Posts: 8711
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
54
The Evidence Required Is?
March 2, 2012 at 10:32 pm
What kind of evidence or proof would it take for you to believe in deity? A miracle? An artifact? the name of Jesus engraved on a chromosome?
Some say belief in deity is not scientific in the sense of not being falsifiable. But can't something be true even if it isn't falsifiable. For example, in the movie Contact, the boyfriend of the Jodie Foster character says, "prove that I love you." That appears to be an example of the kinds of statements that can be true but not be disprovable and in the same class as the "Hard Problem" of David Chalmers. How can you prove that other people are self-aware? If a computer passed the Turing test could you prove that it was or was not conscious? Etc.
Posts: 99
Threads: 2
Joined: December 15, 2011
Reputation:
3
RE: The Evidence Required Is?
March 3, 2012 at 12:57 am
Meh.... Christianity is already disproven.... the only minuscule possibility would be some sort of "initial creator" which is for whatever reason unable to interact w/ its creation.... based on all known evidence, there is nothing that indicates such a thing even possible, but either way, Christianity is so hardcore disproven there isn't any amount of proof short of god himself talking to me directly in front of witnesses that would cause me to believe.... and even so, it would be such a corrupt deity that I would be morally obliged not to follow, so the entire quandary is completely is pointless.
Posts: 281
Threads: 2
Joined: January 25, 2012
Reputation:
3
RE: The Evidence Required Is?
March 3, 2012 at 4:50 am
(March 3, 2012 at 12:57 am)helmespc Wrote: Meh.... Christianity is already disproven.... the only minuscule possibility would be some sort of "initial creator" which is for whatever reason unable to interact w/ its creation.... based on all known evidence, there is nothing that indicates such a thing even possible, but either way, Christianity is so hardcore disproven there isn't any amount of proof short of god himself talking to me directly in front of witnesses that would cause me to believe.... and even so, it would be such a corrupt deity that I would be morally obliged not to follow, so the entire quandary is completely is pointless.
I agree with this assertion. It is particularly important when archeologists search for artifacts and manuscripts that prove if Jesus even existed or not. Outside of the plaigerized holy bible, there is scant if any credible evidence for Jesus's existence. The writings of Josephus that mention Christ have been proven as forgeries. (no surprise there). Many artifacts such as the cloak of Turin are proven as hoaxes. So nevermind that there's no evidence for God, there is also no solid evidence for a man named Jesus who did all the magical things that are attributed to him in the gospels.
What I like about Buddha is that I believe in his teaching, his path, his way. I can't entirely say that about Jesus's Way because it has many inconsistencies and mixed messages stained with confusion. Buddha's existence is irrelevant because his teachings definitely exist. Yet I personally think it is likely that a man named Siddhartha probably did live thousands of years ago. At least more likely than Jesus because I think there is more circumstantial evidence in Buddha's case, despite being 500 years earlier.
You, yourself, as much as anybody in the entire universe, deserve your love and affection.
There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting.
Buddha 
Posts: 13901
Threads: 263
Joined: January 11, 2009
Reputation:
82
RE: The Evidence Required Is?
March 3, 2012 at 6:47 am
(March 2, 2012 at 10:32 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: What kind of evidence or proof would it take for you to believe in deity? A miracle? An artifact? the name of Jesus engraved on a chromosome?
Some say belief in deity is not scientific in the sense of not being falsifiable. But can't something be true even if it isn't falsifiable. For example, in the movie Contact, the boyfriend of the Jodie Foster character says, "prove that I love you." That appears to be an example of the kinds of statements that can be true but not be disprovable and in the same class as the "Hard Problem" of David Chalmers. How can you prove that other people are self-aware? If a computer passed the Turing test could you prove that it was or was not conscious? Etc.
If you cant even imagine what sort of proof would be required for something then its probably true that you havent got a good grasp on the concept.
I am in this camp.
What the fuck is an 'uncaused cause' supposed to look like?
how does something Magic stuff into being?
How does being an ultimate moral authority work?
I see god as just anthropomorphism of abstract concepts.
You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.
Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.
Posts: 3872
Threads: 39
Joined: August 25, 2008
Reputation:
43
RE: The Evidence Required Is?
March 3, 2012 at 9:02 am
(This post was last modified: March 3, 2012 at 9:02 am by Ace Otana.)
(March 2, 2012 at 10:32 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: What kind of evidence or proof would it take for you to believe in deity? A miracle? An artifact? the name of Jesus engraved on a chromosome?
Don't think you can prove the existence of something that isn't verifiable. The most rational stance is to with-hold judgement on it. Dismiss it due to a lack of evidence, credibility, explanatory power and value.
Can't really prove the existence of a being that's outside space and time. So I really can't think of what sort of evidence would be required to convince me. It's as I see it....impossible to have any credibility for such a being. And so...it's impossible for me to be convinced of such a being.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
Posts: 67293
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: The Evidence Required Is?
March 3, 2012 at 11:17 am
(This post was last modified: March 3, 2012 at 11:17 am by The Grand Nudger.)
(March 3, 2012 at 4:50 am)Bgood Wrote: What I like about Buddha is that I believe in his teaching, his path, his way. I can't entirely say that about Jesus's Way because it has many inconsistencies and mixed messages stained with confusion. Buddha's existence is irrelevant because his teachings definitely exist. Yet I personally think it is likely that a man named Siddhartha probably did live thousands of years ago. At least more likely than Jesus because I think there is more circumstantial evidence in Buddha's case, despite being 500 years earlier.
Jesus' existence is irrelevant, because his teachings definitely exist.  Present your evidence.
As to the question you asked Chad. It's simple, religion makes claims. Many, many claims. They could go about the business of demonstrating any of them. They do attempt to do so, they consistently fail to do so, and then realizing that they have completely and utterly failed to do so; they complain about having to do so in the first place (staring directly at you). All of these religions were absolutely sure (at least at one point in time) that it was easy to demonstrate their veracity, hell, self-evident. This current retreat to what they feel are unfalsifiable claims is a product of that. Still, they haven't been able to engineer unfalsifiable claims. Remember that question you asked me in our other thread? Yep......
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: The Evidence Required Is?
March 3, 2012 at 11:37 am
Robert Green Ingersoll dealt with this question in 1872. I'm with him. Come on religions, step up and meet the challenge!
Quote:We have heard talk enough. We have listened to all the drowsy, idealess, vapid sermons that we wish to hear. We have read your Bible and the works of your best minds. We have heard your prayers, your solemn groans and your reverential amens. All these amount to less than nothing. We want one fact. We beg at the doors of your churches for just one little fact. We pass our hats along your pews and under your pulpits and implore you for just one fact. We know all about your mouldy wonders and your stale miracles. We want a this year's fact. We ask only one. Give us one fact for charity. Your miracles are too ancient. The witnesses have been dead for nearly two thousand years.
-- Robert Green Ingersoll, "The Gods" (1872)
Posts: 5097
Threads: 207
Joined: February 16, 2011
Reputation:
44
RE: The Evidence Required Is?
March 3, 2012 at 11:37 am
(March 2, 2012 at 10:32 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: What kind of evidence or proof would it take for you to believe in deity? A miracle? An artifact? the name of Jesus engraved on a chromosome?
Some say belief in deity is not scientific in the sense of not being falsifiable. But can't something be true even if it isn't falsifiable. For example, in the movie Contact, the boyfriend of the Jodie Foster character says, "prove that I love you." That appears to be an example of the kinds of statements that can be true but not be disprovable and in the same class as the "Hard Problem" of David Chalmers. How can you prove that other people are self-aware? If a computer passed the Turing test could you prove that it was or was not conscious? Etc.
Lets just say the name of Jesus engraved on a chromosome, on every human, would be a good start.
It is still no proof of a god, but it would be proof of intelligent design. Just like how people put up signs that claim they were written by god, people are just as willing to put Jesus' name on their own handy work.
So yeah, seeing that would REALLY make me scratch my head, instead of the usual "evidence" which merely makes me laugh and comment on how idiotic the people are who think such bullshit is equivalent to good evidence.
Posts: 8711
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: The Evidence Required Is?
March 3, 2012 at 12:13 pm
(This post was last modified: March 3, 2012 at 12:32 pm by Neo-Scholastic.)
I believe I agree with most of you that many traditional proofs of god are highly suspect and the evidence presented by YE and evangelicals are open to dispute.What I'm hearing though is that no evidence would be accepted. Or at least that you have not been presented with anything you find gives you pause.
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: The Evidence Required Is?
March 3, 2012 at 12:20 pm
You are hearing what you want to hear.
|
