Is there Hard Evidence?

[po18guy]

The only hard evidence this world offers is a fist in your face.

For the rest, we must believe.

 

[Techno2000]

What kind of HARD evidence can you bring up for your basic beliefs? For example, what hard evidence is there for an “immortal soul”? Or any “soul” for that matter. Or for heaven or hell? Angels? Demons? Never in my life have I seen anything that I could have accepted as hard evidence. Thank you for your time and effort.

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

https://aws1.discourse-cdn.com/catholic/original/2X/1/11200881e09dcf0bcf214de3dbc84135b971eba0.jpg

https://qmbarque.com/2013/11/19/an-...hotograph-taken-during-eucharistic-adoration/

https://sjc6.discourse-cdn.com/cath...a2db117dd7ff641b5b9ad19a6335fce_1_690x431.jpg

Our Lady of Zeitoun, April 2nd, 1968

 

[Scowler]

Aah… but, if you’re talking about things that have material effects, your argument falls apart.

I don’t think so. Allegedly - God, angels and demons have “material” effects on the physical reality… don’t they? I was told that God is not just a “first cause”, but also the sustaining cause of this material existence (if God’s attention would waver for a second, this universe would flicker out of existence immediately). That the guardian angels protect us from certain events (they sure seem to be very inefficient). That demons can cause all sorts of diseases and mental disorders … or is this influence now rejected due to actual medical scientific advances?

The point is that the “non-physical” aspect of a claim does not automatically exclude it from being considered. But it does not imply unconditional acceptance either. As long as the postulated non-physical entities affect the physical reality, they are subject to the same scrutiny as any other agent. If they do not affect the physical reality (the result of the latest ball game between the angels and demons - by the way, the demons won it 23 to 9 ), no one would demand any kind of evidence for the veracity of the claim. It can be accepted or dismissed at one’s fancy.

You have physical evidence. That’s why you believe her. And, that physical evidence is what the OP is asking about.

Actually, I only have her word on it. We live in different cities (and states), and we only communicated via e-mail. All I have is her word, and I accept the veracity of what she says. It is not a problem to accept claims for which there is only the word of someone else. We do it all the time, but not unconditionally and uncritically.

And the OP did not stipulate physical evidence, even though many of your claims mention physical effects of those non-physical agents.

Not on the basis of lack of empirical evidence.

Really? So you have empirical evidence for the claims of other religions, and you still reject them? Strange. What other criterion do you use to reject the “supernatural” claims of other religions?

So you’re saying that seeing you in person is hard evidence of your life.

It is hard evidence that I exist and that I am alive. I don’t know of some “soul”. Never seen a coherent definition of a “soul”, much less of a method to ascertain its existence.

But all evidence can be dismissed at will.

At the expense of one’s sanity. Insane people can dismiss anything - well, not really - no one can “dismiss” the bang of a baseball bat on one’s head. St. Paul did not (could not) dismiss the experience on the road to Damascus. I am not willing to dismiss evidence just because I don’t like the implications.

 

[Vico]

What kind of HARD evidence can you bring up for your basic beliefs? For example, what hard evidence is there for an “immortal soul”? Or any “soul” for that matter. Or for heaven or hell? Angels? Demons? Never in my life have I seen anything that I could have accepted as hard evidence. Thank you for your time and effort.

Much testimony exists of those that say Jesus Christ resurrected. As for science, it only offers natural explanations of natural events, but has no power or need to assert that only natural events happen. The moral transformation of people are also testimony.

 

[Gorgias]

Allegedly - God, angels and demons have “material” effects on the physical reality… don’t they?

Good point!

However, it’s altogether trivially simple to dismiss “material effects” as belonging to a different cause than the one that’s asserted. If you point to a hoofprint in the dirt and say “see! Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer!”, it’s just as reasonable to respond, “nah. whitetailed deer” or “nah. person with deer-hoof-shaped spade.” In other words, “material effect” can never be the kind of “iron clad empirical evidence” you want to claim it can be.

The point is that the “non-physical” aspect of a claim does not automatically exclude it from being considered.

You’ll need to demonstrate that this is true. So far… you haven’t.

But it does not imply unconditional acceptance either.

So… if, by definition, “material effect” doesn’t imply “unconditional acceptance”, then it can neither be accepted as ‘proof’, nor its absence be accepted as ‘disproof’. Nevertheless… nice try.

As long as the postulated non-physical entities affect the physical reality, they are subject to the same scrutiny as any other agent.

No. You’ve just provided the argument that this doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. If anyone can simply say “nope; doesn’t prove it to me”, then it’s not ‘proof’, nor can you claim that its presence or absence proves anything.

If they do not affect the physical reality (the result of the latest ball game between the angels and demons - by the way, the demons won it 23 to 9 )

Wow. Claim others’ statements as your own, much?

You have physical evidence. That’s why you believe her. And, that physical evidence is what the OP is asking about.

Actually, I only have her word on it.

Psst… you realize that this is ‘empirical evidence’, right?

And the OP did not stipulate physical evidence, even though many of your claims mention physical effects of those non-physical agents.

Cool. What, then, would you suggest that the OP means by “hard evidence”, if not “empirical evidence”?

Not on the basis of lack of empirical evidence.

Really? So you have empirical evidence for the claims of other religions, and you still reject them?

Nice try. Weak, but still nice.

The basis of the rejection isn’t ‘lack of empirical evidence’. There are other bases. But hey… misrepresenting my response is one approach, too…

What other criterion do you use to reject the “supernatural” claims of other religions?

Their non-conformance to the supernatural claims of mine, which I hold to be based on God’s revelation, for a start.

 

[adamhovey1988]

The universe exists. I don’t know why people don’t see that as hard evidence.

 

[AlNg]

You have a life? What hard evidence can you produce to prove that you have a life?

The fact that my body has cells, undergoes metabolic processes, and the fact that I am breathing, I drink water, I am typing English sentences on a computer and I have self awareness and the ability to reproduce are hard evidence that I am living and have a life.

 

[steve-b]

What kind of HARD evidence can you bring up for your basic beliefs? For example, what hard evidence is there for an “immortal soul”? Or any “soul” for that matter. Or for heaven or hell? Angels? Demons? Never in my life have I seen anything that I could have accepted as hard evidence. Thank you for your time and effort.

The example I would use is this.

Jesus performed incredible miracles for people to see. He changed water into wine at the wedding feast of Cana, He raised His friend Lazarus from the dead, He cured 10 lepers of Leprosy, He calmed storms with a word, and with Peter James and John, He was transfigured on top of Mt Tabor. At that event, the apostles talked with Moses and Elija and heard God the Father say about Jesus this is my beloved son, listen to Him.

Yet when Jesus was giving the bread of life discourse to His disciples, they left Him saying it was too hard to listen to. And they left never to follow Him again.

Even God in the flesh, teaching His disciples face to face couldn’t convince them, even with miracles they saw in their walk with Him. Why did they leave? As Jesus said they had no faith.

evidence on steroids didn’t convince them

Using a quote from Aquinas, to one who has faith no explanation is necessary, but to one who has no faith no explanation is sufficient.

That pretty much sums it up.

 

[Rhubarb]

I don’t want to walk into a religious debate, as I don’t have a horse in that race. But I’m pretty sure the Fatima children had proof enough for them. I wager the crowds that night did too.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

You have a life? What hard evidence can you produce to prove that you have a life?

The fact that my body has cells, undergoes metabolic processes, and the fact that I am breathing, I drink water, I am typing English sentences on a computer and I have self awareness and the ability to reproduce are hard evidence that I am living and have a life.

So, you’re saying that you can’t see “life”, but you see its effects. And the effects of life are hard evidence of life. In the same way, the effects of having a soul are hard evidence of having a soul. The fact that your body has living cells, undergoes metabolic processies and that you are breathing and can drink water and type English sentences on your computer and have self awareness, these are all hard evidence that you have a soul.

A body with a soul is alive. A body without a soul, is dead.

 

[Scowler]

However, it’s altogether trivially simple to dismiss “material effects” as belonging to a different cause than the one that’s asserted. If you point to a hoofprint in the dirt and say “see! Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer!”, it’s just as reasonable to respond, “nah. whitetailed deer” or “nah. person with deer-hoof-shaped spade.” In other words, “material effect” can never be the kind of “iron clad empirical evidence” you want to claim it can be.

And yet, many apologists assert that the alleged miracles of Jesus are the necessary hard evidence. The problem is that miracles do not happen where we can experience them first hand. It would be a very strong hard evidence, if millions of Catholic believers would join hands in a prayer for some non-trivial and next-to-impossible matter, which would be then fulfilled. It is good to be a skeptic, but not a good idea to “overdo” it, and deny the evidence of your own eyes. The cessation of the California-like wildfires would be a good start; maybe along with the hurricanes avoiding the shores of threatened coastlines. Such events would qualify as “iron clad empirical evidence”. Just announce beforehand, so we cannot claim coincidence.

You’ll need to demonstrate that this is true. So far… you haven’t.

Huh? I just said that one should not exclude automatically the non-physical aspects of a claim… What is there to “demonstrate”? Maybe you did not read what I said… it was a concession to your side.

So… if, by definition, “material effect” doesn’t imply “unconditional acceptance”, then it can neither be accepted as ‘proof’, nor its absence be accepted as ‘disproof’. Nevertheless… nice try.

Actually, the word “proof” is inapplicable in this context. (It is only applicable in an axiomatic system). Furthermore, a claim can be disproven. Remember that the DNA testing cannot “prove” that a specific male has sired a specific child, but it can disprove the parenthood beyond any doubt whatsoever.

Psst… you realize that this is ‘empirical evidence’, right?

No, it is hearsay evidence. And sometimes a hearsay evidence is sufficient to accept a claim, other times it is not.

The basis of the rejection isn’t ‘lack of empirical evidence’. There are other bases.

Indeed. Like you say in the next sentence:

Their non-conformance to the supernatural claims of mine, which I hold to be based on God’s revelation, for a start.

So if a claim supports your a-priori beliefs, then you consider it well established. But what if the claim contradicts your prior belief? Do you accept the principle: “for those who believe, no evidence is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no evidence is sufficient”?

 

[Scowler]

Using a quote from Aquinas, to one who has faith no explanation is necessary, but to one who has no faith no explanation is sufficient.

I don’t know about you, but for me this is the most insulting idea. It assumes that people without “faith” are so hard headed, that not even a good smack on the head can convince them about the existence of the baseball bat. And for those miracles you brought up, they are simply stories from the distant past.

There is a principle which is summarized by: “Hic Rhodus, hic salta!” According to the story there was a young fellow who boasted about his ability to jump really, really far, and he said that he did jump a long distance on the island of Rhodus some time ago. The answer to his claim was “Rhodus is here, jump here”. Don’t refer to something that is mere hearsay, show the veracity of your claim, HERE and NOW.

 

[MPat]

At the expense of one’s sanity.

Perhaps. But your definition of “hard evidence” does not deal with such possibility yet (don’t forget - you are free to amend it if you want), thus “hard evidence” that you demand still can’t exist. And such “backup exit” kinda removes the motivation to actually give such “hard evidence”. We don’t want you to go insane.

Insane people can dismiss anything - well, not really - no one can “dismiss” the bang of a baseball bat on one’s head.

Yes, technically it might be possible to “persuade” someone using torture. But I wouldn’t recommend asking for it, even if it is neither what we can do nor what we want to do…

I am not willing to dismiss evidence just because I don’t like the implications.

And if you would be willing to dismiss evidence just because you don’t like the implications, do you think you would admit it to us (or to yourself)?

Thus isn’t this claim one of those convenient (to you) beliefs that seem to pass through without evidence?

 

[De_Maria]

The universe exists. I don’t know why people don’t see that as hard evidence.

It takes grace.

More hard evidence. Atoms. Atheists don’t seem to understand that it takes a certain kind of faith to believe in atoms, neutrons, electrons, and protons that supposedly make up the objects that we look at. Can you see them? Can you feel them? I can’t. But I believe they are there because science says they are there.

And how about numbers? Can anyone see ones, twos and threes floating around? Can anyone see number tables and charts? How about geometry curves? Yet all these scientists and engineers use them as the undergirding for their ideas and inventions. Without them, we couldn’t make any progress.

And guess what? They’re part of God’s invisible world. You know, the one that the Creed mentions, “I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.”

Yeah, there’s lots of hard evidence, but without the grace of God, they can’t see it.

 

[De_Maria]

It is hard evidence that I exist and that I am alive. I don’t know of some “soul”. Never seen a coherent definition of a “soul”, much less of a method to ascertain its existence.

The soul is the life of your body. A body without a soul, is a body that is not alive.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

This is one of these “baiting” questions. Hard evidence? Like a mathematical proof? Of course not. That would eliminate free will. As Kierkegaard said, you have to take a leap of faith. As others have pointed out, you can see “evidence” in the natural world, but of course all of that could be explained away. So either believe or don’t.

 

[MPat]

Hard evidence? Like a mathematical proof? Of course not. That would eliminate free will.

That underestimates human ability to evade the arguments.

Even very simple and rigorous mathematical proofs can be easily rejected by humans - otherwise everyone would believe 0.99… = 1.

“Hard evidence” that is being demanded seems to be not like mathematical proofs, but something like torture - something most people can’t resist. And yes, torture and free will don’t mix that well…

As others have pointed out, you can see “evidence” in the natural world, but of course all of that could be explained away.

Perhaps “explain away” implies a little too much interest in truth…

Usually we get something like this:

exnihilo:

Aristotle argued for the immortal soul.

I am afraid that the ideas of someone who believed that the brain is just the organ to cool the blood does not carry a whole lot of water.

It does not rise to the level of “explaining away”. It is merely an excuse to dismiss evidence without looking at it.

Please note the complete lack of interest in the actual argument.

Even “Really? So, tell me what nonsense did he believe to prove that, so that I could laugh at it!” would have been an improvement.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Using a quote from Aquinas, to one who has faith no explanation is necessary, but to one who has no faith no explanation is sufficient.

I don’t know about you, but for me this is the most insulting idea. It assumes that people without “faith” are so hard headed, that not even a good smack on the head can convince them about the existence of the baseball bat. And for those miracles you brought up, they are simply stories from the distant past.

There is a principle which is summarized by: “Hic Rhodus, hic salta!” According to the story there was a young fellow who boasted about his ability to jump really, really far, and he said that he did jump a long distance on the island of Rhodus some time ago. The answer to his claim was “Rhodus is here, jump here”. Don’t refer to something that is mere hearsay, show the veracity of your claim, HERE and NOW.

What we believe is not hearsay

Faith defined in scripture is

Hebrews 11:1 faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Where does this faith come from? (I’m obviously using “this faith” in a supernatural context)

Faith is a gift from God. If one by chance doesn’t have it, they should ask God for it.

 

[Scowler]

Perhaps.

No perhaps. A physical evidence cannot ne denied. Of course it can be misunderstood. But insofar I have not seen any hard evidence presented for either the “immortal soul”, or the existence of “angels” or “demons”. And according to your beliefs, some messenger (angel) visited Mary and announced that she will be the mother of Jesus. So physical appearance is not unheard of. Not to mention the exorcism of “demons”, where some physical measures (prayer) are sufficient to chase those evil, demonic beings away.

Contrary to some assertions, it is supposed to be possible to have a two-way communication between our reality and the alleged “spiritual” world. Therefore the topic of the thread is not outlandish.

By the way, presenting actual, hard evidence is NOT limited to a hit on the head - even though a hit on the head does qualify as “hard” evidence . You don’t need to worry about my sanity. Bring up your evidence (if you have some) and I will be happy to accept it, if it turns out to be valid. Many a times I had some erroneous ideas, and every time when I was corrected, I accepted my error.

This is one of these “baiting” questions. Hard evidence? Like a mathematical proof? Of course not.

Yet, the so-called “proofs” of Aquinas are supposed to be “watertight” (they are not ). Of course, even if they would be error-free they would not point to the Christian God, only to some faceless “first cause” type of deistic entity. But I agree, there is no real evidence for the beliefs.

That would eliminate free will. As Kierkegaard said, you have to take a leap of faith. As others have pointed out, you can see “evidence” in the natural world, but of course all of that could be explained away. So either believe or don’t.

Why would an actual manifestation of an “angel” or a “demon” take away our free will? And what evidence in the natural world would point to their existence?

The soul is the life of your body. A body without a soul, is a body that is not alive.

This kind of approach has been discarded by biology a long time ago. Is there a device that you point to some object, which will show either “immortal soul”, “animating principle” or “no soul at all”? I am not aware of such a device.

Even very simple and rigorous mathematical proofs can be easily rejected by humans - otherwise everyone would believe 0.99… = 1.

The lack of understanding exhibited by some people is not how we measure the validity of proofs.

Please note the complete lack of interest in the actual argument.

And yet, I started the whole thread in which I asked for evidence for some of your claims. That hardly qualifies as “lack of interest”. Truth be told, there were quite a few posters who admitted the lack of such evidence. (Though the insinuation to the “loss of free will” is less than noteworthy as an argument.)

 

[Scowler]

What we believe is not hearsay

All the texts in the Bible are based on hearsay. All the miracles performed by Jesus are hearsay. Of course I have no problem with accepting that hearsay is sufficient for some people. There are many things that I accept and they are only based upon hearsay evidence. But there is one important difference. If a decision I make is a life-and-death kind of decision, then I demand a much higher level of evidence than the words of some people (no matter how nice and kind those people might be).

Where does this faith come from? (I’m obviously using “this faith” in a supernatural context)

Faith is a gift from God. If one by chance doesn’t have it, they should ask God for it.

When I was young, I did have it. Then I grew up, and lost it. I even used the famous prayer of atheists: “Please God, help my disbelief”. Nothing happened - so far. I even added: “If it be thy will”. Looks like it is not God’s will. And if it is not God’s will, it won’t happen. Oh well.