Empircal Evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-04-2017, 12:50 PM
RE: Empircal Evidence
(27-04-2017 12:15 PM)Walluin Wrote:  I don't get it? is there some dictionary term I don't understand?
If something is proved then it is understood to be... idk factual and not a fantasy
So if God was proven then having a faith in it would be idk... superfluous????
Hence I would say Proof or Evidence of something that was previously thought to be fantastical
would render that to be part of Science since it had been proven, by its evidence.
I'm not good at big words.
I think both camps are right (if that's the correct term)

You are right for saying Christians just don't care that there is no evidence

Non-Christians are right in that accepting things on faith is zero evidence a particular claim is true

It's like watching two blindfolded boxers having a go at each other in a boxing ring the size of a football field. I doubt anyone will win

“I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.” ~ Oscar Wilde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2017, 12:56 PM
RE: Empircal Evidence
Yeah pretty much man, which is why I called it a circular argument, (but I think I fucked up that terminology)
Probably a better one would have been Loggerheads or something.

Don't Believe the Hype
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2017, 01:00 PM
RE: Empircal Evidence
(27-04-2017 12:15 PM)Walluin Wrote:  I don't get it? is there some dictionary term I don't understand?
If something is proved then it is understood to be... idk factual and not a fantasy
So if God was proven then having a faith in it would be idk... superfluous????
Hence I would say Proof or Evidence of something that was previously thought to be fantastical
would render that to be part of Science since it had been proven, by its evidence.
I'm not good at big words.

But the problem with all this is, the "proof" that Jebus is the son of god presented is all the miracles he performed, him raising from the dead, etc. They can't assert those things are true and then at the same time claim they aren't subject to being tested as evidence. That's having your cake and eating it too.

I mean this shit boils down to "It's true because I say it's true and that's that!". And sorry, that isn't how it works. The only way they could make this argument is if they were basically deists, believing there is a god but it has no involvement with us at all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2017, 01:14 PM
RE: Empircal Evidence
I'm not about to google deist, I can probably work it out from analysing language.. but that is irrelevant,
What your not picking up here is BLIND FAITH and the POWER OF GOD.
Now let me give you some examples...
Ok. So lets say we are talking to a new world creationist (is that what they're called I cant remember)
Okay so we go "hey man look at this dinosaur bone, how's that work with your creation story"
And he goes "yeah God made those bones and buried them to try and trick us, hes a tricky God isn't he."
So then we say "He mate, how about this really old rock we carbon dated to being 50000000000 years old?
And he goes "Yeah, God made that rock look really old, hes so tricky hey?"
"He keeps trying to test our faith with these scientific things he made cos he only wants the truly faithful to go to heaven.
....
What I'm saying is.. its stupid and boring to argue with a person who is blinded my faith.

Don't Believe the Hype
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2017, 01:37 PM
RE: Empircal Evidence
(27-04-2017 01:14 PM)Walluin Wrote:  I'm not about to google deist, I can probably work it out from analysing language.. but that is irrelevant,
What your not picking up here is BLIND FAITH and the POWER OF GOD.
Now let me give you some examples...
Ok. So lets say we are talking to a new world creationist (is that what they're called I cant remember)
Okay so we go "hey man look at this dinosaur bone, how's that work with your creation story"
And he goes "yeah God made those bones and buried them to try and trick us, hes a tricky God isn't he."
So then we say "He mate, how about this really old rock we carbon dated to being 50000000000 years old?
And he goes "Yeah, God made that rock look really old, hes so tricky hey?"
"He keeps trying to test our faith with these scientific things he made cos he only wants the truly faithful to go to heaven.
....
What I'm saying is.. its stupid and boring to argue with a person who is blinded my faith.

Well if they're a Christian, they can't have a God that lies. Of course, there's a verse where God does deceive and many Christians try to explain it away. But I don't think God intentionally trying to deceive by placing bones would be compatible with Christianity. But yes arguing with fideists is a waste of time.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Naielis's post
27-04-2017, 01:45 PM
RE: Empircal Evidence
(27-04-2017 12:15 PM)Walluin Wrote:  I don't get it? is there some dictionary term I don't understand?
If something is proved then it is understood to be... idk factual and not a fantasy
So if God was proven then having a faith in it would be idk... superfluous????
Hence I would say Proof or Evidence of something that was previously thought to be fantastical
would render that to be part of Science since it had been proven, by its evidence.
I'm not good at big words.

Science is not conducted by proving things to be true. That is out of its scope. Proof is a priori. Only deductive systems can operate on proof. Science, an inherently a posteriori system, aims to falsify hypotheses by subjecting them to rigorous testing. Those that fail to be falsified are considered empirically adequate and we treat them as true for other hypotheses and theories, but we don't claim to have proven that they are true. Providing evidence for God doesn't make it a part of science because providing evidence is not exclusive to science. Providing evidence is a necessary practice for any epistemology that incorporates empirical analysis.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Naielis's post
27-04-2017, 02:12 PM
RE: Empircal Evidence
whayttt? lay it down to me in laymans terms my mate..

Don't Believe the Hype
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2017, 03:38 PM
RE: Empircal Evidence
(27-04-2017 02:12 PM)Walluin Wrote:  whayttt? lay it down to me in laymans terms my mate..

Which parts are confusing?

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2017, 03:53 PM
Empircal Evidence
(27-04-2017 09:37 AM)Walluin Wrote:  Yeah I hear what your saying, but maybe this discussion should more be about our lack of belief more than their lack of evidence

As far as I'm concerned, the two are inextricably intertwined. My lack of belief is predicated on the lack of evidence. For that reason I don't believe. The believer and I hold different standards for what comprises evidence. For them, a minister saying "Jesus rose from the dead" is accepted as fact and isn't questioned at all.

(27-04-2017 09:37 AM)Walluin Wrote:  You might be thinking "yeah I showed him, just pwned that Christian with the evidence play' but never has a Christian thought "oh gee that guys right I cant prove jesus with science I better stop believing."

Never? I started the journey to reject religion when I sought out the extra-biblical sources for Jesus contemporary to when he was supposed to have lived. I was shocked to find there were none! How could this divine person who was followed by multitudes of so we're told, not have any record of his life at all? Why do the gospel accounts read like fiction?

I stopped believing when I applied my brain to religion with the same rigor I used in everyday life.

Never? I think not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Rachel's post
27-04-2017, 05:53 PM
RE: Empircal Evidence
(27-04-2017 09:37 AM)Walluin Wrote:  no atheist ever won a debate with a religious nut by saying well if god exists show him to me then.

It depends on what's being debated. If it's some theist telling me *I* should believe, it's easy. "Give me evidence to change my mind. Got none? Okay, we're done here."

(27-04-2017 09:37 AM)Walluin Wrote:  You might be thinking "yeah I showed him, just pwned that Christian with the evidence play' but never has a Christian thought "oh gee that guys right I cant prove jesus with science I better stop believing."

The flip side of that debate, trying to get a theist to *stop* believing based on scientific evidence or logic, is a fool's errand, since the belief is not based on either of those things in the first place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like John Derderian's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: