from an advanced society.
    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Well, I find it rather interesting yet somewhat perplexing that some non-believers seem quite willing to believe in intelligent aliens over an intelligent Creator.
    That's because with aliens, there's more of a likely of there being physical evidence.
    Do you agree that this is a fair criteria?

    6. It must be proven that it is not some other supernatural character or due to some other supernatural process.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    What would be the recognizable difference between evidence from an angel vs the Creator?
    No idea - wings? That said, since God has used Angels in the past; it's not unfair to ask this question. Do you agree?

    7. It must be proven that it is indeed evidence for one's own deity, and excludes others.
    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Well, this is your argument, sir, and your criteria. We're just examining your criteria. Obviously, your current criteria is based upon some of your preconceived ideas about God. Where do those ideas come from? Are they well researched? Have you critically thought them through? Have you every done rigorous academic study in comparative religions to increase your knowledge so as to at least increase your knowledge base of the subject?
    I've thought through the filtering process that I would take physical evidence through before being convinced that there is a deity. I'm not saying it currently exists in our current pool of evidence - I think we all agree that there is zero physical evidence thus far for a deity. Would you agree?

    All I want to do is for theists to agree upon a list of criteria that is fair. I don't think it should really be that much of a stretch and I would imagine it would be the same criteria a theist would use given actual physical evidence. In fact, I explicitly invited additional steps that theists might come up with since obviously you are going to be more informed about such things and likely to have more stringent criteria.

    Nevertheless, since I assume that you are arguing for the Christian Triune then for that evidence to satisfy you it must preclude the other religions, correct?



    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    In that most of world religions have different views and beliefs of God's nature / aspects, and have different traditions, rituals, beliefs, when it comes to the fundamental essence of God: The Creator is the Creator.
    That's hardly evidence they are talking about the same thing. Any intelligent being possessing some kind of reasoning process and lacking a modern view of the universe would come up with the same basic idea. I'm sure there's a game theoretic, evidence-based anthropological study one can do to show that it is a necessity to create such a concept. Being the creator of 'everything' is just a way to stop all the questions - early tribes all had claims to their own deities so someone had to settle the dispute: what better than the father of all deities and not only that the creator of everything? It's more of a logical conclusion than evidence of an actual deity.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Christ can heal a Hindu little girl dying from a deadly disease in India just as Vishnu can intercede to dissipate a huge hurricane about to hit a populated land mass in the West.
    Well, a multiple deity universe is fine and dandy but they can't all claim to be the single creator that the KCA argues for. In fact, one of the failings of KCA is the belief it argues only for a single deity - it fits a multiple deity creator just as well. And all these religions have competing claims anyway, so it's not likely they are all true.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    What I think you may not be understanding is that there's one fundamental Source.
    Well, the Abrahamic deity has required multiple do-overs so trying out a bunch of religions and denominations (30,000 for Christianity apparently) doesn't come as much of a shock. It is physical evidence, so I agree with that.

    So you are putting forward that the many thousands of religions are proof of God and that they are all valid and real? And that this is evidence for God? Is this your own theory or do you have something to back this up?

    Anyway, we are getting side-tracked, and I don't want to challenge you too much on this. I'm just looking for criteria that the evidence you are putting forward is good.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    SharmaK: Moses' stone tablets would be direct physical evidence if the etchings could only have been done by a supernatural cause; e.g. your mind automatically understands the ancient texts as you touch them with your finge

    What would it be evidence for Shar? Would those stone tablets, if they were discovered and proven to be authentic, would that make the Bible, all of a sudden make sense to you?
    Well, it's certainly physical evidence that points to the deity in the Bible. Beyond that is really beyond the scope of the thread unless you want to take this as a test case to pass through the criteria you haven't yet agreed to.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    SharmaK: Or if some of the other claims such as Angels came true and we questioned one closely enough and perhaps even dissected one and it showed the direct hand of a deity then that would be evidence.

    Do you mean if you personally interacted with an angel and the angel was able to prove to your consciousness that he/she was from the heavenly kingdom, you would find this interaction to be evidence of God?
    Don't forget this thread is to determine whether some physical evidence can be accepted as evidence for God. To determine whether there is actually God, we should look at all the evidence to see if together they are sufficient. But that's way beyond this thread. For the sake of this thread, what you put forward should be considered evidence.


    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    SharmaK: Basically, if any of the theist claims could be actually backed up.
    Well, many theists I would venture to say, back up their belief with testing and proving God's principles and his nature in their life.
    Well, that's not really proving anything other than a belief system in a deity is valid, not the deity's existence. Clearly for Christianity, many (30,000) belief systems are possible and they seem to change every few years. So are they all right? Is the WBC a valid way to reach God? Or how about that priest recently who claimed that boys showing effeminacy should be beaten? Or the pedo-priests of the Catholic Church? Or their defenders? Or Mormonism?

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    SharmaK: Not to be sarcastic, but magic mushrooms have been known (;-)) to provide exactly those experiences too.

    The effect of hallucinogenics are temporary. I'm talking about a permanent, rational state of awareness and knowing. Just like you know your name, your sex and sexual orientation; you would know God. The Road to Damascus experience, (it happens to all sorts of people, including skeptics and non-believers) leaves a person changed usually for their lifetime. It somehow seems to rewire the brain and enable a new state of awareness -- perhaps by firing up some of those millions of unused neurons that are dormant in the brain.

    The only tricky part about this type of evidence and experience, is that we can reject it (as unnatural as that may be) just like we can reject our own identity and character. It's a tough and unnatural rejection, though, denial is an option. Generally, however, I would say reason and common sense prevail in most people's lives.
    Well, since there are many millions of humans that have gone through this re-wiring, I'm sure this would produce at least a few PhD's. That said, religions aren't the only way to achieve such a state - such hysteria went on when people thought that Communism was a great idea and attempted to implement it within their lifetime. So isn't proof that deities are not needed and therefore non-existent as anything other than darn good idea?

    ---------- Post added at 10:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    We care about why claim that PE is required for the argument of the existence of God.
    It's not a requirement, I'm just arguing whether it is possible arguments of the form "PE + A, therefore X or PE(X)" exist. That is, can there ever be an argument based on physical evidence that could be used as evidence for God?

  3. #23
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,370
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I agree that he could be immaterial - that's part of the Triune, but there is definitely both physical acts (directly or via supernatural creatures as a proxy). The former arguments are not the ones I am looking to elucidate. It is the physical. Why is this unfair to ask for?
    Echoing Apko here, physical evidence such as physical effects from a Source is not the same as requiring evidence of a Source that is not physical.

    The Spirit does not require proxies to effect physical events. There's probably a good reason for when human proxies were/are used, but that's a different debate. Not all miraculous events in the Bible had human proxies involved. What human proxy was used to begin the flood? It just started to rain. What human proxy was used for the numerous miracles to feed and sustain the Jews in the dessert for 40 years? It just rained bread overnight.

    The only evidence of the divine in this case was the bread on the ground when they woke up in the morning. That was the hard physical evidence. There were no army helicopters that flew in overnight to drop off the bread for millions of people.

    So, when you say your criteria requires physical evidence by a physical deity, that's like saying, I need to see the deities's helicopters drop off the bread as evidence.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  4. #24
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It's not a requirement, I'm just arguing whether it is possible arguments of the form "PE + A, therefore X or PE(X)" exist. That is, can there ever be an argument based on physical evidence that could be used as evidence for God?
    I gave several examples that used PE in another thread.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  5. #25
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    I'm still not certain what you mean by "evidence". Doesn't the KCA rely on the observation that our universe began to exist?
    Yes, but it's left dangling with the assertion that God exists. It's like arguing Dark Matter exists based on the observations of the movement of galaxies but it's really just postulating the existence of DM, additional proof is required. KCA is similar to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    I'm also not sure what the standard of proof is. Can you prove that there are no black swans--or in its positive form, that every swan is white? Can you prove that the universe wasn't created five minutes ago with the appearance of age?
    I think this may be off-topic. This isn't about whether proofs are good enough or not but whether they pass muster to be accepted as evidence for God. Further evaluation as to whether they are good can be done later.

    The criteria is just supposed to be a quick filter. So is KCA physical evidence, No? Then I'm not interested because I am looking for physical evidence.


    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    By your definition, isn't it possible to prove that Bigfoot exists? Given the various claimed footage of him (i.e., observations) along with various arguments based on that footage, doesn't this constitute a "proof" by your standard?
    Of course its possible. At the very least, the body itself would be proof. Some fur or DNA constitutes as physical proof. Footage doesn't really qualify as proof any more because they are not really considered very plausible [wow: Colbert talking about BigFoot as I type this - weird. Does that mean God exists or Big Foot?].

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    EDIT: Can you give some concrete examples of what you think constitutes a proof and what you think fails to constitute a proof? It seems to me like anything could be proved. For example:
    X = Bigfoot exists
    A = "Given the existence of flamingos, Bigfoot exists."
    PE(X) = Evidence that flamingos exist

    Under your definitions, I believe that X, A, and PE(X) constitute a proof that Bigfoot exists.
    Well, that's kinda how I see KCA actually. But what I'm trying to argue is already put forward at the top of my response.

    ---------- Post added at 10:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    I gave several examples that used PE in another thread.
    KCA uses PE but it isn't PE. I'm looking for PE arguments only. Is it possible they exist?

    ---------- Post added at 10:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:45 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Echoing Apko here, physical evidence such as physical effects from a Source is not the same as requiring evidence of a Source that is not physical.

    The Spirit does not require proxies to effect physical events. There's probably a good reason for when human proxies were/are used, but that's a different debate. Not all miraculous events in the Bible had human proxies involved. What human proxy was used to begin the flood? It just started to rain. What human proxy was used for the numerous miracles to feed and sustain the Jews in the dessert for 40 years? It just rained bread overnight.

    The only evidence of the divine in this case was the bread on the ground when they woke up in the morning. That was the hard physical evidence. There were no army helicopters that flew in overnight to drop off the bread for millions of people.

    So, when you say your criteria requires physical evidence by a physical deity, that's like saying, I need to see the deities's helicopters drop off the bread as evidence.
    I'm only using past experience of physical effects to demonstrate that it is possible for God to produce similar physical effects. I think even if the past miracles happened, all PE is gone.

    You also haven't answered my questions from the previous post:


    3. It must be physical
    Do you agree it is fair to ask for physical evidence?

    5. It must be proven that it is cannot be due to an alien from an advanced society.
    Do you agree that this is a fair criteria?

    6. It must be proven that it is not some other supernatural character or due to some other supernatural process.
    That said, since God has used Angels in the past; it's not unfair to ask this question. Do you agree?

    7. It must be proven that it is indeed evidence for one's own deity, and excludes others
    I think we all agree that there is zero physical evidence thus far for a deity. Would you agree?
    Nevertheless, since I assume that you are arguing for the Christian Triune then for that evidence to satisfy you it must preclude the other religions, correct?

  6. #26
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Yes, but it's left dangling with the assertion that God exists. It's like arguing Dark Matter exists based on the observations of the movement of galaxies but it's really just postulating the existence of DM, additional proof is required. KCA is similar to that.
    But that's all you need for a proof, by your definition:

    PE(X) is physical evidence of X or X itself; e.g. some effect that could be attributed to X via the claims made in A.

    Thus, the movement of the galaxies are attributed to X = dark matter by the argument.

    I think this may be off-topic. This isn't about whether proofs are good enough or not but whether they pass muster to be accepted as evidence for God. Further evaluation as to whether they are good can be done later.

    The criteria is just supposed to be a quick filter. So is KCA physical evidence, No? Then I'm not interested because I am looking for physical evidence.
    The KCA relies on an observation of the universe--namely, that it began to exist. This can be confirmed by various cosmological physics experiments. And that's all the KCA needs in order to be a "proof" by your definition.

    Of course its possible. At the very least, the body itself would be proof. Some fur or DNA constitutes as physical proof. Footage doesn't really qualify as proof any more because they are not really considered very plausible [wow: Colbert talking about BigFoot as I type this - weird. Does that mean God exists or Big Foot?].
    You missed my point. I'm saying that right now I can give appropriate A, X, and PE(X) that would constitute a proof that Bigfoot exists, under your definition. In fact, I gave them in my post above.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  7. #27
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    But that's all you need for a proof, by your definition:

    PE(X) is physical evidence of X or X itself; e.g. some effect that could be attributed to X via the claims made in A.

    Thus, the movement of the galaxies are attributed to X = dark matter by the argument.



    The KCA relies on an observation of the universe--namely, that it began to exist. This can be confirmed by various cosmological physics experiments. And that's all the KCA needs in order to be a "proof" by your definition.



    You missed my point. I'm saying that right now I can give appropriate A, X, and PE(X) that would constitute a proof that Bigfoot exists, under your definition. In fact, I gave them in my post above.
    This whole line of argument isn't working. It's my crappy attempt at generalizing all the PE-based arguments. Please disregard the equations, sorry for the waste of time.

    Basically, KCA is just like the DM argument. They are both based on PE but they are insufficient as proof.
    In the case of DM, additional observations and further proof is required before conclusively showing that it exists.
    Until then DM remains a hypothesis, albeit a strong enough of one to build upon. But not sufficient to show conclusively that it exists and indeed it is being challenged by other theories that explain the PE just as well.

    So I want to explicitly reject those types of arguments for that reason.

    I am looking for arguments are actually physical. So the question is, is it possible to have physical evidence of God? I know none exists at the moment but the Turin Shroud was pretty darn close for a while.

  8. #28
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,459
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by OP
    Do theists here think this is a valid set of criteria that your arguments have to pass muster on before it should be submitted as evidence of your own deity or theistic claims?

    1. It must actually be evidence - i.e. it needs to follow logic and be realistic and relevant (e.g. it cannot be because blue, or that blue is a shape).
    2. It must not be a claim to evidence - i.e. it cannot be any old statement or argument (e.g. it cannot be Jesus' image on toast).
    3. It must be physical - i.e. it cannot be an argument based on pure logic, otherwise it's just people making things up.
    4. It must not be of human origin - otherwise it's just people making things up again.
    5. It must be proven that it is cannot be due to an alien from an advanced society.
    6. It must be proven that it is not some other supernatural character or due to some other supernatural process.
    7. It must be proven that it is indeed evidence for one's own deity, and excludes others.



    Question to opponent. Shouldn't this OP have evidence in line with what it demands?
    Question to opponent. Where is it? or Where is the evidence this argument applies to the physical world?



    The above argument violates #3(of itself) and thus is invalid/self defeating and needs no response.
    To serve man.

  9. #29
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    This whole line of argument isn't working. It's my crappy attempt at generalizing all the PE-based arguments. Please disregard the equations, sorry for the waste of time.

    Basically, KCA is just like the DM argument. They are both based on PE but they are insufficient as proof.
    In the case of DM, additional observations and further proof is required before conclusively showing that it exists.
    Until then DM remains a hypothesis, albeit a strong enough of one to build upon. But not sufficient to show conclusively that it exists and indeed it is being challenged by other theories that explain the PE just as well.

    So I want to explicitly reject those types of arguments for that reason.

    I am looking for arguments are actually physical. So the question is, is it possible to have physical evidence of God? I know none exists at the moment but the Turin Shroud was pretty darn close for a while.
    How can you have physical evidence of God? Isn't God a metaphysical entity?

    It's like looking for physical evidence that someone is telling the truth. You can verify that what they said was true--but that doesn't mean they didn't think it was false but lied to you. You could monitor their heart rate when they're speaking, but that's unreliable--as is monitoring their brain activity.

    I feel like looking for evidence of God is the same way.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  10. #30
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharm
    KCA uses PE but it isn't PE. I'm looking for PE arguments only. Is it possible they exist?
    This has been addressed already, and in many forms.

    As you can see by the sheer number of objections...it's a pretty futile argument to maintain. You still have yet to demonstrate that physical evidence is the only type of legitimate evidence for an immaterial deity. I've said it before, but it needs repeating apparently: you are insisting on using the wrong tool for the job, and ignoring the use of the tool when it is applicable.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  11. #31
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,370
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Do you agree it is fair to ask for physical evidence?
    If by physical evidence you mean physical effects vs. evidence of a physical Source, yes, I think that's a reasonable criteria. However, I don't think it should be an absolute criteria, but it is a reasonable criteria.

    That's because with aliens, there's more of a likely of there being physical evidence. Do you agree that this is a fair criteria?[
    How can one prove this claim abut aliens?

    No idea - wings? That said, since God has used Angels in the past; it's not unfair to ask this question. Do you agree?
    Sure, God has used angels but I think I may not understand what you're saying here. Are you saying the evidence can't be attributed to angels? If so, why? Why are you separating what angels can do verses their source of power?

    I've thought through the filtering process that I would take physical evidence through before being convinced that there is a deity. I'm not saying it currently exists in our current pool of evidence - I think we all agree that there is zero physical evidence thus far for a deity. Would you agree?
    No, I would not agree that there is no evidence of God. But I think you and I have slightly different perspectives.

    All I want to do is for theists to agree upon a list of criteria that is fair. I don't think it should really be that much of a stretch
    The reason it may be a stretch is because you seem to have your own ideas of what God is suppose to be, thus your criteria wants to match your supposed ideas. So it's understandable that you create criteria to match what you think god is supposed to be. However, you may want to consider that God may not be what Shar thinks God is or what Shar thinks God is not.

    Nevertheless, since I assume that you are arguing for the Christian Triune then for that evidence to satisfy you it must preclude the other religions, correct?
    Well, the Triune is also recognized in the East, they just call it by a different name -- somewhat similar principles, however. It's really a fundamental framework that when understood makes a lot of sense. But yes, I tend to side with the spiritual principle of Father/Son/HS.

    That's hardly evidence they are talking about the same thing. Any intelligent being possessing some kind of reasoning process and lacking a modern view of the universe would come up with the same basic idea. I'm sure there's a game theoretic, evidence-based anthropological study one can do to show that it is a necessity to create such a concept. Being the creator of 'everything' is just a way to stop all the questions - early tribes all had claims to their own deities so someone had to settle the dispute: what better than the father of all deities and not only that the creator of everything? It's more of a logical conclusion than evidence of an actual deity.
    So, you agree that a Creator is a logical and reasonable conclusion?

    Well, a multiple deity universe is fine and dandy but they can't all claim to be the single creator that the KCA argues for.
    What are you talking about here?

    In fact, one of the failings of KCA is the belief it argues only for a single deity - it fits a multiple deity creator just as well. And all these religions have competing claims anyway, so it's not likely they are all true.
    Didn't you just say that it's a logical conclusion that most of the religions all agree on a Creator?

    Well, the Abrahamic deity has required multiple do-overs
    Please explain what this means. I assume you're not talking about hairstyles do-overs..

    So you are putting forward that the many thousands of religions are proof of God and that they are all valid and real?
    I don't think religions prove God. I think what proves God is our ability to recognize and give testimony to Truth.

    I'm just looking for criteria that the evidence you are putting forward is good.
    I find it quite rational and worthwhile for someone to seek evidence of God. But this process always has to start with us. What will be our criteria for this evidence? This question should, when looked at objectively, rationally and reasonably, encourage us to really dig inside ourselves and flush out our ideas of what we think God is vs what we think God is not.

    Well, it's certainly physical evidence that points to the deity in the Bible.
    Yes, it would be evidence, and then you would have the choice to believe it or not.

    Beyond that is really beyond the scope of the thread unless you want to take this as a test case to pass through the criteria you haven't yet agreed to.
    Well, you're working through it...

    Well, that's not really proving anything other than a belief system in a deity is valid, not the deity's existence. Clearly for Christianity, many (30,000) belief systems are possible and they seem to change every few years. So are they all right?
    We can try to divide Christ into a thousand slightly different pieces to meet our own ends, our own conveniences, our own whatever. Such is the human dilemma. But can we really divide the un-dividable? IMHO, I don't think so. But that's a different debate.

    What's right? Sometimes when we just begin the process of eliminating what's wrong in our life, what's right becomes quite naturally obvious.

    Well, since there are many millions of humans that have gone through this re-wiring, I'm sure this would produce at least a few PhD's.
    Why not?

    That said, religions aren't the only way to achieve such a state - such hysteria
    How is it hysteria to know and recognize the presence of God in your life?
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  12. #32
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,016
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples
    The KCA relies on an observation of the universe--namely, that it began to exist.
    There is no observation that the universe began to exist from nothing. There is an observation that the universe is expanding today and a reasonable inference that, when reversed, today's observed expansion means the universe existed in an infinitely dense, infinitely hot state apprx. 13.75 billions years ago. But again, existing in an infinitely dense, infinitely hot state does not equal nonexistence.

    Therefore, if the KCA relies on an observation that the universe began to exist from nothing, then the KCA is screwed from the git go because there is no such observation or even a reasonable inference to that effect.

    OTOH, if all the KCA says is that the universe, in the form of a singularity, began to expand 13.75 billions years ago for unknown reasons, then what does that have to do with an ex nihilo creation? Quantum particles pop into existence from a quantum flux for apparently no reason all the time.

    I know Chad is only a biologist and not a physicist but perhaps he can shed more light on this phenomenon if he reads this.

  13. #33
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Question to opponent. Shouldn't this OP have evidence in line with what it demands?
    Question to opponent. Where is it? or Where is the evidence this argument applies to the physical world?

    The above argument violates #3(of itself) and thus is invalid/self defeating and needs no response.
    I haven't been clear enough in my OP. I am explicitly taking about evidence for God. Maybe this is clearer:

    For any argument, A, that claims to be evidence for God, I am suggesting that we (atheists and theists) can all come up with a set of fair criteria to accept A as evidence for further argument. This is to filter out bad arguments.

    I am suggesting that it is not unfair to request for just physical evidence (PE) because:

    1. Deities have been shown to have multiple PEs on the universe, not least of which is creating the universe.
    2. Deities have also had multiple human interactions, including in some cases breeding, or becoming human.

    I am rejecting non-PE claims because they are generally unreliable as evidence without further PE; this is similar to scientific arguments that although PE based aren't really convincing until further PE is put forward. This is similar to arguments for Dark Matter, which although convincing enough to build upon, aren't sufficient to make Dark Matter an actuality but a strong possibility. So non-PE are generally problematic beyond those that already believe that the deity exists; even to believers of other religions and certainly atheists.

    Regardless of the merits of non-PE claims, there are plenty of opportunities for PE claims to be put forward so it's not unfair.

    ---------- Post added at 03:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:34 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    How can you have physical evidence of God? Isn't God a metaphysical entity?
    Well, modern apologetics would have that such that only metaphysical arguments can prove him. This is inconsistent with all the physical things God has done up to and including creating the universe itself and also, in the Christian religion, God was a human, and promises to come back as one.

    Plus there are other PEs such as the pantheon of supernatural creatures such as angels, demons, spirits, ghosts, etc. that can be put forward; or they might have PE for them. And there are other claims that should leave PE such as the Flood, Arc, Tower of Babel, Jesus' tomb, and so on.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    It's like looking for physical evidence that someone is telling the truth. You can verify that what they said was true--but that doesn't mean they didn't think it was false but lied to you. You could monitor their heart rate when they're speaking, but that's unreliable--as is monitoring their brain activity.
    Which is why pure testimony for a deity is unreliable; which is pretty much the whole Bible I suppose. Unless there were additional PE to back up the claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    I feel like looking for evidence of God is the same way.
    It's not. It is a falsehood that modern apologetics is trying to put forward. This is the new do-over of God such that asking for PE is nonsensical. I am challenging this by saying PE is entirely possible using theistic claims. So they must either reject those past claims themselves in which case, what is the basis for belief: just a bunch of logical arguments?

    ---------- Post added at 04:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:42 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    This has been addressed already, and in many forms.

    As you can see by the sheer number of objections...it's a pretty futile argument to maintain.
    Objections to a claim are exactly what debates are about. It baffles me you continue to appeal to popularity as an argument much less as a tactic, given you are the owner that would benefit most from more debate and not less. Christian history has been successful with this line of argument with ridicule, public shaming, shunning and even torture and death. If you truly want me to stop, you can always delete this thread or ban my account in keeping with that tradition. That said, I thank you for not using the challenge tasks which seems to be a bit of a bully stick sometimes when it should really be used to highlight the request for responses to previous questions.

    I know there are objections but I don't find any convincing reason to say that PE does not and cannot exist and is impossible to have. I know you know that I know that no such evidence currently exists and I am not even asking for actual PE. Christianity has been based on a great deal of PE so there's a rich source of claims that could be uncovered or researched.

    If you also recall, you requested this thread yourself from the Human Invention thread, which is all I need to continue with the other threads. So just to recap my goals with you:

    1. We need to agree that there should be minimal criteria for arguments before they should be received as evidence for further debate. I think we do since you accepted C1. and C2, the criteria laid out in the OP. Actually, they were your own criteria and this is more or less your framework for evidence.
    2. We are currently engaged as to whether physical evidence is a fair criteria to assess evidence and to get there I am trying to get you to concede that PE is possible despite your insistence of God being immaterial.
    3. [We should agree on the rest of the criteria but that is un-necessary if you already accept that PE is valid to request]
    4. Once we have that then I can say that since there doesn't exist any PE currently that proves that God exists, that all the PE are of human origin. All based on evidence.
    5. Therefore, I can fairly say, again based on evidence, that deities are human creations. With the caveat that if further information turns up to prove otherwise, I may be wrong. But this information should be passed through the criteria we agreed to here to make sure.

    And once we have that then people can stop CHALLENGING ME IN BIG WRITING when I say that deities are human inventions, because currently based on actual evidence, that is all that we can claim. And that you too, assent to this.

    This in no way removes your primary reasons for your belief in the deity but you cannot say you do so based on physical evidence. If none is to be had then you really have to say so but, as you will see below, even your own daily actions prove otherwise: that indeed you do fully accept that PE is possible.

    Either way, we need to get to a yes or no through debate and not one sided bully tactics. I know how many objections there are (and I am also trying this out elsewhere) so raising the issue isn't an argument against it but just that there are people that see faults in my argument; which is the point of debate! If I wanted a popularity contest, I would have made this a poll but I want a debate so that I can defend this point in the future. So with respect, please do not refer to this line of argument unless you want this site to turn into http://www.forandagainst.com/. More disagreements just makes me have to work harder - it doesn't invalidate my argument nor does it validate yours. Besides, theists are basically taking the same line of argument so it's not really multiple disagreements even, it's one argument from slightly different perspectives; even atheists are using this line of reasoning which merely shows the free pass theists have been getting on this claim. Yours here is the worst and least valid and you should know better.

    Challenge to support a claim. Please withdraw that "it's a pretty futile argument to maintain." merely because "sheer number of objections" as an argument as to whether physical evidence is possible or a fair criteria. I have already demonstrated the objections pretty much boil down to one single object (immaterial God) and below, I show that an immaterial God can have PE and that theists depend on PE on a daily basis as part of their belief in God. If this is just commentary then you can clarify that and withdraw it on those terms, but it seems not. But it does need a formal withdrawal because you are putting it forward as to why I should concede that PE is a criteria for evidence for God.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    You still have yet to demonstrate that physical evidence is the only type of legitimate evidence for an immaterial deity. I've said it before, but it needs repeating apparently: you are insisting on using the wrong tool for the job, and ignoring the use of the tool when it is applicable.
    I have not said that PE is the ONLY type of legitimate evidence possible and you know this and you know my objections to pure reason. PE is the type evidence that both atheists and Christians and theists of other religions would find convincing. To put forward only non-PE claims, knowing this as you do, is fraudulent and only convinces the already convinced.

    Now if you are saying that there is no PE is possible then just say so but you are not. You are arguing, yet again, for a position that is not being held by myself. I haven't even seen a decent argument why it's even unreasonable - just putting the claim forward that a deity is immaterial does not necessitate that this deity cannot have a material effect, your own religious texts are replete with such claims so are they all lies? Are you saying what the Bible is saying is not true? And if Jesus himself was not material then did he exist? Were the disciples talking to thin air? And the promise of his return, is that actually not in physical form either?

    It's rather amusing that we have an atheist arguing FOR physical evidence and the theists arguing AGAINST it but here we are. I really don't understand why this is so hard since one of your primary acts is praying which is explicitly used to ASK for PE and theists do this on a daily basis in thanking him for his beneficial effects, asking for leniency on the not-so beneficial effects and even as far as to gather enmass on a weekly basis and various prayer rally events to all wish for the same thing from your deity, as if the multiplicity of humans would stand a better chance of getting the desired PE from your deity; Perry's famous appeal for rain last year, for instance. And if there is zero expectation for PE from your deity, why do it since he should be aware of human wants & desires?

    Challenge to support a claim. Now, again, is it fair and legitimate for me to ask for physical evidence for a deity? It may not be the best tool but it is a tool you do not deny and indeed, I contend, through prayer, explicitly use on a daily basis.
    Last edited by SharmaK; May 4th, 2012 at 04:00 AM.

  14. #34
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,459
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On Evidence

    @ Sharmak.

    First, I want to commend you for the tone you have taken, not only with me though we disagree often, but in this thread as far as I can see.
    You have many challengers and it is easy to get overwhelmed. Good form.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    I haven't been clear enough in my OP. I am explicitly taking about evidence for God.
    Well, that is a problem, because it amounts to special pleading.
    What I mean is, if arguments for God should answer or provide physical evidence, then why not all arguments, of which the OP is one?

    I mean, the objection that God may not be true in the face of logical arguments also applies to ANY argument. As long as that is true, requiring it for God and not any other or every other argument is special pleading.


    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    I am rejecting non-PE claims because they are generally unreliable as evidence without further PE; this is similar to scientific arguments that although PE based aren't really convincing until further PE is put forward. This is similar to arguments for Dark Matter, which although convincing enough to build upon, aren't sufficient to make Dark Matter an actuality but a strong possibility.
    I think you misunderstand the point of arguments all together.
    The point is not to "make anything real", rather it is the basis for being convinced that something IS real.

    Of course physical evidence is nice, but even that isn't sufficient proof that something is "real" in the truest sense.

    Consider this... You can not appeal to the definition you have in your mind of what real is, in order to prove what real is. So if you define "real" as what your senses tell you, then you beg a question. "are your senses and experience accurate?" So, oddly enough the reverse is true. The physical world must first answer to philosophy to show that IT (the physical) is in fact real. If the physical must first justify itself philosophically and logically, on what basis can one lift the physical above philosophy and logic? If you have to appeal to logic to establish the physical, then one need not demand the physical to establish the logical.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Regardless of the merits of non-PE claims, there are plenty of opportunities for PE claims to be put forward so it's not unfair.
    I am a bit confused by your use of "unfair". I mean, fairness is usually about equality of some sort. So to say that it is fair that arguments for God should have to offer physical evidence to support it, is only "fair" if all arguments are required to provide such evidence before being believed to be true.

    If however you are speaking of fairness in regards to your right to require a specific level of evidence in order for you personally to be convinced, then of course it is "fair". It would be "unfair" for me to say otherwise when I myself have my own level of evidence for which I require to find something convincing. That however is a personal taste statement or "opinion". Which it is only "fair" to say your are entitled to.

    I think maybe what you are really aiming at is "reasonable". Is it "reasonable" to require physical evidence to prove God? In that case, that all depends. I mean, if God created the world, then it's existence is "evidence" of it and indeed some arguments speak to the implications of how the uni was formed and currently exists that point to an intelligent creator.(which I recognize you have addressed to some extent already, but realize that I am only speaking to a general point)

    Now when speaking of some specific things, requiring physical evidence is inherently unreasonable. Such as demanding physical evidence that Jesus walked on water. There simply wouldn't be any "physical" evidence of such an event even if it did occur, so demanding that something exist when it wouldn't if even the statement is true, is "unreasonable". So there are indeed cases where demanding physical evidence is absolutely unreasonable.


    So then, a demand for physical evidence is only "reasonable" when the demanded physical evidence is specifically predictable and defined. Such as saying, if a rock the size of mars hit the earth yesterday, then the physical surface of the earth would look something like "X", therefore it is reasonable to demand the presence of "X" to support the claim that a rock the size of mars hit the earth yesterday.

    Dark matter is a great example. The logical argument describes and predicts a specific kind of physical representation. So it is that physical evidence that they are looking for. Now maybe dark matter is a bad example, but lets use gravity as another. The great particle accelerators are trying to find the physical form of gravity. As it is, as far as we know gravity is quite latterly magic. Akin to "the force" in star wars, or the "Mobiliarbus" spell (Moves objects with wand) from Harry Potter.

    Question to opponent. Now, given all that, and supposing for a moment God existed in reality. What kind of physical evidence should we reasonably expect? If you can figure a physical condition that MUST exist in order for the idea of God to be true, then we can look for and discuss if that condition exists. If not, then demanding physical evidence is ultimately an arbitrary demand and is thus unreasonable.
    To serve man.

  15. #35
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On Evidence

    3. It must be physical
    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    If by physical evidence you mean physical effects vs. evidence of a physical Source, yes, I think that's a reasonable criteria. However, I don't think it should be an absolute criteria, but it is a reasonable criteria.
    That is all I ask. Thank you.

    5. It must be proven that it is cannot be due to an alien from an advanced society.
    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    SharmaK: Do you agree that this is a fair criteria?
    How can one prove this claim abut aliens?
    Not sure what you are getting at.


    6. It must be proven that it is not some other supernatural character or due to some other supernatural process.
    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    SharmaK: That said, since God has used Angels in the past; it's not unfair to ask this question. Do you agree?

    Sure, God has used angels but I think I may not understand what you're saying here. Are you saying the evidence can't be attributed to angels? If so, why? Why are you separating what angels can do verses their source of power?
    I am imagining the situation where someone may have had a visitation, perhaps even on video, that the being they are talking to is God. How can you tell whether it is truly is and not one of the other supernatural creatures that Christianity claims? Angels normally declare themselves as such, but if it's a rogue one like Lucifer, how could you tell?

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    SharmaK: I've thought through the filtering process that I would take physical evidence through before being convinced that there is a deity. I'm not saying it currently exists in our current pool of evidence - I think we all agree that there is zero physical evidence thus far for a deity. Would you agree?

    No, I would not agree that there is no evidence of God. But I think you and I have slightly different perspectives.
    I'm not saying that there is no evidence but no physical evidence. So do you have access to actual PE of God?

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    SharmaK: All I want to do is for theists to agree upon a list of criteria that is fair. I don't think it should really be that much of a stretch

    The reason it may be a stretch is because you seem to have your own ideas of what God is suppose to be, thus your criteria wants to match your supposed ideas. So it's understandable that you create criteria to match what you think god is supposed to be. However, you may want to consider that God may not be what Shar thinks God is or what Shar thinks God is not.
    Well, that's not really the angle I am aiming for since I am openly working with theists on what constitutes criteria. This is a thread to foster agreement not disagreement.

    You have already accepted that PE is a reasonable thing to ask for so we're not too far off are we? I would imagine that theists would be much more stringent regarding physical claims than an atheist would so it really shouldn't be too hard a task. I freely admit my conceptions of God are faulty, though not ignorant, I might add hence the open dialog on the criteria.


    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    SharmaK: It's more of a logical conclusion than evidence of an actual deity.

    So, you agree that a Creator is a logical and reasonable conclusion?
    Of course it is! Logic is a fantastic tool. I have not once rejected arguments from logic as being a reason for belief. I am rejecting arguments from logic as being insufficient to prove something physical.


    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    SharmaK: In fact, one of the failings of KCA is the belief it argues only for a single deity - it fits a multiple deity creator just as well. And all these religions have competing claims anyway, so it's not likely they are all true.

    Didn't you just say that it's a logical conclusion that most of the religions all agree on a Creator?
    Right, as in one creator, not multiple. Only Hinduism fully accepts multiple aspects of God, Brahamin, even subsuming Christianity, as different forms of worship of the same God. Christianity and Islam are the main ones that claim exclusivity over how this worship is done.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    SharmaK: So you are putting forward that the many thousands of religions are proof of God and that they are all valid and real?

    I don't think religions prove God. I think what proves God is our ability to recognize and give testimony to Truth.
    Christianity, with denominations that explicitly reject others even of their own faith, usually with new claims and certainly the rejection of their progenitor denomination. And Christians flit around and between denominations as if it were a personal choice, which it is, but facts aren't really a personal choice are they? And if there's no factual basis for a religion then they certainly can't be used as any evidence for God.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    SharmaK: I'm just looking for criteria that the evidence you are putting forward is good.

    I find it quite rational and worthwhile for someone to seek evidence of God. But this process always has to start with us. What will be our criteria for this evidence? This question should, when looked at objectively, rationally and reasonably, encourage us to really dig inside ourselves and flush out our ideas of what we think God is vs what we think God is not.
    That would be a great discussion but as I think it seems that God/religion is just a way to reach a state of being and a way to be morally true to our humanity such that it continues to exist. I actually believe religion to be immoral and I believe that deities are the explicit reason for that - which will be the topic of another thread!

    [Skipping the rest of this, as interesting it is, I need to show that my criteria are valid - let's work on that first]

  16. #36
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,370
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Now if you are saying that there is no PE is possible then just say so but you are not
    Is this the type of criteria of PE you’re talking about? Example:

    A jet liner over the ocean loses all its engines. With the loss of power it is not gliding or falling but flying on its own for over an hour with no engines while its passengers maintain a vigil inside the plane – would this be criteria for PE of the Divine?

    Or is your position regarding PE: “I need to see with my eyes God holding up this jet liner whose engines have failed but, yet flew on its own for over an hour without losing altitude while its passengers held a vigil?

    It's rather amusing that we have an atheist arguing FOR physical evidence
    Throughout history, long after the Biblical era, there is no shortage of recorded intervention of the Divine into the matter world (PE)-- both small and big events. Such recorded events are generally disregard by non-believers. These events have taken place throughout the world cultures over the ages and continue through today.

    Today, there is no shortage of Divine intervention in people’s lives and circumstances. You are free to personally go travel around the country or the world and objectively investigate such phenomena, witness it, validate it and/or reject it. Lots of people have done this and made documentaries about their findings and written books about it. And people continue to do such investigations today.

    I really don't understand why this is so hard.
    It’s not really hard. Observing God’s PE in life is actually not difficult. The issue isn’t about if it’s hard or easy. It’s generally about us and our observation and what criteria of evidence we require. It’s also a matter of what we regard as real versus what we think is real vs what is real.

    If you witnessed 20 PE events of divine intervention, would you regard them as PE of God? I don’t know. But you’re certainly free to personally investigate and consider the world wide PEs of intervention that happen often in people’s lives and then decide for yourself the level of PE for your criteria.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  17. #37
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Is this the type of criteria of PE you’re talking about? Example:

    A jet liner over the ocean loses all its engines. With the loss of power it is not gliding or falling but flying on its own for over an hour with no engines while its passengers maintain a vigil inside the plane – would this be criteria for PE of the Divine?

    Or is your position regarding PE: “I need to see with my eyes God holding up this jet liner whose engines have failed but, yet flew on its own for over an hour without losing altitude while its passengers held a vigil?
    This would be PE but may not necessarily God. Hence the other criteria required. It could just be physics: some high density turbulence or something. Or it could advanced alien technology. God is likely one of the last things we would attribute that to even if it did happen, even for theists.

    For this scenario to be God, a big hand would certainly be amazing but a flock of angels would be very good evidence of a deistic and not technological or physical cause.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post

    SharmaK: It's rather amusing that we have an atheist arguing FOR physical evidence


    Throughout history, long after the Biblical era, there is no shortage of recorded intervention of the Divine into the matter world (PE)-- both small and big events. Such recorded events are generally disregard by non-believers. These events have taken place throughout the world cultures over the ages and continue through today.

    Today, there is no shortage of Divine intervention in people’s lives and circumstances. You are free to personally go travel around the country or the world and objectively investigate such phenomena, witness it, validate it and/or reject it. Lots of people have done this and made documentaries about their findings and written books about it. And people continue to do such investigations today.
    The Catholic Church continues to create saints based on at least one miracle performed by the human and we have mind readers that speak to the dead; claims that homeopathy works beyond merely being a placebo. Yet, the skeptics haven't gone away and those are the people challenging these ideas most and the claimants resort to tactics such as lawsuits, libel and other means to slow down or stop the inquiry that have NOTHING to do with the matter at hand (much like Apok is doing in his first statement of rebuttal).

    Discussing specific evidence would be interesting only in so far as to test the criteria we are both engaged in building. So from your airplane example, I would say that this does not pass the alien/technology test. But the point is, do you agree that this is a good test?

    That said, you are also taking my quote out of context. Atheists actually are usually the ones that demand and insist on material claims; the amusing thing is that I am doing it from the other side so to speak, insisting that it is possible for there to be physical evidence of God and Apok, the theist, is saying no. It's like we've reversed roles on this point. Remember, this thread is not me challenging deities per se, but to establish which criteria evidence needs to pass, such that all parties agree it should be submitted for debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    It’s not really hard. Observing God’s PE in life is actually not difficult. The issue isn’t about if it’s hard or easy. It’s generally about us and our observation and what criteria of evidence we require. It’s also a matter of what we regard as real versus what we think is real vs what is real.

    If you witnessed 20 PE events of divine intervention, would you regard them as PE of God? I don’t know. But you’re certainly free to personally investigate and consider the world wide PEs of intervention that happen often in people’s lives and then decide for yourself the level of PE for your criteria.
    Sure, maybe one day, at the moment I want us to agree on the criteria.

  18. #38
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    There is no observation that the universe began to exist from nothing. There is an observation that the universe is expanding today and a reasonable inference that, when reversed, today's observed expansion means the universe existed in an infinitely dense, infinitely hot state apprx. 13.75 billions years ago. But again, existing in an infinitely dense, infinitely hot state does not equal nonexistence.

    Therefore, if the KCA relies on an observation that the universe began to exist from nothing, then the KCA is screwed from the git go because there is no such observation or even a reasonable inference to that effect.

    OTOH, if all the KCA says is that the universe, in the form of a singularity, began to expand 13.75 billions years ago for unknown reasons, then what does that have to do with an ex nihilo creation? Quantum particles pop into existence from a quantum flux for apparently no reason all the time.

    I know Chad is only a biologist and not a physicist but perhaps he can shed more light on this phenomenon if he reads this.
    Well, so far you've argued that it is reasonable to infer that the universe existed in an "infinitely dense, infinite hot state" ~13.75 billion years ago. I'm not even convinced that you've got that right--infinitely hot? Wouldn't than require infinite energy? Isn't the singularity a hypothetical construction due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?--but showing that such an inference is reasonable is a far cry from showing that it is necessarily unreasonable to infer that the universe began to exist.

    All you've done is to claim that X is reasonable. But that doesn't imply that Y is reasonable--unless there's some connection between X and Y, which you didn't mention.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  19. #39
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    This whole line of argument isn't working. It's my crappy attempt at generalizing all the PE-based arguments. Please disregard the equations, sorry for the waste of time.
    In other words, we ought not to use reason to come to conclusion, we should use extreme prejudice and bias?

    A wise man goes where reason takes him Sharmak.

    You are adhering to a dogma...not reason here.

    ---------- Post added at 07:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:50 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    There is no observation that the universe began to exist from nothing.
    We observe the many effects of an event that we have every reason to believe had a cause.


    Quantum particles pop into existence from a quantum flux for apparently no reason all the time.
    This is a misunderstanding and has been thoroughly refuted in a number of threads here already.

    Notice your own language that you used here. In the first quote, you refer to the state of non-being, in the second, you refer to the state of being. You then illogically link the two, using the latter as support for the former (since the KCA is addressing the former, the state of non-being).

    QM state of being is not nothingness, it is a fluctuating state of energy rich with physical properties that are governed by physical laws. A state of non-being has no properties, no fluctuation, no laws.

    ---------- Post added at 08:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:55 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Objections to a claim are exactly what debates are about. It baffles me you continue to appeal to popularity as an argument much less as a tactic, given you are the owner that would benefit most from more debate and not less.
    You misunderstand the fallacy of appeal to popularity. Note the language I said. I didn't say you must be wrong because everyone says you are, or that everyone else believes something different (which is what the fallacious appeal is), I said that there are too many objections (which illustrate problems with your argument and your reasoning, the latter is evidenced by your insistence that reason ought not to be used, even by you!).

    And since you argue that you should not use proper reasoning, yet proper reasoning is required to come to a conclusion, you are indirectly admitting that you cannot come to a proper conclusion (via reasoning). Therefore, your argument can be dismissed because you are (indirectly) admitting it is unreasonable. You alone are taking this view (that being unreasonable is "reasonable"), while everyone else is rightly saying "Wait a minute, we must be reasonable to know the truth of the matter because being reasonable is a requirement of that."

    Christian history has been successful with this line of argument with ridicule, public shaming, shunning and even torture and death. If you truly want me to stop, you can always delete this thread or ban my account in keeping with that tradition. That said, I thank you for not using the challenge tasks which seems to be a bit of a bully stick sometimes when it should really be used to highlight the request for responses to previous questions.
    lol Drama major? Read above. You misunderstood.

    I know there are objections but I don't find any convincing reason
    That is because you have indirectly admitted that you do not have to use reason. See above.

    [quoet] to say that PE does not and cannot exist and is impossible to have.[/quote]
    You have yet to demonstrate it is relevant or necessary. You have yet to demonstrate what has been given as examples do not meet PE. All you are doing is saying "nuh-uh"...again...insisting that reason should be abandoned.

    1. We need to agree that there should be minimal criteria for arguments before they should be received as evidence for further debate.
    I agree. And all of your criteria laid out in the op are shown to be fallacious. That is what this thread is about. You still haven't adequately defended step 3 yet...which is what you were wanting to do before you tackled all the other many problems with your list.

    The rest of your rant is irrelevant because it doesn't address any actual issue or argument, just your misunderstanding of my response.

    I have not said that PE is the ONLY type of legitimate evidence possible and you know this and you know my objections to pure reason.
    Whoa there Nelly...that isn't true. You said that this is the only type of evidence that should be accepted for the existence of God. You've maintained that position in the other threads and even in this thread...all of the sudden, you are having a change of position? If so, this argument is over...our position has won.

    PE is the type evidence that both atheists and Christians and theists of other religions would find convincing. To put forward only non-PE claims, knowing this as you do, is fraudulent and only convinces the already convinced.
    So you've changed your position from:

    "PE is the only type of evidence that should be allowed for the claim of the existence of God, and without it, it proves that humans invented God."

    to

    "There are many forms of evidence that can be used to support the claim of the existence of God, but PE is not one of them."

    We've made some progress!

    It's rather amusing that we have an atheist arguing FOR physical evidence and the theists arguing AGAINST it but here we are.
    Again, you are not using reason. NO ONE HERE has argued against physical evidence. We've argued against your insistence that only PE should be accepted. That's the issue of your argument. You've confused yourself it would seem into thinking that your argument is simply about one form of evidence not being legitimate.

    Challenge to support a claim. Now, again, is it fair and legitimate for me to ask for physical evidence for a deity? It may not be the best tool but it is a tool you do not deny and indeed, I contend, through prayer, explicitly use on a daily basis.
    This has been addressed already. You haven't demonstrated that they are not forms of PE, you've merely said "nuh-uh." And that simply isn't good enough.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  20. #40
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,016
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: On Evidence

    I'm having trouble with the PM, Sharmak, but I got your PM and, per your request, will not post further in this thread.

 

 
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Christians and Evidence
    By Zhavric in forum Religion
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: November 22nd, 2008, 07:14 AM
  2. DNA Evidence
    By ladyphoenix in forum General Debate
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: November 10th, 2007, 05:46 PM
  3. Ghostly evidence?
    By FruitandNut in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 22nd, 2006, 05:31 AM
  4. TYPES of evidence
    By Zhavric in forum Religion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: November 14th, 2004, 04:35 PM
  5. why is evidence ignored?
    By Spartacus in forum Current Events
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: July 24th, 2004, 05:55 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •