That's Not Evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-08-2015, 06:36 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(13-08-2015 12:53 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Any Christian who can says they can show you "Evidence" is lying through his teeth and/or is delusional.

The entire basis of God and salvation is solely within the terms of a thing called "faith".

If the core of a belief is faith-based, it can never produce "Evidence".
And it should be rejected outright as a highly imaginative yet unfounded story otherwise we would all be gullible and just believe whatever people told us, then we would get into issues when people tell us conflicting things, then we would need to seek a method to validate stories. That method would be insistence on and observation of supporting evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 06:39 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(13-08-2015 06:33 PM)Free Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 06:22 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  A theory is just a theory or an "educated" assumption. True Faith brings confirmation which is evidence to the holder of said Faith.

Actually, a theory is supported by actual observable evidence.

Faith is not supported by actual observable evidence.
It is observable by the individual that it pertains to. Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 06:41 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(13-08-2015 06:39 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 06:33 PM)Free Wrote:  Actually, a theory is supported by actual observable evidence.

Faith is not supported by actual observable evidence.
It is observable by the individual that it pertains to. Thanks.
Rather - Personal observations are assumed (by the individual) to be consistent with the beliefs held by the same individual.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 06:46 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(13-08-2015 06:41 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 06:39 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  It is observable by the individual that it pertains to. Thanks.
Rather - Personal observations are assumed (by the individual) to be consistent with the beliefs held by the same individual.
An observation is in no way an assumption. Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 06:53 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(13-08-2015 06:39 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 06:33 PM)Free Wrote:  Actually, a theory is supported by actual observable evidence.

Faith is not supported by actual observable evidence.
It is observable by the individual that it pertains to. Thanks.

No, it isn't.

You cannot see, touch, smell, taste, or hear it. If it cannot be detected by at least one of your five senses, it's existence is open to skepticism.

Emotions, such as love, hate etc, can be verified due to them being a shared experience by all humans. Your religious experience is not shared by anyone else at all, because it uniquely pertains to only you.

Explanations of your religious experiences may vary from mild delusion, to chronic hallucination. But since they cannot be shared or observed by anyone else, then they cannot be subjected to rigorous scientific review and fall short of the criteria of what constitutes "evidence."

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
13-08-2015, 06:58 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(13-08-2015 06:46 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 06:41 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Rather - Personal observations are assumed (by the individual) to be consistent with the beliefs held by the same individual.
An observation is in no way an assumption. Thanks.
I never said an observation was an assumption.

You make a personal observation, lets say a car skids off the road and missing crashing into you by 10 cms.
You assume it was god that saved your live because you believe that god is looking out for you and you assume there was a reason why the car missed you rather than hit you.

Never mind the poor sod that the car did crash into. Perhaps you believe that it was part of god's plan that the dead guy was supposed to be taken at that moment.
Now your assumptions supporting your observations match your beliefs, Hallelujah!

Whereas a physicist, knowing the speed, trajectory and mass of the car, knowing the friction of the road would calculate a path that exactly matches the path the car took. Same observations however invoking the consistent laws of motion rather than an intervening god to explain the observations.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 06:59 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(13-08-2015 06:31 PM)Free Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 06:19 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Is something is unfalsifiable then how is it not evident? Thanks.

Not merely "something" but rather "claims."

Example:

"God exists, so prove he doesn't."

That is an unfalsifiable claim.

It is, rather, falsifiable... so long as God is clearly defined.

Failing to do so - as per Mathilda's earlier post - is a deliberate tactic of the dishonest.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
13-08-2015, 07:02 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
Of course, any appeal to what is evident or observable to others rests on the assumption that others have, broadly, the same perceptions and cognition as you. And this is demonstrably false.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 07:22 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(13-08-2015 06:59 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 06:31 PM)Free Wrote:  Not merely "something" but rather "claims."

Example:

"God exists, so prove he doesn't."

That is an unfalsifiable claim.

It is, rather, falsifiable... so long as God is clearly defined.

Failing to do so - as per Mathilda's earlier post - is a deliberate tactic of the dishonest.
That makes no sense. Could you please rephrase? Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 07:24 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(13-08-2015 06:53 PM)Free Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 06:39 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  It is observable by the individual that it pertains to. Thanks.

No, it isn't.

You cannot see, touch, smell, taste, or hear it. If it cannot be detected by at least one of your five senses, it's existence is open to skepticism.

Emotions, such as love, hate etc, can be verified due to them being a shared experience by all humans. Your religious experience is not shared by anyone else at all, because it uniquely pertains to only you.

Explanations of your religious experiences may vary from mild delusion, to chronic hallucination. But since they cannot be shared or observed by anyone else, then they cannot be subjected to rigorous scientific review and fall short of the criteria of what constitutes "evidence."
I can see and feel the evidence. To feel something in any way is to sense it. It doesn't make me delusional just because you refuse to try it. Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: