Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[robvalue]

This is a great video of awesome Sean beating the shit out of theism and woo at every turn.

[SteveII]

1) Saying that miracles are not an accepted fact is question begging. What kind of miracle-seeking experiment would make any logical sense? The very definition of a miracle has in it the a) inability to predict and b) the all-important feature that you can only see the effect--never the cause--something that throws a monkey wrench in experiments. I never said I would not look for counter-evidence=straw man.


You can't win this debate. You would have to prove my worldview wrong.

Well, no. You're the one claiming it's true, so you have to prove that it's correct. As always, that's the burden of proof.

The problem is with "Miracles", in the  billions [or thousands if that's your belief] of years that the earth has been in existence, and all these supposed miracles that have happened, why has it never happened to a scientist?

You supposed god knows that atheists are questioning it, why not perform a miracle and turn all our science books into bibles in front of our very eyes? Better yet, why not just physically appear in the sky right now, and tell us it's real?

You say "oh well you can't predict a miracle etc etc" well that's bull shit I say. You're only "proof" they EVER happened is in the NT and OT. Without that, you have nothing, other than the word of crazy people who say they've seen something that they haven't.

Steve, with said burden, you have to prove yourself right.

Your having a problem with logic here.

I said (and you responded to): " I am saying that given that I believe in the supernatural (for other reasons) and given the background information that such events do not happen with any regularity, it is reasonable to infer that miracle x after prayer y may be supernatural. "

I am making an inference to the best explanation. I have not made an deductive argument (far from it). I don't have to prove anything because my probabilistic conclusion comes from my probabilistic premises. You have to prove my premises are impossible or logical incoherent to win. Albeit unintentional, you have assumed the burden of proof. 

"Crazy people"? There you go assuming your conclusion again. Question beggar!

[Rahn127]

I have a book that details several stories about individuals who have grown arms & legs back on their body after they had been cut off in various accidents over the years. The book details exactly what they did to accomplish the regrowing of their limbs.

All of the stories are from the 14th century, so unfortunately we can't directly talk to the individuals listed in the book, but we do have letters from family & friends that show very clearly that these events took place.

The book costs only $1000 but it's a small price to pay when you compare it to getting back an arm or leg.

You asked what principles or reason led to my conclusions about what is or isn't evidence.

Skeptical thinking and rational reasoning tells me that a book containing stories about events that can't be verified, nor demonstrated to be true are not evidence.

Do you plan on buying my book for $1000 or would you prefer that I provide some evidence that what it contains is actually true or not ?

So then, you are saying, that I can deny any testimony, that I have not seen for myself.    By this standard, then I can say that there is no evidence for evolution.   There is no evidence against President Trump, I don't even have any evidence that Sweden exists (my apologies to Brian and ABBA)

First off, make reading comprehension a priority.
I presented the idea of a book that contains testimony from people in the distant past who are no longer alive or perhaps never were alive. The letters from family and friends are third-party accounts of what they were told happened.

Second, we need to verify that these people existed and it's not one big fictional story.

Third, we need to demonstrate the truth of what is claimed in the book.

The evidence for evolution is much more that testimony. We have current, hands on, physical evidence that can be examined by anyone with experiments that can be repeated for verification and validation.

As for Sweden, you may not currently have any evidence for Sweden in your possession, but you can obtain it quite easily by flying there.

When someone tells me they had cereal for breakfast, I can believe them based on testimony alone because it is an ordinary thing that many humans do.

If I required more evidence, the person could take a picture or invite me over to their house so that I can watch them eat a very soggy bowl of cereal.

If someone said they had a bowl of cereal this morning while aboard an alien spaceship in orbit around Alpha Centauri, then I'm going to need more than ordinary testimony before I would believe such a claim.

You don't have to personally be in a place to witness an event. What you do need however is enough evidence that can verify and demonstrate the truth of the claim.

Most of the time, police detectives aren't at the scene of the crime as it's happening. If they were, they would attempt to stop the crime from happening.

In a trial we rely upon the evidence presented to see if there is enough reliable evidence to vote for a guilty plea.

If there is not enough evidence presented, then we vote not guilty. Now this doesn't mean that the person accused is innocent. It simply means that the prosecution hasn't met their burden of proof by providing enough credible evidence for a guilty plea.

[Pat Mustard]

Steve, if you want to discuss whatever version of the bible you read, make your own thread about it.

This thread is about evidence for a god.

Pretend this is Memphis, Egypt - 2600 BC.
Work is being done to construct a pyramid to the northwest. Your version of a bible has another 2700 years before priests cobble it together to form a canon.

Now give me some evidence for a god that doesn't involve some ancient anecdotal stories.

Or

STFU

It seems like the evidence demand is always moving and shifting. There’s always an excuse to not look at the evidence, and there’s always something else.

Hence why christianity is so interested in controlling education. Allows them to indoctrinate the childers into not looking at the evidence.

We both know this to be true. The difference between us is that you deny the truth, shitbag.

[RoadRunner79]

So then, you are saying, that I can deny any testimony, that I have not seen for myself.    By this standard, then I can say that there is no evidence for evolution.   There is no evidence against President Trump, I don't even have any evidence that Sweden exists (my apologies to Brian and ABBA)

First off, make reading comprehension a priority.
I presented the idea of a book that contains testimony from people in the distant past who are no longer alive or perhaps never were alive. The letters from family and friends are third-party accounts of what they were told happened.

Second, we need to verify that these people existed and it's not one big fictional story.

Third, we need to demonstrate the truth of what is claimed in the book.

The evidence for evolution is much more that testimony. We have current, hands on, physical evidence that can be examined by anyone with experiments that can be repeated for verification and validation.

As for Sweden, you may not currently have any evidence for Sweden in your possession, but you can obtain it quite easily by flying there.

When someone tells me they had cereal for breakfast, I can believe them based on testimony alone because it is an ordinary thing that many humans do.

If I required more evidence, the person could take a picture or invite me over to their house so that I can watch them eat a very soggy bowl of cereal.

If someone said they had a bowl of cereal this morning while aboard an alien spaceship in orbit around Alpha Centauri, then I'm going to need more than ordinary testimony before I would believe such a claim.

You don't have to personally be in a place to witness an event. What you do need however is enough evidence that can verify and demonstrate the truth of the claim.

Most of the time, police detectives aren't at the scene of the crime as it's happening. If they were, they would attempt to stop the crime from happening.

In a trial we rely upon the evidence presented to see if there is enough reliable evidence to vote for a guilty plea.

If there is not enough evidence presented, then we vote not guilty. Now this doesn't mean that the person accused is innocent. It simply means that the prosecution hasn't met their burden of proof by providing enough credible evidence for a guilty plea.

I agree with much of what you said, about testimony.   We need corroborating evidence, to show that they where there and can accurately describe    what they saw.     I just don't agree with sliding scales and special pleading.  You might offer some faith, to a inconsequential claim, or something common, and forego this, but others don't need to.   On the other hand, one can't really maintain a hyperskepticism either, where everything has an irrationally high scale either.   But I agree that testimony is evidence, and evidence needs to be corroborated (whether it is direct evidence or indirect evidence).  We also weigh evidence for and against a given conclusion.     However an intellectually honest person, shouldn't be dismissing evidence without reason.   And I don't find personal incredulity to be a very good reason.

---

It seems like the evidence demand is always moving and shifting. There’s always an excuse to not look at the evidence, and there’s always something else.

Hence why christianity is so interested in controlling education. Allows them to indoctrinate the childers into not looking at the evidence.

We both know this to be true. The difference between us is that you deny the truth, shitbag.

The echo chamber, negativity and insults in place of critical thinking and civil discussion is getting tiring here. This is laughable coming from you.

I’m not interested in your “whataboutism” and prooftexting to change the subject.

[Rahn127]

First off, make reading comprehension a priority.
I presented the idea of a book that contains testimony from people in the distant past who are no longer alive or perhaps never were alive. The letters from family and friends are third-party accounts of what they were told happened.

Second, we need to verify that these people existed and it's not one big fictional story.

Third, we need to demonstrate the truth of what is claimed in the book.

The evidence for evolution is much more that testimony. We have current, hands on, physical evidence that can be examined by anyone with experiments that can be repeated for verification and validation.

As for Sweden, you may not currently have any evidence for Sweden in your possession, but you can obtain it quite easily by flying there.

When someone tells me they had cereal for breakfast, I can believe them based on testimony alone because it is an ordinary thing that many humans do.

If I required more evidence, the person could take a picture or invite me over to their house so that I can watch them eat a very soggy bowl of cereal.

If someone said they had a bowl of cereal this morning while aboard an alien spaceship in orbit around Alpha Centauri, then I'm going to need more than ordinary testimony before I would believe such a claim.

You don't have to personally be in a place to witness an event. What you do need however is enough evidence that can verify and demonstrate the truth of the claim.

Most of the time, police detectives aren't at the scene of the crime as it's happening. If they were, they would attempt to stop the crime from happening.

In a trial we rely upon the evidence presented to see if there is enough reliable evidence to vote for a guilty plea.

If there is not enough evidence presented, then we vote not guilty. Now this doesn't mean that the person accused is innocent. It simply means that the prosecution hasn't met their burden of proof by providing enough credible evidence for a guilty plea.

I agree with much of what you said, about testimony.   We need corroborating evidence, to show that they where there and can accurately describe    what they saw.     I just don't agree with sliding scales and special pleading.  You might offer some faith, to a inconsequential claim, or something common, and forego this, but others don't need to.   On the other hand, one can't really maintain a hyperskepticism either, where everything has an irrationally high scale either.   But I agree that testimony is evidence, and evidence needs to be corroborated (whether it is direct evidence or indirect evidence).  We also weigh evidence for and against a given conclusion.     However an intellectually honest person, shouldn't be dismissing evidence without reason.   And I don't find personal incredulity to be a very good reason.

Ok, here is the claim. "I believe that people in the 14th century developed a technique to regrow a lost arm or leg."
Do you think my hypothetical book about regrowing limbs should be considered evidence that supports this claim ?

The book gives the details about the technique from several people who witnessed the regrowth of limbs.
All of the accounts given are slightly different from each other and none of the techniques match 100%.
In three accounts, vinegar is used as a component and in the others it's not.
Some say it takes weeks for any growth to begin and others claim nearly instant regrowth.

Modern day scientists have tried several hundred different variations of the technique with no success.

I'll ask again, do you think a collection of stories that can't be verified for accuracy or truth qualifies as evidence ?

Start any reply with a yes or no and then go from there.

[RoadRunner79]

I agree with much of what you said, about testimony.   We need corroborating evidence, to show that they where there and can accurately describe    what they saw.     I just don't agree with sliding scales and special pleading.  You might offer some faith, to a inconsequential claim, or something common, and forego this, but others don't need to.   On the other hand, one can't really maintain a hyperskepticism either, where everything has an irrationally high scale either.   But I agree that testimony is evidence, and evidence needs to be corroborated (whether it is direct evidence or indirect evidence).  We also weigh evidence for and against a given conclusion.     However an intellectually honest person, shouldn't be dismissing evidence without reason.   And I don't find personal incredulity to be a very good reason.

Ok, here is the claim. "I believe that people in the 14th century developed a technique to regrow a lost arm or leg."
Do you think my hypothetical book about regrowing limbs should be considered evidence that supports this claim ?

The book gives the details about the technique from several people who witnessed the regrowth of limbs.
All of the accounts given are slightly different from each other and none of the techniques match 100%.
In three accounts, vinegar is used as a component and in the others it's not.
Some say it takes weeks for any growth to begin and others claim nearly instant regrowth.

Modern day scientists have tried several hundred different variations of the technique with no success.

I'll ask again, do you think a collection of stories that can't be verified for accuracy or truth qualifies as evidence ?

Start any reply with a yes or no and then go from there.

I would want to see the evidence. What it says, and what it doesn’t. Who, where, what they did after (details). I don’t think that an anecdote that you made up is going to be sufficient to show what you want to. You would be better to talk about principles or even real life events, that can be examined. In any case, what I or anyone would do, does not mean that it is logical and rational or consistent.

[Rahn127]

Ok, here is the claim. "I believe that people in the 14th century developed a technique to regrow a lost arm or leg."
Do you think my hypothetical book about regrowing limbs should be considered evidence that supports this claim ?

The book gives the details about the technique from several people who witnessed the regrowth of limbs.
All of the accounts given are slightly different from each other and none of the techniques match 100%.
In three accounts, vinegar is used as a component and in the others it's not.
Some say it takes weeks for any growth to begin and others claim nearly instant regrowth.

Modern day scientists have tried several hundred different variations of the technique with no success.

I'll ask again, do you think a collection of stories that can't be verified for accuracy or truth qualifies as evidence ?

Start any reply with a yes or no and then go from there.

I would want to see the evidence. What it says, and what it doesn’t. Who, where, what they did after (details). I don’t think that an anecdote that you made up is going to be sufficient to show what you want to. You would be better to talk about principles or even real life events, that can be examined. In any case, what I or anyone would do, does not mean that it is logical and rational or consistent.

I'll ask again, do you think a collection of stories that can't be verified for accuracy or truth qualifies as evidence ?

[RoadRunner79]

I would want to see the evidence. What it says, and what it doesn’t. Who, where, what they did after (details). I don’t think that an anecdote that you made up is going to be sufficient to show what you want to. You would be better to talk about principles or even real life events, that can be examined. In any case, what I or anyone would do, does not mean that it is logical and rational or consistent.

I'll ask again, do you think a collection of stories that can't be verified for accuracy or truth qualifies as evidence ?

It seems that you are asking if there is good evidence, then would I change my preconceptions, and believe something that I didn’t previously. The answer is yes. If you are asking if I think that testimony can be good and sufficient evidence for a justified belief (or change in one) then the answer is yes. How your story fits into that, I don’t know.... it really lacks details.

---

Do you disagree?
If so why?

[Rahn127]

I'll ask again, do you think a collection of stories that can't be verified for accuracy or truth qualifies as evidence ?

It seems that you are asking if there is good evidence, then would I change my preconceptions, and believe something that I didn’t previously. The answer is yes. If you are asking if I think that testimony can be good and sufficient evidence for a justified belief (or change in one) then the answer is yes. How your story fits into that, I don’t know.... it really lacks details.

---

Do you disagree?
If so why?

I disagree
When we can't verify the truth or accuracy of a story, especially a story that makes an extraordinary claim, then we cannot justify believing the story.

The story itself cannot be verified to be true.
The story is not evidence. The story is the claim.

Why would you want to believe a story in which you can't verify it's truthfulness ?

We shouldn't believe extraordinary stories until we have a good reason to justify belief.

I don't believe in Bigfoot. I don't believe in the Loch Ness monster. I don't believe in werewolves or vampires or demons or angels.
I've read lots of stories about them and testimony from people who say they have seen these things, but there is no evidence that they exist.

I'm sorry, a story isn't enough.
We have a word that describes people who believe things without a doubt based on nothing more than a story.

That word is gullibility.