About testimonials

[Abrosz]

Frequent objection to skeptics is that it irrational and unreasonable to expect physical and empirical evidence for the claims about the non-physical. When they are asked, just what kind of evidence can they provide, it always comes down to “testimonials”. Let’s analyze this claim. First of all, every evidence is provided in words, writs, etc. These are all physical and empirical methods. Next, they refer to alleged physical interactions between the “spiritual” and the physical realms. So it is perfectly reasonable to expect direct, physical evidence for the the “spiritual”. It has happened, according to the apologists!

Maybe it will never happen again, but it could! As soon as it would happen, it would be excellent, physical evidence for the claims. But it does NOT happen, and the time for “direct revelation” is over!

And it is not all. Allegedly there are physical methods to invoke some some non-physical entities (demons?). What are those methods? Can we try them? The answer is that they are “dangerous”, and we should stay away from them. To add insult to injury, there are exorcists, who “meddle” with demons, and can successfully “repel” them.

Next comes the unreliability of testimonials. Everyone knows (or should know) that testimonies are extremely unreliable, even assuming the best intentions on the part of the givers of the testimony. Ask 10 eye-witnesses of an accident, and you will get 11 different versions. And ask them again in there days, or three weeks!

But the point is that instead of current, verifiable testimonials we have this:

Sometime, somewhere, someone has claimed that someone else has experienced a direct, physical interaction with the “spiritual” realm. And that is the so-called “evidence”. When did it happen? A few thousand years ago. Where did it happen? Somewhere, maybe in the Middle East. Who claims it? Some nameless person, who did not even experience it personally, merely heard that someone else did.

And this is the “testimonial” we are supposed to take seriously. This is the testimonial we are supposed to base our life upon. Think about it.

 

[Cruciferi]

And… What’s your point?

 

[annad347]

And this is the “testimonial” we are supposed to take seriously. This is the testimonial we are supposed to base our life upon. Think about it.

No, you are to politly listen to it, as you would politly listen to anyone who speaks to you about anything, whether or not you base your life upon what you heard is up to you.

As for the 10-11 people who witnessed something that happened, they might each saying differently but they would all be saying the same thing, what happened, who was involved, where, when and how it happened… that why people who are looking for the truth will ask more then one person… to look for what is consistent in what is being said.

 

[SPBlitz]

When they are asked, just what kind of evidence can they provide, it always comes down to “testimonials”.

This isn’t true - there are numerous philosophical arguments for the supernatural. You might not find them convincing, but the evidence is hardly limited to testimonials.

As to the reliability of testimonials - much of our knowledge of ancient history is based on ‘testimonials’ - from ancient writings that were written long after the fact by people who never witnessed the events and gathered their records from testimonials. Either you’d have admit that testimonials are at least at some level valid grounds for belief, or you’d have to doubt much of your knowledge about the ancient world.

 

[Abrosz]

And… What’s your point?

That EVERY evidence is physical. Even the testimonials. Some are more reliable than others. And testimonials are the least reliable of all. Moreover, the excuse that it is irrational to expect physical evidence for the alleged non-physical is incorrect.

As for the 10-11 people who witnessed something that happened, they might each saying differently but they would all be saying the same thing, what happened, who was involved, where, when and how it happened…

This is simply not true. Have you ever tried the Chinese whispering game?

This isn’t true - there are numerous philosophical arguments for the supernatural. You might not find them convincing, but the evidence is hardly limited to testimonials.

Invalid and incorrect arguments are not worthy to listen to. But even if one of them would be correct, it would only point to a faceless, deistic creator, not to the feature-rich god of Christianity.

As to the reliability of testimonials - much of our knowledge of ancient history is based on ‘testimonials’ - from ancient writings that were written long after the fact by people who never witnessed the events and gathered their records from testimonials.

How do you hope to establish the reliability of second-third-etc-hand witnesses?

Either you’d have admit that testimonials are at least at some level valid grounds for belief, or you’d have to doubt much of your knowledge about the ancient world.

Some testimonials might be substantiated, most are not. Caesar crossed the Rubicon - very probably. Did he also say: “Alea iacta est?”? The answer is “who cares”? Moreover, the skeptics are interested in current events, not what (allegedly) happened a few thousand years ago.

But the most important point is that EVERYTHING is physical based! Even if there would be a non-physical “miracle” it would take place in the physical realm. There is none, and there can be no "non-physical (spiritual) evidence.

 

[SPBlitz]

Invalid and incorrect arguments are not worthy to listen to.

So this is a mere assertion. You haven’t proven that any of the arguments are false, only assumed them to be. Show me how they are invalid and incorrect before you deem them ‘not worthy to listen to’.

But the most important point is that EVERYTHING is physical based! Even if there would be a non-physical “miracle” it would take place in the physical realm. There is none, and there can be no "non-physical (spiritual) evidence.

Again, a mere assertion. Because the arguments that you dismissed seek to show that, no, not everything is physically based. You haven’t shown that those philosophical arguments are wrong, therefore you haven’t shown that everything is physically based. You are assuming that Physicalism is true. Heck, the problem of intentionality, qualia, and mental causation is making even atheist philosophers question that.

 

[annad347]

This is simply not true. Have you ever tried the Chinese whispering game?

Is that like the telephone game, where one person whispers something into one ear then down the line till they get to the end to see if tha last person can repeat what the first person said? Not the same.

 

[Pattylt]

I understand what you’re saying but you are arguing with believers in that supernatural realm and demanding evidence of it that can not and will not be produced. By its very nature, the supernatural isn’t material so requiring material evidence seems ridiculous to them.

I do agree on Testimonials…every Mormon has one. It’s a trust issue here. They trust the testimonials of the gospels. They don’t necessarily trust anyone else’s. Testimonials are only as valuable as the person giving them. Christians trust the gospels. Just because we don’t doesn’t negate their trust in them. You can give them all the statistics you want on the reliability of eyewitnesses and it doesn’t matter. They do trust the gospel witness.

The one area that would swing me back to a believer again is a personal experience of the divine. Many have had this affirming experience, I never have. It’s something I can’t deny they have had, all I can say is it’s something I haven’t! If I did have it and told you about it, I wouldn’t expect you to believe it just as I don’t believe the experiences of others. So, it is what it is.

Believers don’t base all their belief on testimonials…it goes beyond that. It encompasses, philosophy, history, the survival of the Church, being raised in the church or a Christian Church, parents beliefs, geography and life experiences. So, I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.p?

 

[MPat]

First of all, every evidence is provided in words, writs, etc. These are all physical and empirical methods.

So it is perfectly reasonable to expect direct, physical evidence for the the “spiritual”.

If you are truly willing to count a written report as “direct, physical evidence”, then you already have it.

In such case the honest and reasonable thing to do is to stop demanding evidence you already have, and start looking at it.

But it looks like you have no intention to do so.

Sometime, somewhere, someone has claimed that someone else has experienced a direct, physical interaction with the “spiritual” realm. And that is the so-called “evidence”. When did it happen? A few thousand years ago. Where did it happen? Somewhere, maybe in the Middle East. Who claims it? Some nameless person, who did not even experience it personally, merely heard that someone else did.

Or so you testify.

Um, by the way, is your testimony valuable? Let’s see:

Next comes the unreliability of testimonials. Everyone knows (or should know) that testimonies are extremely unreliable, even assuming the best intentions on the part of the givers of the testimony.

Well, if you say so, we won’t believe a word from your testimony.

For that matter, you only have testimony to support the supposed unreliability of testimony. Perhaps even testimony about other testimony.

And, to be precise, there are more current reports of miracles and the like. You even mentioned those. And then ignored them, when they were not convenient.

Investigate honestly and competently. Stop looking for excuses to avoid the duty to investigate.

 

[Abrosz]

So this is a mere assertion. You haven’t proven that any of the arguments are false, only assumed them to be. Show me how they are invalid and incorrect before you deem them ‘not worthy to listen to’.

That is so typical. You make a generic observation - without any specifics, and then you demand specifics as an answer. Besides, the so-called “God of the philosophers” has NOTHING to do with the “God of the Bible”.

You haven’t shown that those philosophical arguments are wrong, therefore you haven’t shown that everything is physically based.

Empty assertions are dime a dozen. Bring up any one of them in a specific thread, and we can talk about it. But, not here.

You are assuming that Physicalism is true.

Yes, and for a very good reason. There is no reason to assume otherwise. All of our senses are physically based. Of course it could be argued that we “must” look behind them… and that cannot be dismissed out of hand - as soon as you can “show” me anything non-physical as a physically active causative agent, and explain, just HOW can this alleged non-physical causative agent can interact with the physical reality. Because the “let there be light, and there was light” is simple “magic”.

 

[Abrosz]

If you are truly willing to count a written report as “direct, physical evidence”, then you already have it.

Not everything that is physical is acceptable as “evidence”.

 

[SPBlitz]

You make a generic observation - without any specifics, and then you demand specifics as an answer. Besides, the so-called “God of the philosophers” has NOTHING to do with the “God of the Bible”.

You, without any evidence, made a sweeping generalization that every philosophical argument for God was invalid - that’s a generalization. And I beg to differ - that god of the philosophers has much to do with the Christian God. Much of Thomas Aquinas’ writings are based off of Aristotles conception of God. Many - though not all - of the Christian aspects of God can be arrived at philosophically.

Empty assertions are dime a dozen.

Apparently so.

Bring up any one of them in a specific thread, and we can talk about it. But, not here.

I’ll pass. Your mind seems made up, and you don’t seem too keen on having a discussion - a real discussion, that is. Your posts so far have been very aggressive and I don’t think you really want to consider anything I have to say. I have better things to do with my time.

Yes, and for a very good reason. There is no reason to assume otherwise. All of our senses are physically based. Of course it could be argued that we “must” look behind them… and that cannot be dismissed out of hand - as soon as you can “show” me anything non-physical as a physically active causative agent, and explain, just HOW can this alleged non-physical causative agent can interact with the physical reality. Because the “let there be light, and there was light” is simple “magic”.

I already briefly touched upon it in my last post - intentionality, qualia, and mental causation are excellent reasons to deny Physicalism. There are already many excellent books on the subject (try Nagel to start).

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Invalid and incorrect arguments are not worthy to listen to. But even if one of them would be correct, it would only point to a faceless, deistic creator, not to the feature-rich god of Christianity.

Whatever you may think of God, the Bible has inspired a couple of billion followers.

 

[Abrosz]

Whatever you may think of God, the Bible has inspired a couple of billion followers.

So did the Koran.

Your mind seems made up, and you don’t seem too keen on having a discussion - a real discussion, that is.

So many mind readers!

 

[Eric_Hyom]

So did the Koran.

Despite all our differences, the same God hears all our prayers.

 

[Abrosz]

Despite all our differences, the same God hears all our prayers.

Of course Yahweh and Allah are NOT the same. And the holy books of both of them have inspired millions of people. Only very recently have become the followers of Allah changed to “our wayward brothers” from “infidels” who must be eradicated. (Isn’t political correctness a wonderful idea? )

And, of course, neither of them have anything to do with the faceless, deistic “first cause” of the God of the philosophers - who just set the “ball” into motion and then left it to its own devices. No interference, no miracles, no prophets, no saviors, nothing. Maybe the God of the philosophers “hears” our prayers, but he does nothing about them.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Of course Yahweh and Allah are NOT the same.

I can call you Janet or John or Abrosz, whatever I choose to call you, does not alter who you are. There is ‘One God’ the creator of all that is seen and unseen, whatever I choose to call God, cannot alter who he is.

However I juggle my beliefs about, the same God hears the prayers of Muslims and Christians.

 

[Abrosz]

I can call you Janet or John or Abrosz, whatever I choose to call you, does not alter who you are.

Unless the “name” affixed to something (or someone) describes the fundamental “feature” of the described. No matter how hard you object, the Christian God is “trinitarian”, while the Muslim God (Allah) is singular. In the Islam Jesus is “merely” a prophet, not part of the Trinity.

And about “hearing” our prayers… you could say that the answer given by Yahweh and Allah are exactly the same: “nothing”. So in that regard, there is no difference. No matter to whom you pray to, Yahweh, Allah, Zeus or an empty wine bottle, the efficacy of the prayer is exactly the same - zilch, nada, nichevo, nothing.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Unless the “name” affixed to something (or someone) describes the fundamental “ feature ” of the described. No matter how hard you object, the Christian God is “trinitarian”, while the Muslim God (Allah) is singular. In the Islam Jesus is “merely” a prophet, not part of the Trinity.

Both Muslims and Christians claim they worship the God who created the universe. There is only ‘One God’

And about “hearing” our prayers… you could say that the answer given by Yahweh and Allah are exactly the same: “nothing”.

Absolutely disagree with you; I have witnessed the power of prayer many times. As have Muslims I know.

 

[Abrosz]

Both Muslims and Christians claim they worship the God who created the universe. There is only ‘One God’

Maybe you are unaware of the BASIC tenet of Christianity (Trinity!). Islam and Christianity are NOT the same. The fact that the Bible inspired many people may be a fact, but it is meaningless.

Absolutely disagree with you; I have witnessed the power of prayer many times. As have Muslims I know.

Anecdotes are dime a dozen. There were many, properly designed, double blind tests, and the result was: nothing!