Evidence: The Gathering

[Homeless Nutter]

[...]God is real. God is alive. And God can and does make Himself known to those who seek him. This knowledge is not based on archaeological evidence or examination of ancient texts...it is based upon revelation and relationship.[...]

"Revelation and relationship" - read: magical thinking and delusions of grandeur.

[Randy Carson]

To be put down for a crime, aka sent down, is to be convicted and sentenced. Not merely accused.

Ah. Thanks.

Two peoples separated by a common language...

[Cyberman]

We had it first though

[Banks]

The Shroud of Turin?  Really?  Really, really?  

The Shroud of Turin or Turin Shroud (Italian: Sindone di Torino) is a length of linen cloth bearing the image of a man who appears to have suffered physical trauma in a manner consistent with crucifixion. There is no consensus yet on how the image was created. It is believed by some to be the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth, despite radiocarbon dating tests from 1988 dating it to the Medieval period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

For the rest you're just rehashing what we killed in your last thread.

My thoughts exactly.

[Crossless2.0]

We had it first though

And you still do it better, in my opinion. Hell, an Englishman ordering breakfast even sounds eloquent.

[Randy Carson]

We had it first though

Do you think that English in Britain is being significantly affected by American English (via movies, TV and music)?

If so, what are some examples?

[Cyberman]

Interesting question. I wouldn't say significantly, though there has obviously been influence since probably the 40s. Off the top of my drunken head, words such as dude, guy, burger, gas (as in petrol) have entered the lexicon. Even the occasional spelling such as "drive-thru" makes the odd appearance.

[pocaracas]

It seems to me that atheists begin with the presupposition that GOD DOES NOT EXIST, and all the rest of their efforts are geared toward explaining away anything that suggests otherwise.

Why do believers keep insisting on this flawed notion?

Tell me Randy, how should an honest person approach any claim for existence of anything?
- Claim: fairies exist and are running around in their own world preparing the upcoming season... then, overnight, they cause all the changes we see when seasons change.... they pain the leaves brown... they tell animals to prepare for winter, etc...

- Investigate fairies: first step - assume fairies exist; second step - look for them.

Is this what you propose?


- Claim: the chupacabra is killing a bunch of goats and sucking them dry.

- Investigate chucapabra: assume such an animal exists; look for the beast and take pictures.

Should we do that?

- Claim: Ra is the sun god; Helios is another sun god.
Investigate: Assume both exist; look for them near the sun.

Keep going for any crazy claim anyone can make up?

Or, is it better to assume nothing and, when evidence for any of it does surface, analyze it and, if it manages to pull through, then we accept it.

Thus far, all the "evidence" for any god falls under two cases, both flawed:
- Accounts of some past deed by some prophet - a person claiming to be in contact with the particular god. These accounts suffer the problem of having been produced with an agenda in mind, thus rendering them untrustworthy.
- Personal relationship - a supposed relationship with a deity which has no expression out of a person's mind... how can we tell that apart from some psychological phenomenon? In particular, confirmation bias can easily lead one who presumes that a god does exist into having some mental notion of fluff or whatever and which leads that person to think it was performed by that god.

Under the lack of presupposition of an existing deity, and confronted with faulty evidence, why should anyone move to assume that such a deity does exist?

[abaris]

It seems to me that atheists begin with the presupposition that GOD DOES NOT EXIST, and all the rest of their efforts are geared toward explaining away anything that suggests otherwise.

Since you finally voice a thought of your own, I'm gonna answer that from my pedrsepctive. Most of us started with the presupposition that god does exist and came to the conclusion, he doesn't. At least not in the scripted form. I can only speak for me of course, but the christian construct, as well as any other god concept I know of, is entirely human. Kind of a superhero or supervillain. Depends on the perspective you take on what is written in the holy books.l

[Jenny A]

A jury in a courtroom examines the evidence presented and comes to a decision. If they believe beyond a reasonable doubt - not beyond ALL doubt (because some doubts may not be reasonable) - then they can vote to convict the defendant.

Conversely, there are people to whom God reveals Himself first - in which case all the facts and figures and dates, etc. are merely interesting bits of information that confirms what they already know to be true: God is real.

Since you keep harping on legal standards of proof, let's step back and consider standards of proof in the law and elsewhere.

The U.S. system of law (which we borrowed almost whole-cloth from the Brits) has a variable standard of proof depending on the  issue at hand. 

Evidence is anything which might make the elements to be proven more or less likely.  Anything that doesn't do one or the other, isn't evidence at all.   If it provides background information, it might be let in.  If it engages the emotions in a prejudicial way, it may be excluded.

In the vast majority of civil cases standard is more probable than not and the burden is on the plaintiff.  The reasoning behind that is pretty simple.  In tort cases the plaintiff has been injured and alleges his injuries are the fault of the defendant.  Between the two people involved one of them is going to be out money.  The question to be decided is who.  To change the status quo the plaintiff generally has the burden of proof.  As we are merely choosing between two people, we choose the one most likely to be in the right, even if we don't know to a certainty. If we really don't know then plaintiff hasn't met his burden of proof and we leave things as they are.  

If the plaintiff claims that the defendant injured him with magical powers, that claim should never be found more probable than not absent proof of the existence of the magical powers.  In other words even the plaintiffs claim to have been hexed with a magic wand is unlikely to be found more probable than not.

In criminal matters the situation is different.  There may or may not be a victim.  Even if there is a victim, the defendant's punishment will not, and is not really intended to compensate the victim.  The victim may file a civil case if they what to be compensated. The only question is was there a crime and is the defendant the man who did the deed.  The consequence of finding the wrong man guilty is twofold:  1) someone is unjustly punished; 2) the real perpetrator remains at large, unpunished, and free to commit more crimes.  That being so we require a higher standard of proof:  beyond reasonable doubt.

But doubting the use of magic to kill the decedent is always a reasonable doubt since everything we know tells us there is not magic.  The kind of evidence necessary to prove magic is well beyond the scope of a criminal trial.  

Ancient history, rarely works in even near let alone absolute certainties.  Often it doesn't even work in more probably than not but only in the most probable of several competing theories and even then there is room for argument as to which theory is most probable.  Fleshing out a possible theory is a reasonable exercise even if it can't be proven.  It's a good thing we don't generally have to even consider altering our lives over ancient history because so little of it can really be proven, though many things are highly likely and many more highly unlikely.  

This is why, history is not a suitable tool for determining whether miracles, supernatural events, or god exist or have happened.  The standard of proof in history never reaches the level necessary to prove extraordinarily improbable events.

Science mostly deals in probabilities and margins of error but can result in absolute proof of a proposition.  A medical study may be just an indicator that more study is necessary.  A series of double blind tests may make a thing a near certainty. Much evidence plus an overriding explanation which successfully predicts yet more evidence and you have a theory. Absolute testable predictability and you have a law.  How much we alter our lives because of science should have some relationship to the level of certainty.

Science is clearly the applicable tool to discover whether there is a currently existing god.  So far I see nothing to indicate that further study is indicated.

If a non-believer listens to the arguments and evidence for theism and Christianity, he or she evaluates whether it is convincing or not. If this is done objectively and with determination to follow the evidence wherever it might lead, then it is not all that unusual for the person to become a believer because the arguments in favor of Christianity are persuasive. They're just not coercive.

Actually it's usually the other way around.  It's believers who look at the evidence objectively who cease to believe.  There may be a few people somewhere who were convinced of god by evidence, but given the evidence there is, is was a misjudgment on their part.  The evidence is historical and not the most probable explanation for what little we know of ancient history.

Miracles get scarcer as man knows more science.  God is a camera shy phenomenon.  That in itself suggests he is not real.

But this is just the beginning, rob.

God is real. God is alive. And God can and does make Himself known to those who seek him. This knowledge is not based on archaeological evidence or examination of ancient texts...it is based upon revelation and relationship.

And now we get to the heart of it.  It isn't really about evidence.  It is about belief that comes from "revelation" and a personal "relationship."  Both things that cannot be demonstrated to others.  In other words, no evidence to share. Well get in line.  People believe on the same basis in alien abductions, UFO sightings, fairies, Allah, magic, and all sorts of other things, all equally improbable.