The Evidence Required Is?

[Cyberman]

Not at all; I am not limiting the definition of science merely to test-tubes and microscopes, nor am I equating it with our current level of knowledge. Remember science is a process of investigation; such things as mind-body interaction most certainly can be investigated, though I may personally lack the knowledge to explain how. Your placing something beyond the reach of scientific investigation is a double-edged sword, by so doing you are also removing any effect it can have on the Universe since such effects clearly do fall into the reach of scientific investigation. I may add that something so defined as to be unknowable and uninvestigatable (is that even a word?) would be beyond your knowledge as well. Sure you may imagine such things, but I am not compelled to accept your imaginings as evidence.

If you will allow me to illustrate: there is an undetectable (i.e. invisible, intangible, inaudible, infragrant etc) elephant stampeding towards you. What is your simplest course of action? Beyond asking me how I know this, anyway.

[Neo-Scholastic]

"Remember science is a process of investigation." - Stimbo
Natural science is only one means of investigation. Mathematics investigates relationships of another kind. Contemplation investigates the inner life. Music investigates the power of beauty. Literature explores meaning and values. The ways of investigating the world are more rich and diverse than you are willing to admit.

"...things as mind-body interaction most certainly can be investigated, though I may personally lack the knowledge to explain how." - Sounds like blind faith to me. You have no idea how it could be and yet you believe it to be so.

"Your placing something beyond the reach of scientific investigation is a double-edged sword, by so doing you are also removing any effect it can have on the Universe since such effects clearly do fall into the reach of scientific investigation." - Stimbo

Not so. What is the cause of time and space? Is your experience of pain more painful than mine? These are real yet scientifically non-falsifiable inquiries.

[The Grand Nudger]

Mathematics produces results, and can be shown to exist. Were 1+1 8 in one persons equations and 42 in another, but never 2, we would discard it as useless. Clearly something is wrong. Contemplation can be demonstrated. Music is a demonstration. Literature is a record of thoughts, dreams, facts, any number of things that clearly do exist as a product of human beings. The ways of investigating the world are diverse, and each and every single way of investigating the universe has turned up nothing with respect to any gods. Not one scrap, not an echo, not a whisper, not even a suggestion that such things could exist. Mull that over for a minute. Not only have the faithful failed to provide evidence for their claims, they cannot even show how such things might be possible. Nothing but one giant running platitude. Yet here you are to question everything except the god you presumably believe exists.

Your examples are sorely lacking. Cosmology is the study of both space and time, as well as it;s cause, and it's theories are falsifiable. Pain can be measured (and often is), so much so that you can get a degree in exactly how to prevent it, again, by demonstrable means which show results. Pick something beyond our current abilities, and then...wax on like you have a point.

But you know what, fuck it, you get to stand right next to Chip tonight.

Everything we know is complete and utter garbage. The entire cosmos is a mystery. Now, if you please, explain how your narrative is correct, and how you came upon that knowledge.

[Cyberman]

"Remember science is a process of investigation." - Stimbo
Natural science is only one means of investigation. Mathematics investigates relationships of another kind. Contemplation investigates the inner life. Music investigates the power of beauty. Literature explores meaning and values. The ways of investigating the world are more rich and diverse than you are willing to admit.

Let's try that again, this time I'll hold your hand through the hard bit:

Remember science is a process of investigation.

See what I did there? Now ask yourself why I carefully chose that particular word, emboldened for your convenience.

"...things as mind-body interaction most certainly can be investigated, though I may personally lack the knowledge to explain how." - Sounds like blind faith to me. You have no idea how it could be and yet you believe it to be so.

I can't be held accountable for how my words sound to you. Perhaps you should try reading them again. Can I tell you, here and now, how such an experiment to investigate the mind-body interaction may be conducted? No - such things are beyond my personal level of education, experience and expertise. However, they are not beyond that of others. By the same token, I have little to no understanding of what makes gravity work, nor do I need any to use it or to understand that it does, indeed, work.

"Your placing something beyond the reach of scientific investigation is a double-edged sword, by so doing you are also removing any effect it can have on the Universe since such effects clearly do fall into the reach of scientific investigation." - Stimbo

Not so. What is the cause of time and space? Is your experience of pain more painful than mine? These are real yet scientifically non-falsifiable inquiries.

Whatever caused time and space, it had a definite effect upon the Universe - it caused time and space, after all. Such an effect and the cause thereof falls squarely in the remit of science. The comparison of pain upon different subjects is also something that falls within the remit of science, and such things are investigated in research facilities on a daily basis. These are very silly examples you are choosing, clearly falsifiable since I am doing just that. If you are arguing for things that science has not yet revealed, what makes you think they will be forever unknown? That is, unknowable as opposed to simply unknown at present?

Also: please learn how to use the quote facility. It really isn't that hard and would make your posts so much more legible.

[The Grand Nudger]

He's building up his appeal to ignorance, perhaps he thinks we've never heard it. Or perhaps that's what convinced him.

[Cyberman]

It's working.

Incidentally, Chad, did you work out what to do about my elephant yet?

[Bgood]

What is the cause of time and space? Is your experience of pain more painful than mine?

These are interesting questions. Is the Big Bang the cause of time and space? I think time and space have MANY interrelated causes that can probably never be fully understood with science alone. The universe is too big, we can only see a fraction of it with our telescopes, and that is usually an ambiguous interpretation at it's furthest view.

Is your pain more painful than mine or vice versa? This reminds me of the First Noble Truth in the Dharma. Life is suffering.
It also depends on our threshold of pain and relationship to it. Physical injuries and disease, mental/emotional anguish and despair...they are all interrelated and connected ad infinitum, like nerve endings. Yet Buddha does reveal a way out of this dilemma which I am still searching and striving for. I have had mixed results thus far, yet see and feel on the horizon shimmering glimpses of Buddha's loving brilliance.

As far as God is concerned...nobody knows what God is but we throw around the word like as if it was recognizably definitive. What is God? A man, a woman, an object, the Sun, the Universe, the force, the Tao, what????? The word GOD should be eradicated from the human vocabulary all together to quell alot of misunderstanding.

[The Grand Nudger]

You have some suggestion as to what else we might use to investigate these things, since science alone is apparently not going to cut it? How did you come about this probability anyway?

I say life is apricot jam. The dharma is clearly lacking in the "noble truth" department. Sounds more like an obvious oversimplification to me (and as such completely and absurdly incorrect). But hey, that's how you dredge the net as far as possible, state some generality as "truth", preferably one that will appeal to those who are likely to be emotionally needy. Makes good ad copy.

[Whateverist]

It's an old response to an equally old question, but any god worthy of the appellation would already know what evidence would convince. That such evidence has not been forthcoming we should conclude - what? That the god/s do not want to convince? That non-accepters have been blinded to the evidence which so convinces the faithful (this alone opens up a whole new raft of questions)? Or perhaps that there is/are no god/s available for the experiment?

It may be an old response but it is nonetheless a good one. I agree with all that I've copied. (I rarely put much faith in Occam's razor. It is a rule of thumb only and is easily misapplied. It isn't persuasive so why bother?)

[Cyberman]

Agreed, with the rider that a simple, natural explanation explanation that fits the available facts beats a complicated, non-natural one that has to be shoehorned to fit; particularly one that invokes the least plausible entities and agents to make it work.