Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

There is enough evidence to believe or not to believe.

There is a lot of contradictory evidence, not least in the Bible's many contradictions.

If there was any decent evidence, I would believe.

I believe that joining a religion is empowering, in that one aligns with an extremely powerful and influential institution in society, and I believe it's amazing for adherents' social lives and networking opportunities.

But the supernatural? The evidence is not there at this stage, and especially for VERY supernatural things like human parthenogenesis (that results in a saviour rather than a tumour), for resurrection from the dead (barring revival after freezing to clinical death) or creation of fish - prepared for immediate eating - and bread out of thin air. As for faith healing, the placebo effect is well documented.

[Ecurb]

No, the only problem is that you're confused because you cannot understand the difference between a story teller claiming someone witnessed something and the record of someone that witnessed something.

A story-teller claiming someone witnessed something IS a record of someone witnessing something. This is obvious.

Bad evidence is still called evidence, but it is bad evidence nonetheless. Unlike good evidence.

Since that's been my point all along, I wonder what took you so long to agree.

[Ecurb]

C'mon. Scientist claims can be tested and verified. The claim that some superhuman capable of miracles lived centuries beforehand cannot be verified.

Over the years, many sensible, functional and decent people have told me that they have seen a ghost, and they were sure of it. Does that mean I should believe them without question?

Since I've said it doesn't a dozen times in this thread, I wonder why you are asking. Still, scientific observations remain "eye witness reports". If they are "verified" (huh?) by other eye witnesses, and eye witness reports are "the weakest evidence", they remain (slightly less) weak evidence. All evidence is eye witness evidence. DNA findings in court rely on the eye witness testimony of the DNA experimenters who showed DNA testing is accurate and wrote journal articles about it, and the eye witness testimony of thoses who tested the accused DNA regarding both the testing methods and the results. How else is evidence derived?

[Count Lucanor]

Anything to do with God we take on through faith and trust. There is enough evidence to believe or not to believe.

Actually it's because of the lack of evidence that people resort to faith. There's no evidence of "God", that's why believers rely on faith. One should not confuse evidence with rationalizations and vague hints to justify one's beliefs.

When you say that you believe your own eyes, how little have you seen? Have you seen pre Big Bang, have you witnessed how life started from no life billions of years ago. If you are being truthful, there is more speculation than evidence for these big questions.

That's a fallacy. I never stated that I can only have justified beliefs when I see it with my own eyes. In the context of the discussion, I was only reaffirming that I privilege my own eyes over other people's eyes, which doesn't mean that eye- witnessing is my top choice for evidence. As I said before, it is one of the weakest evidence you can have. There's plenty of good evidence of the Big Bang and no evidence that life was created by a sentient and wilful agent.

You are free to believe anything you choose to believe, and that is not a problem. The problem for science is when you claim to have evidence to back up your beliefs. Science should be about finding truth.

I don't see how is that a problem for science. Whenever it identifies evidence, it makes those findings testable. If it holds water, it stands, if it doesn't, it dismisses it and looks for other evidence that support the facts.

We are here today, something either had no beginning, or something did not come from anything. For me God is the best explanation that can account for the complexity of life we see today. My belief, my faith, I cannot claim anything more.

You're entitled to believe anything. I have looked up into the claims of other people that believe the same that you believe, claims that try to justify those beliefs as if they were supported by logical reasoning and factual evidence. I have seen that such rationalizations are very weak and disputable, when not outright absurd. That makes me confident I should not endorse those claims as truthful.

[Sy Borg]

C'mon. Scientist claims can be tested and verified. The claim that some superhuman capable of miracles lived centuries beforehand cannot be verified.

Over the years, many sensible, functional and decent people have told me that they have seen a ghost, and they were sure of it. Does that mean I should believe them without question?

Since I've said it doesn't a dozen times in this thread, I wonder why you are asking. Still, scientific observations remain "eye witness reports". If they are "verified" (huh?) by other eye witnesses, and eye witness reports are "the weakest evidence", they remain (slightly less) weak evidence. All evidence is eye witness evidence. DNA findings in court rely on the eye witness testimony of the DNA experimenters who showed DNA testing is accurate and wrote journal articles about it, and the eye witness testimony of thoses who tested the accused DNA regarding both the testing methods and the results. How else is evidence derived?

You know it's an absurd argument. Of course there epistemological limits exist, but science is clearly as robust a way of distinguishing real claims from misguided or dishonest claims. That's the whole reason why the scientific method came to be. It is pure postmodernism to treat scientific proofs as if the same level as several observers who passed some highly dubious oral history down the generations for centuries

Now perhaps you can answer my query? Should I uncritically believe people's claims of seeing ghosts? If not, why not?

[Ecurb]

Since I've said it doesn't a dozen times in this thread, I wonder why you are asking. Still, scientific observations remain "eye witness reports". If they are "verified" (huh?) by other eye witnesses, and eye witness reports are "the weakest evidence", they remain (slightly less) weak evidence. All evidence is eye witness evidence. DNA findings in court rely on the eye witness testimony of the DNA experimenters who showed DNA testing is accurate and wrote journal articles about it, and the eye witness testimony of thoses who tested the accused DNA regarding both the testing methods and the results. How else is evidence derived?

You know it's an absurd argument. Of course there epistemological limits exist, but science is clearly as robust a way of distinguishing real claims from misguided or dishonest claims. That's the whole reason why the scientific method came to be. It is pure postmodernism to treat scientific proofs as if the same level as several observers who passed some highly dubious oral history down the generations for centuries

Now perhaps you can answer my query? Should I uncritically believe people's claims of seeing ghosts? If not, why not?

As I've stated repeatedly in this thread, I don't think you should uncritically believe people's claims of seeing ghosts, nor do I disparage science or the scientific method. My only point in this thread is that eye witness evidence (even when reported second hand) constitutes "evidence". We need not believe it. My other point is that scientific evidence is "eye witness evidence". What else could it possibly be? Experiments are viewed by scientists, who report what they see. That's (to repeat the obvious) "eye witness evidence".

Ghosts, like sasquatches (which are not supernatural) are iffy because there is no confirmation of their existance. Eye witnsess reports of experiments can gain credence when those who repeat them get the same results. One would think sasquatches would leave phsyical remains -- bones, corpses, etc. Ghosts, of course, might not. Nonetheless, ghosts, like other supernatural things, might reasonably require BETTER evidence than more natural (and normal) things for credibility (as I've repeated over and over again).

[Count Lucanor]

No, the only problem is that you're confused because you cannot understand the difference between a story teller claiming someone witnessed something and the record of someone that witnessed something.

A story-teller claiming someone witnessed something IS a record of someone witnessing something. This is obvious.

No, what is obvious is that firts hand testimony is not the same as second hand testimony or hearsay. When some person A claims some person B witnessed something and proceeds to declare what this person B supposedly saw, this declaration is not itself an eye witness account from B, it's just a story from A. That's most of what you get from your Bible: some people wrote stories about other people doing things. Some of the writers we may know that actually existed, but there's little or no evidence that the people depicted in their stories ever existed or did those things. Take Paul's writings: he wasn't even there when Jesus was supposedly hanging around, and so the 4 Gospels: they were written many years later by unknown authors.

Bad evidence is still called evidence, but it is bad evidence nonetheless. Unlike good evidence.

Since that's been my point all along, I wonder what took you so long to agree.

No, that was never your point. When I mentioned some type of evidence that was weak, you jumped right away to dismiss such distinction and claim: "no, it's still evidence".

[Ecurb]

Count Lucanor:

I know you or anyone else cannot produce evidence of "God". That is not hope, but a firm conviction supported by logic, common sense and inductive inferences

Hmmm. Is "weak evidence" "evidence". If not, why do we call it "evidence". Logic, evidently, is not Count Lucanor's strong point.

[EricPH]

There's plenty of good evidence of the Big Bang

And little or no evidence to show what happened fifty billion years pre BB. When it comes to evidence, atheists can't agree with each other how the universe came to be. Atheists do not agree on how life started from no life. If there were real evidence, you would agree with each other. Your lack of agreement highlights the weakness of your supposed evidence.

You might use your reasoning to say, if and only if there is no God, then the universe started by natural causes. But you don't know how.

[Count Lucanor]

Count Lucanor:

I know you or anyone else cannot produce evidence of "God". That is not hope, but a firm conviction supported by logic, common sense and inductive inferences

Hmmm. Is "weak evidence" "evidence". If not, why do we call it "evidence". Logic, evidently, is not Count Lucanor's strong point.

It seems you think that you can get away easily with your fallacies: "is malnourishment still nourishment, if not, why do we imply nourishment"?

In any case, there's not even "weak evidence" of "God's" existence. There's simply no evidence at all.

[Count Lucanor]

There's plenty of good evidence of the Big Bang

And little or no evidence to show what happened fifty billion years pre BB.

Yes, but if we don't know, then we don't know. The response cannot be "then a deity did it" or "you cannot eliminate the possibility that a deity did it".

When it comes to evidence, atheists can't agree with each other how the universe came to be.

Atheists are just people that don't believe in any of the gods proposed by theists and their supernatural powers. They don't need to produce more evidence to support the naturalistic world view that comes by default, and which all of them agree with. A supernatural universe would disqualify any attempt to reason and find structure and causation, since "anything goes".

Atheists do not agree on how life started from no life. If there were real evidence, you would agree with each other. Your lack of agreement highlights the weakness of your supposed evidence.

The evidence clearly points to life composed of chemical compounds, which are also found in nature as non-living materials. The appropriate approach by default is to look up for natural explanations, and even though we can't yet determine the precise natural mechanisms that gave life to matter, there's no other option but a natural explanation. A supernatural explanation is by definition, contrary to common sense, logic and any structure of causation that could relate to evidence.

You might use your reasoning to say, if and only if there is no God, then the universe started by natural causes. But you don't know how.

The "God" explanation is not the default position, just as the Zeus or the Flying Teapot or the Dragon in My Garage, are not the default position. It is not reasonable to say: "if and only if there's no Flying Teapot, then the universe started by some other cause than the Flying Teapot".

[Jacob10]

There's plenty of good evidence of the Big Bang

And little or no evidence to show what happened fifty billion years pre BB.

Yes, but if we don't know, then we don't know. The response cannot be "then a deity did it" or "you cannot eliminate the possibility that a deity did it".

When it comes to evidence, atheists can't agree with each other how the universe came to be.

Atheists are just people that don't believe in any of the gods proposed by theists and their supernatural powers. They don't need to produce more evidence to support the naturalistic world view that comes by default, and which all of them agree with. A supernatural universe would disqualify any attempt to reason and find structure and causation, since "anything goes".

Atheists do not agree on how life started from no life. If there were real evidence, you would agree with each other. Your lack of agreement highlights the weakness of your supposed evidence.

The evidence clearly points to life composed of chemical compounds, which are also found in nature as non-living materials. The appropriate approach by default is to look up for natural explanations, and even though we can't yet determine the precise natural mechanisms that gave life to matter, there's no other option but a natural explanation. A supernatural explanation is by definition, contrary to common sense, logic and any structure of causation that could relate to evidence.

You might use your reasoning to say, if and only if there is no God, then the universe started by natural causes. But you don't know how.

The "God" explanation is not the default position, just as the Zeus or the Flying Teapot or the Dragon in My Garage, are not the default position. It is not reasonable to say: "if and only if there's no Flying Teapot, then the universe started by some other cause than the Flying Teapot".

There is also plenty of definitive proof that matter is exiting into many many holes and appearing from many many holes in the universe as well.So if all matter exits and enters from/into many many holes in the universe are you the one who is going to plug up all the holes and get all the matter out of those many many holes so that so the big bang theory still holds true?

[Jacob10]

There's plenty of good evidence of the Big Bang

And little or no evidence to show what happened fifty billion years pre BB.

Yes, but if we don't know, then we don't know. The response cannot be "then a deity did it" or "you cannot eliminate the possibility that a deity did it".

When it comes to evidence, atheists can't agree with each other how the universe came to be.

Atheists are just people that don't believe in any of the gods proposed by theists and their supernatural powers. They don't need to produce more evidence to support the naturalistic world view that comes by default, and which all of them agree with. A supernatural universe would disqualify any attempt to reason and find structure and causation, since "anything goes".

Atheists do not agree on how life started from no life. If there were real evidence, you would agree with each other. Your lack of agreement highlights the weakness of your supposed evidence.

The evidence clearly points to life composed of chemical compounds, which are also found in nature as non-living materials. The appropriate approach by default is to look up for natural explanations, and even though we can't yet determine the precise natural mechanisms that gave life to matter, there's no other option but a natural explanation. A supernatural explanation is by definition, contrary to common sense, logic and any structure of causation that could relate to evidence.

You might use your reasoning to say, if and only if there is no God, then the universe started by natural causes. But you don't know how.

The "God" explanation is not the default position, just as the Zeus or the Flying Teapot or the Dragon in My Garage, are not the default position. It is not reasonable to say: "if and only if there's no Flying Teapot, then the universe started by some other cause than the Flying Teapot".

There is also plenty of definitive proof that matter is exiting into many many holes and appearing from many many holes in the universe as well.So if all matter exits and enters from/into many many holes in the universe are you the one who is going to plug up all the holes and get all the matter out of those many many holes so that so the big bang theory still holds true? Oh and the universe isn’t expanding uniformly as the Big Bang theorists have been telling us.Think for yourself.Don’t rely on secularist all the time.

[Ecurb]

It seems you think that you can get away easily with your fallacies: "is malnourishment still nourishment, if not, why do we imply nourishment"?

In any case, there's not even "weak evidence" of "God's" existence. There's simply no evidence at all.

From Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austen:

Elinor agreed to it all, for she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition.

[Count Lucanor]

There is also plenty of definitive proof that matter is exiting into many many holes and appearing from many many holes in the universe as well.So if all matter exits and enters from/into many many holes in the universe are you the one who is going to plug up all the holes and get all the matter out of those many many holes so that so the big bang theory still holds true? Oh and the universe isn’t expanding uniformly as the Big Bang theorists have been telling us.Think for yourself.Don’t rely on secularist all the time.

Actually, it would make not much difference if the Big Bang turned out not to be the best explanation of what has happened in the universe for the last 13 billion years. Another naturalistic explanation would replace it. As far as I'm concerned, the universe has always existed and the Big Bang is just a point in its process of change.