RE: The nature of evidence
May 5, 2016 at 5:26 pm
(This post was last modified: May 5, 2016 at 5:30 pm by Ben Davis.)
(May 1, 2016 at 8:19 pm)Wryetui Wrote:
Late to the party on this one. I don't really have a lot to add other than summary for Wryetui's benefit.
1. The definitions of evidence provided have covered the difference between factual and anecdotal, their relative value and the difference in added value between argument and experiment. Facts matter, robust investigative and demonstrative methodology matters, personal testimony does not.
2. The ignostic position demonstrates the practical impossibility of answering this question with any measure of accuracy. If you can't even list the attributes of the thing that you claim exists, how can you possibly hope to demonstrate it, let alone expect people to be able to speculate on their reaction to it's potential existence. How are we to tell, for example, the difference between 'god' and a very powerful alien being with universe-creating capabilities? By your god's impossible omni-bilities? I think not. And if the bible, your central claim for your god's existence, can't be trusted as an accurate list of attributes, from what source can you claim any descriptions? In that respect, other religions have one up on Yahweh: at least I'd recognise Ganesh if I saw him!
As an addendum to my answer to 2.: in practical terms, if I were to encounter a being so powerful as to be able to create universes and it told me that it was a god, I might well agree with it to save my own skin. I wouldn't necessarily believe it or worship it however if my life depended on it and there were no repercussions that I was uncomfortable with, I'd probably play along. Belief can be such a fickle and precious thing, just ask members of the Clergy Project.
Sum ergo sum