Define Evidence

[minkymurph]

Then isn’t it impossible to determine whose experiences are valid if they are entirely geographically, and hence culturally, dependent?

The interpretation of the experience is entirely dependent on the individual, their culture and where they live. What there is evidence of in terms of what can be categorized as oral testimony is a universal phenomenon - belief in encountering something that is higher than ourselves believed to be God of a god that transcends time and cultures. This of course does not prove God or gods actually exist.

Concerning oral testimony you mentioned the issue of trust. If an individual who is in our eyes is normally trustworthy and truthful claims they had a personal encounter with God, we could rationally conclude this is what they genuinely believe - though again this does not prove God actually exists.

 

[minkymurph]

Except that “credibility:” is too subjective to permit one to standardize that which is acceptable evidence.

Some say, “I must see it to believe it.” Therefore, nullifying what which is accepted by all courts of law, “testimonial evidence of firsthand hand witnesses.”

There is no doubt in my view the standard of proof demanded in order to prove the existence of God is higher than that demanded by the courts to secure a criminal conviction.

Rather, we believe only that which we have been programmed to believe.

In fact, this is also true of believers.

I agree. I have a theory we are all ‘borrowers.’ That is we do not have ‘original’ thoughts but rather agree with the thoughts of others. It is reputed the original thought is an extremely rare occurrence. A Swedish physicist claims the last original thought was 27 years ago.

askamathematician.com/2014/04/q-is-it-possible-to-have-a-completely-original-thought/

In my opinion,“no.”

Why not? I can only speak for myself. As an atheist, I believed myself to be very intelligent and could not understand why anyone had a different opinion on this particular subject. I thought anyone who believed that God existed must be deluded or brainwashed. I had never seen God, therefore He didn’t exist.

I believe this is called stereotyping. We all are guilty of stereotyping to a greater or lesser extent and unfortunately some people fit the stereotypical image. Stereotyping becomes problematic is when it generates prejudice sufficient to legitimize discrimination.

 

[De_Maria]

There is no doubt in my view the standard of proof demanded in order to prove the existence of God is higher than that demanded by the courts to secure a criminal conviction.

Why? Truth is truth. Whether it is evidence to secure a conviction of a crime or to prove the existence of God.

God Himself provides us the most common evidence you can imagine. Look at your own body and begin to make an explanation of how it could come into existence without divine intervention.

My own conversion included the realization that the things which I considered “mundane”, were mind blowing in their complexity. I used to look at plants and claimed that they were the product of random accidents which after millennia, resulted in complex life forms. Then, one day, I looked at a leaf with new eyes and realized that it couldn’t happen by accident. No way.

Atheists and Believers look at the same evidence. One rejects it the other accepts it.

I agree. I have a theory we are all ‘borrowers.’ That is we do not have ‘original’ thoughts but rather agree with the thoughts of others. It is reputed the original thought is an extremely rare occurrence. A Swedish physicist claims the last original thought was 27 years ago.

askamathematician.com/2014/04/q-is-it-possible-to-have-a-completely-original-thought/

Scripture says:

Eccl 1:Nothing Is New
9 All things continue the way they have been since the beginning. The same things will be done that have always been done. There is nothing new in this life.

10 Someone might say, “Look, this is new,” but that thing has always been here. It was here before we were.

11 People don’t remember what happened long ago. In the future, they will not remember what is happening now. And later, other people will not remember what the people before them did.

That was written more than 2000 years ago.

I believe this is called stereotyping. We all are guilty of stereotyping to a greater or lesser extent and unfortunately some people fit the stereotypical image. Stereotyping becomes problematic is when it generates prejudice sufficient to legitimize discrimination.

You’re right. I can be problematic. But it also helps to summarize conclusion. Birds of a proverbial feather, still flock together.

 

[minkymurph]

Why? Truth is truth. Whether it is evidence to secure a conviction of a crime or to prove the existence of God.

I don’t know.

Based my personal observations and experiences it just appears to be the case that in contemporary society people will believe all sorts of things in the absence of credible evidence bar the existence of God - notwithstanding those who need no proof.

 

[De_Maria]

I don’t know.

Based my personal observations and experiences it just appears to be the case that in contemporary society people will believe all sorts of things in the absence of credible evidence bar the existence of God - notwithstanding those who need no proof.

But God has made proof readily available for everyone. All one has to do, is look around:

Romans 1:20New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)

20 Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;

 

[minkymurph]

But God has made proof readily available for everyone. All one has to do, is look around:

Romans 1:20New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)

20 Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;

I personally don’t why wonders of nature are not considered evidence of something greater than ourselves by some. To me it is, we are are exploring why others would not except this as evidence.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Lion IRC;14555742:

You are both overlooking the historical evidence for The Resurrection.

Christianity is supported by much more evidence than any

other religion.

Note also that the historical facts underpinning Christianity include evidence for God prior to the 1st Century AD. Its not like (the Christian) God was unheard of before Jesus.

I did not overlook the evidence for the Resurrection, as I am not arguing against it’s historicity or it’s validity

Sure, but you do agree that no other religion has such a historically well-attested event and as such Christian particularism can be defended much more successfully than pre-Christian biblical monotheism - right?

…I’m a proud Catholic

God bless you.

…In my post, I was simply stating that there is evidence used to argue for the existence of God that is not specific to Christianity (or any particular religion) and that a different form of evidence is needed to lead someone to believe in Christianity.

Yes, defending theism as against its opposite - atheism - is a much simpler case.
In order for theism to be true, only one single minscule tenet of any one tiny sect or denomination of any religion that has ever existed need be true.

But in order for atheism to be true EVERY single individual claim of EVERY religion going back for tens of thousands of years must ALL be comprehensively refuted. And it’s even worse if the atheist wants to insist that their position is incompatible with the existence of the afterlife and supernatural beings such as angels. Because in that case, atheism has to not only debunk the entire pantheon of divinity (God/gods) but also heaven and hell and any Higher Beings.

That not only seems an impossibly heavy burden of persuasion but also it is becoming increasingly unlikely given that science is gradually awakening to the likelihood that parallel planes of existence (possible worlds/multiverse) where there is every reason to believe there will be Higher Beings who can do ‘supernatural’ stuff like turning quantum water into quantum wine.

 

[Bradski]

Sure, but you do agree that no other religion has such a historically well-attested event and as such Christian particularism can be defended much more successfully than pre-Christian biblical monotheism - right?

God bless you.

Yes, defending theism as against its opposite - atheism - is a much simpler case.
In order for theism to be true, only one single minscule tenet of any one tiny sect or denomination of any religion that has ever existed need be true.

But in order for atheism to be true EVERY single individual claim of EVERY religion going back for tens of thousands of years must ALL be comprehensively refuted. And it’s even worse if the atheist wants to insist that their position is incompatible with the existence of the afterlife and supernatural beings such as angels. Because in that case, atheism has to not only debunk the entire pantheon of divinity (God/gods) but also heaven and hell and any Higher Beings.

That not only seems an impossibly heavy burden of persuasion but also it is becoming increasingly unlikely given that science is gradually awakening to the likelihood that parallel planes of existence (possible worlds/multiverse) where there is every reason to believe there will be Higher Beings who can do ‘supernatural’ stuff like turning quantum water into quantum wine.

Then we must also concede that magic exists. Else we need to discount every single act of magic ever performed. And we must concede that fairies exist. And orcs and gremlins and dragons and trolls and aliens and…well, you get the picture.

And for Christianity to be true, you must be able to discount every other single claim for any deity at any time by anyone, anywhere.

There should be a weekly award for things like best post and least coherent and most pithy. I’d say you’re in line for the most fatuous this week. No offence.

 

[Bradski]

I personally don’t why wonders of nature are not considered evidence of something greater than ourselves by some. To me it is, we are are exploring why others would not except this as evidence.

Let’s rephrase ‘wonders of nature’ and call them ‘natural wonders’. That means exactly the same. The bee’s eye, the structure of a leaf, the worm burrowing into a child’s eye. All things bright and beautiful, the Lord God made them all.

And because we’re a pretty smart bunch compared to the rest of the fauna, we’ve managed to work out how these things came into existence. It wasn’t, as some uneducated people thought, all brought into existence in a twinkling of God’s eye.

So if you believe in God, you now know how He did it. And He’s obviously a clever guy, hiding his handiwork so that it looks entirely natural. In fact, hiding His handiwork SO well that everything appears to have evolved entirely naturally with no supernatural (name removed by moderator)ut whatsoever.

I mean, you have to give it to the guy. Brilliant piece of work, don’t you think?

 

[minkymurph]

Let’s rephrase ‘wonders of nature’ and call them ‘natural wonders’. That means exactly the same. The bee’s eye, the structure of a leaf, the worm burrowing into a child’s eye. All things bright and beautiful, the Lord God made them all.

And because we’re a pretty smart bunch compared to the rest of the fauna, we’ve managed to work out how these things came into existence. It wasn’t, as some uneducated people thought, all brought into existence in a twinkling of God’s eye.

So if you believe in God, you now know how He did it. And He’s obviously a clever guy, hiding his handiwork so that it looks entirely natural. In fact, hiding His handiwork SO well that everything appears to have evolved entirely naturally with no supernatural (name removed by moderator)ut whatsoever.

I mean, you have to give it to the guy. Brilliant piece of work, don’t you think?

In your view does use of the phrase, ‘something greater than ourselves’ imply I believe God is male, made every single species of flora and fauna and in the twinkling of eye, and think I know exactly how He did it? If in fact you genuinely do think this is what I believe it’s some stretch of the imagination.

 

[De_Maria]

I would say now we are onto application of evidence - what your saying here is the philosophical approach.

So our first points of discussion could be:

Are the Gospels evidence and evidence there is a God or gods?

My answer is “Yes, they are evidence of the existence of God.”

I would say the Gospels can be categorized as documented evidence on the ground they are written accounts.

Agreed.

Playing Devil’s advocate I would say however they are not evidence there is a God - gods not relevant as not the subject of the Gospels. They are evidence people believed Jesus - among other things - existed, performed miracles, rose from the dead and was God Incarnate.

Agreed. At that point, the trustworthiness of the witnesses comes into play. Can we trust their testimony?

I say, “Yes.” Because they did not hide their testimony and the only ones who opposed and contradicted their testimony, were a group of people who, in their opposition, provided evidence that the individual known as Jesus Christ, existed and did things which could be characterized as supernatural.

Where someone believes they have experienced God - oral testimony - should be believe them? If so why? If not - why not?

Scripture gives a bit of guidance. It says that miracles should accompany those who claim to be sent by God. For example, we have Moses. He brought about many miracles which were witnessed by the community. The Prophets who came after him, brought about miracles and made prophetic predictions which came true.

In contrast, we have Mohammed. He brought about no miracles, and that is attested by his own followers.

Is a philosophical interpretation of evidence credible and valuable?

Yes. A “philosophical interpretation”, as I understand it, examines the evidence for a particular idea, breaks it down and looks at it from a particular point of view. Sometimes, taking into account opposing view points and explaining why they are false. See St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica. These are a valuable resource for those who are removed from the original evidence by time and space. Things are brought to light which they are not aware of because that evidence has disappeared.

Whether it is credible depends upon whether the individual making the philosophical interpretation is trustworthy. Whether it is valuable, depends upon whether the idea being examined is valuable.

In the case of theology, it is extremely valuable.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Then we must also concede that magic exists. Else we need to discount every single act of magic ever performed.

Yes. That’s correct Do atheists assert that magic (miracles) do not exist?

And we must concede that fairies exist. And orcs and gremlins and dragons and trolls and aliens and…well, you get the picture…

Yes, you’ve set the bar very high for yourself. You have to debunk everything which doesn’t comform to your empiricist, scientistic, atheistic myopia.
Do you think the folks at SETI and NASA will disprove the existence of alien life forms?

And for Christianity to be true, you must be able to discount every other single claim for any deity at any time by anyone, anywhere. .

Nope. You couldn’t be more wrong.
Other religious experiences don’t disprove Christianity.
A devil worshipper isnt a Christian and their belief in the devil doesn’t put a dent in my religion. A sincere polytheist who thinks there’s one god who made the sun and another god who made the moon is half right about both. And if someone says God’s name is Zeus I know Who they mean.

There should be a weekly award for things like best post and least coherent and most pithy. I’d say you’re in line for the most fatuous this week. No offence.

fatuous : adjective. silly and pointless.
synonyms: silly, foolish, stupid, inane, nonsensical, childish, puerile, infantile, idiotic, brainless, mindless, vacuous, imbecilic, asinine, witless, empty-headed, hare-brained.

 

[inocente]

Yes, defending theism as against its opposite - atheism - is a much simpler case.
In order for theism to be true, only one single minscule tenet of any one tiny sect or denomination of any religion that has ever existed need be true.

But in order for atheism to be true EVERY single individual claim of EVERY religion going back for tens of thousands of years must ALL be comprehensively refuted. And it’s even worse if the atheist wants to insist that their position is incompatible with the existence of the afterlife and supernatural beings such as angels. Because in that case, atheism has to not only debunk the entire pantheon of divinity (God/gods) but also heaven and hell and any Higher Beings.

This is the logical fallacy known an argument from ignorance - the claim that something must be true because it has not yet been proved false.

That not only seems an impossibly heavy burden of persuasion but also it is becoming increasingly unlikely given that science is gradually awakening to the likelihood that parallel planes of existence (possible worlds/multiverse) where there is every reason to believe there will be Higher Beings who can do ‘supernatural’ stuff like turning quantum water into quantum wine.

This is the logical fallacy known as wishful thinking - a desire for something to be true which is used in place of evidence.

btw it also looks like a claim that God is an alien from another dimension.

Do atheists assert that magic (miracles) do not exist?

“God is not a demiurge or a magician” - Pope Francis

 

[inocente]

I personally don’t why wonders of nature are not considered evidence of something greater than ourselves by some. To me it is, we are are exploring why others would not except this as evidence.

You may find that many believe in a god-of-the-gaps - they decide God didn’t make mud or rocks or anything else which is explained by natural forces, they think God only made the things not yet explained.

“how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know” - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

 

[Lion_IRC]

This is the logical fallacy known an argument from ignorance - the claim that something must be true because it has not yet been proved false.

I beg your pardon, where did I say theism IS true unless/until proven false?
You need to go back and study logical fallacies.
I said in order for ATHEISM to be true it must falsify theism.

This is the logical fallacy known as wishful thinking - a desire for something to be true which is used in place of evidence.

False.
Not one word of what I said was wishful of atheism OR theism.
Go back and read it again.

btw it also looks like a claim that God is an alien from another dimension.

WOW. You really need to read more slowly and carefully.
What I said was that aliens are aliens from ‘out there somewhere.’
Whether you think God is an alien Higher being from ‘out there somewhere’ is entirely your prerogative.

“God is not a demiurge or a magician” - Pope Francis

I assure you, Pope Francis was saying that to people who think God, miracles, religion, superstition, woo, good luck charms, feng shui, supernatural claims are all equally tantamount to magic.
I entirely agree with Francis. God doesn’t think turning water into wine is a miracle - we do!

 

[minkymurph]

You may find that many believe in a god-of-the-gaps - they decide God didn’t make mud or rocks or anything else which is explained by natural forces, they think God only made the things not yet explained.

“how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know” - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

I don’t think God made mud and rocks ‘physically with His hands’ for want of a better phrase. God is not human and thus does not have ‘hands.’ Explaining what is not human in human terms I believe is called anthropomorphism. We use anthropomorphism as human language often fails us when it comes to articulating certain ideas and beliefs. In limited human language devoid of anthropomorphism the best way I could explain God is cosmic energy. I believe God is the source and power of all that is natural and all life, and that all that is natural and all life thus has it’s own generative power.

We cannot deny there is evidence of cosmic energy. Should we call this energy God, personify and worship it? Obviously some would argue no.

 

[minkymurph]

My answer is “Yes, they are evidence of the existence of God.”

This is a very positive contribution De Maria and thank you for embracing the spirit of the thread.

Agreed. At that point, the trustworthiness of the witnesses comes into play. Can we trust their testimony?

I say, “Yes.” Because they did not hide their testimony and the only ones who opposed and contradicted their testimony, were a group of people who, in their opposition, provided evidence that the individual known as Jesus Christ, existed and did things which could be characterized as supernatural.

There is no doubt there was something unique about the person of Jesus Christ. My former English tutor who was an atheist said of all people who changed the Jesus Christ
changed it most.

Scripture gives a bit of guidance. It says that miracles should accompany those who claim to be sent by God. For example, we have Moses. He brought about many miracles which were witnessed by the community. The Prophets who came after him, brought about miracles and made prophetic predictions which came true.

This is believed in Christianity but Moses and the Prophets were not believe to be God. The Apostles believed Jesus was God on the ground they believed he rose from the dead. In terms of credibility and being objective we should then consider where they; mistaken, lying or telling the truth?

Yes. A “philosophical interpretation”, as I understand it, examines the evidence for a particular idea, breaks it down and looks at it from a particular point of view. Sometimes, taking into account opposing view points and explaining why they are false. See St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica. These are a valuable resource for those who are removed from the original evidence by time and space. Things are brought to light which they are not aware of because that evidence has disappeared.

I would concur the philosophical approach is invaluable when in interpreting the course of humanity. In fact I don’t see how you can do without the philosophical approach in such endeavours. We are analyzing biochemical pathways in the process of photosynthesis.

 

[minkymurph]

I assure you, Pope Francis was saying that to people who think God, miracles, religion, superstition, woo, good luck charms, feng shui, supernatural claims are all equally tantamount to magic.
I entirely agree with Francis. God doesn’t think turning water into wine is a miracle - we do!

The origins of superstitions, good luck charms, miracles and supernatural claims is something that fascinates me. When we trace the origins and develops of such things we often there is an element of truth in what appears the most bizarre. It’s not ‘magic’ as such - but perhaps that depends on one’s definition of ‘magic.’

As we are trying to be as objective as we can as we should be, many gods are mentioned in the Bible. Does the Bible in fact say the Israelites did not think they existed?

 

[De_Maria]

This is a very positive contribution De Maria and thank you for embracing the spirit of the thread.

You’re welcome.

There is no doubt there was something unique about the person of Jesus Christ. My former English tutor who was an atheist said of all people who changed the Jesus Christ
changed it most.

No doubt.

This is believed in Christianity but Moses and the Prophets were not believe to be God.

True. But they didn’t claim to be God, either. They claimed to be sent by God and proved their message by their miracles.

The Apostles believed Jesus was God on the ground they believed he rose from the dead.

They (except for St. Thomas, the doubter) believed He was God before He rose from the dead.

1. Remember that Jesus was accused, by the Jews, of claiming equality with God.
2. The Apostles heard the same message.
3. The difference between the Apostles and the Jews, was faith in Christ. The Apostles believed Him. The Jews did not.
4. Since the Jews did not believe Him, they had to act according to their belief. Old Testament Scripture says that one who introduces a new God to Israel, must be put to death.
5. Christ rose from the dead to convince those who did not, heretofore, believe Him.

In terms of credibility and being objective we should then consider where they; mistaken, lying or telling the truth?

I believe they were telling the truth because their testimony has been objectively examined from the beginning.
a. They made their testimony in front of many witnesses. People who knew them, also knew Christ. Not only did they know them, but they lived amongst and with them.
b. They also accompanied their testimony with their own miracles. The power of which they attributed to Christ working through them.

I would concur the philosophical approach is invaluable when in interpreting the course of humanity. In fact I don’t see how you can do without the philosophical approach in such endeavours.

Agreed.

We are analyzing biochemical pathways in the process of photosynthesis.

Precisely. And the philosophical interpretation of the cause of these pathways, does not lead towards the weak conclusion that these are the result of randomly occurring, unintelligent, chaotic accidents. Any person who begins to examine these pathways, will see that they are the result of a super intelligence which we are incapable of comprehending.

 

[inocente]

I beg your pardon, where did I say theism IS true unless/until proven false?
You need to go back and study logical fallacies.
I said in order for ATHEISM to be true it must falsify theism.

Whether you claim atheism must be false until it is proved true, or that theism must be true until proved false, it’s still an argument from ignorance. I may as well try to argue that in order for theism to be true it must first disprove deism. And pantheism. And etc.

Put it like this. If you’re right and it’s not a fallacy, then it would be such an obvious argument against atheism that every theistic philosopher and every Pope must have made it. So quote a few of them saying that argument. And if you can’t then trust me, it’s a fallacy.

False.
Not one word of what I said was wishful of atheism OR theism.
Go back and read it again.

No, your claim for “the likelihood that parallel planes of existence (possible worlds/multiverse) where there is every reason to believe there will be Higher Beings” is a tenuous justification which does not appeal to evidence, rationality, or reality. By definition that’s wishful thinking.

inocente;14558604:

btw it also looks like a claim that God is an alien from another dimension.

WOW. You really need to read more slowly and carefully.
What I said was that aliens are aliens from ‘out there somewhere.’
Whether you think God is an alien Higher being from ‘out there somewhere’ is entirely your prerogative.

Your claim was that “there is every reason to believe there will be Higher Beings who can do ‘supernatural’ stuff like turning quantum water into quantum wine”.

The only person famous for turning water into wine is Jesus. And you capitalized “Higher Beings”, a practice usually only ever done out of reverence. And you called them higher beings rather than just beings.

Now it doesn’t matter how slowly I read what you wrote, for those three reasons it sounds like you’re saying these aliens are divine.

I assure you, Pope Francis was saying that to people who think God, miracles, religion, superstition, woo, good luck charms, feng shui, supernatural claims are all equally tantamount to magic.

He was saying it to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The link begins with him saying “Your Eminences, Dear Brothers in the Episcopate and in the Priesthood”. You really think they are “people who think God, miracles, religion, superstition, woo, good luck charms…are all equally tantamount to magic”? :ehh:.

Well, have a nice weekend.