On the Necessity of Proving Things

[AlbertBall]

Quite right! The double standard is shown in the two following scenarios:

A: Miracle X is incredibly unlikely.
B: How do you know; have you observed this?
A: No. But it has a 0.000000001% chance of being true.
B: But how do you know this?
A: Because I’ve never observed miracle X.

(1) All claims need evidence to support.
(2) I do not have evidence for my belief that miracle X did not occur.
(3) Therefore, I do not have support for my belief that miracle X did not occur.

(1) is inconsistent with assigning probabilities for events you do NOT observe above.

Dear me, got back and reread my post.

If claim 1 has 99.99999999999999999999999% chance of being correct and claim 2 has 0.000000000000000000000000001% change of being correct. Just because there is a 0.00000000000000000000000001% change of claim 1 being wrong, does not mean claim two is as valid as claim one! And does not show double standard when someone rejects claim 2 and accepts claim one!

Where did i mention miracles, where did i assign a probability to a specific claim, I DIDN’T! Hence why i used claim 1 and claim 2! Hence why i made up a scenario about “bill”. Can you PLEASE try and address the point instead making up what you want me to have said and arguing against that, there is a name of that its called A STRAW-MAN.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No, in other words claims stand on there own merits. The fact that there is infinitely small chance that the moon landings did not occur, does not add weight to the unsupported claims of the bible.

Claim A - Supported by empirical evidence
Claim B - NOT SUPPORTED by empirical evidence.

Can you really not see the difference?

i know what your argument is, but your still using the logically contradictory verification/falsification system. on top of that the bare idea of empiricism is a logical contradiction itself.

Verification- and falsification-principles
The statements “statements are meaningless unless they can be empirically verified” and “statements are meaningless unless they can be empirically falsified” are both claimed to be self-refuting on the basis that they can neither be empirically verified nor falsified[31]

and there is alot of archeological evidence. but like everything else it can and is disputed. just like the moonlanding is by some groups.

NO THEY ARE NOT, honestly go research the methods because this is bordering on the absurd and an utter waste of my time.

i know the methods, i have a decent science education. i also know that the second someone who didnt witness the experiment themselves is told about the outcome, he must trust the testimony of the experimenter. it is ridiculous to say other wise.

Oh semantics, given that you have no understanding of the scientific method (shown by the fact you think science = testimony) i clearly do not need a lecture on science from you.

we have never said that science equals testimony, we are saying that even science is something trusted on the basis of the experimenters testimony, just like any other event that you did not witness yourself. this is simply undeniable.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Dear me, got back and reread my post.

If claim 1 has 99.99999999999999999999999% chance of being correct and claim 2 has 0.000000000000000000000000001% change of being correct. Just because there is a 0.00000000000000000000000001% change of claim 1 being wrong, does not mean claim two is as valid as claim one! And does not show double standard when someone rejects claim 2 and accepts claim one!

Where did i mention miracles, where did i assign a probability to a specific claim, I DIDN’T! Hence why i used claim 1 and claim 2! Hence why i made up a scenario about “bill”. Can you PLEASE try and address the point instead making up what you want me to have said and arguing against that, there is a name of that its called A STRAW-MAN.

um…yes you did. by implication if nothing else.

demonstrated by the fact that you used the numbers, surely we arent meant to think they applied to something we arent discussing? that would be very odd. so its obvious that you are talking about the events in the Bible

and if you really arent and we are just misunderstanding it, then when you do try to apply the argument he refuted to Biblical events. it will still be refuted

so what the point of denying it?

i think you know that we have cut the heart out of atheistic skepticism. when you can bring yourself to admit it, you might do as i did at the end of this road, when i was an atheist.

if you cant beat us, then maybe you should join us.

 

[AlbertBall]

we have never said that science equals testimony, we are saying that even science is something trusted on the basis of the experimenters testimony, just like any other event that you did not witness yourself. this is simply undeniable.

No its not. For not every experiment is published. The ones that are have undergone peer review and the process of peer review involves repeating and VERIFYING the experiment and the results. So testimony is utterly irrelevant.

 

[AlbertBall]

um…yes you did. by implication if nothing else.

demonstrated by the fact that you used the numbers, surely we arent meant to think they applied to something we arent discussing? that would be very odd. so its obvious that you are talking about the events in the Bible

and if you really arent and we are just misunderstanding it, then when you do try to apply the argument he refuted to Biblical events. it will still be refuted

so what the point of denying it?

i think you know that we have cut the heart out of atheistic skepticism. when you can bring yourself to admit it, you might do as i did at the end of this road, when i was an atheist.

if you cant beat us, then maybe you should join us.

LMAO, i was showing you that aquating the evidence for the moon landings with the evidence for god is utterly absrud. If you can’t see that is what i was getting at then i don’t know what to say. Would you like me start explaining my posts as if a were talking to a child?

If you think that mountains of empirical evidence has the same validity as the hearsay evidence of a bunch of bronze age desert nomads, then best of luck to you. Given that i am not surprised you believe in the outlandish claims of religion. However i don’t think the two evidences are anywhere near the same, but then i care that what i believe is true.

 

[Syntax]

Here is an instance of Atheist blindness and refusal to engage with arguments. I post this here because it is directly relevant to the problems in THIS thread about the appropriate demands for justification and evidence, and atheist thinks he knows what should COUNT as evidence. So I am just repeating his reasons for lack of belief in God, and asking what further evidence he has for believing that these *very reasons *are sufficient justification for lacking a belief in God. If he doesn’t have an answer, then by **his very own standards **he is not justified in lacking a belief in God!

AlbertBall:

Syntax;6341748:

AlbertBall;6341110:

Syntax;6340666:

AlbertBall;6333553:

Only to the uneducated my friend, when i look around i understand what i am looking at. I also see NOTHING that suggest the existence of a god.

Exactly what do you look at and see proof for god???

Really? So you’re so “educated” that when you look around, you understand in one flash of empirical genius the real nature of things you’re looking at? And you even possess proof you accuse the theist of lacking? Wow! What’s your name, Mr. Genius? What is it you look at and see god? Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. All over these threads you continue to employ the **argument from ignorance **as your default position for arguing against a claim made by someone else. But this relies on the false (and self-underming assumption) that

“If I can’t see it, it doesn’t exist.”

The absence of evidence for the claim that “Pink elephants exist in this room” is good reason to think this statement is false. Why? Because IF there were pink elephants in the room, then I surely *would *see them.

On the other hand, the absence of evidence for the claim that “There is Gold on Uranus” is not good reason to think this statement is false. Why? Because *even if *there were Gold on Uranus, I still not would not see it. But this doesn’t entail that the belief that “Gold on Uranus” is totally irrational, especially if there are other reasons (other than evidence) for thinking it might very well be true that scientists may offer.

There are plenty of ways to have a **justified belief **other than empirical evidence, namely:

(1) 1st-person experience
(2) Deductive/Inductive logic
(3) Argument by principle of sufficient reason.
(4) Inference to the best explanation.

So your thinking that

“IF God exists, then we would have more evidence for his absence”

is just totally presumptuous from the start, and you don’t have ANY reason for thinking this is true. How do *you *know what God’s intentions are? Wrong, wrong, wrong. Please find ONE post, just ONE, where i have claimed there “IS NO GOD”. I don’t claim ever that there is no god, i don’t accept you claim god exists because YOU CAN NOT demonstrate it. However rejecting a claim IS NOT the same as claiming the opposite of the said claim.

Syntax:

AlbertBall;6342032:

-]Wrong, wrong, wrong. Please find ONE post, just ONE, where i have claimed there “IS NO GOD”./-] *** ***

I don’t claim ever that there is no god**,* ***.

You moron. I never accused you of believing that there is no God. Show me one post where I said this?? Do you intentionally straw-man everyone all the time, or is it because you never learned how to read?

AlbertBall:

i don’t accept you claim god exists because YOU CAN NOT demonstrate it. However rejecting a claim IS NOT the same as claiming the opposite of the said claim.

Precisely! You you lack a belief in God because there is no empirical evidence for his existence.

I said you believe the following conditional about evidence and justification:

** (1) IF there were a God, then we would have more evidence that He exists."**

You are FORCED to believe this statement (1) is true, otherwise you wouldn’t be asking for evidence for God’s existence.

But if you don’t believe this statement (1) is true, then stop asking for evidence for God’s existence because that implies you already have it!

Assuming you DO think (1) true if you’re going to consistent with your own demands for evidence, the question is this, what is your evidence for believing the following:

** (1) IF there were a God, then we would have more evidence that He exists."**

Where’s the evidence, Mr. Smarty pants, for believing that this statement is true?! If you have NONE, then you are **unjustified in believing **it is true, and hence also unjustified in lacking a belief in God. That is, you ought to believe that God exists instead!

 

[Syntax]

AlbertBall:

My position is, since we have zero evidence to suggest there IS A GOD, the intellectually honest thing to do is to withhold belief pending evidence.

But what evidence do you have for believing that we ought to withold belief without empirical evidence for the existence of God?

AlbertBall:

As you said “Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.”. However it makes no sense to believe in that for which there is ZERO evidence.

Why?? You are just **assuming **that lacking evidence justifies your witholding a belief in God.

So you need evidence for the following conditional:

(2) If there is no empirical evidence that God exists, then we ought to withold belief in God.

You need evidential justification for believing that having a belief in God is** irrational **and lacking a belief in God is rational. So far, you have provided none. Therefore, your own standards of what counts as appropriate justification are unjustified. Therefore, without telling everyone else what the evidence is that shows us that witholding a belief in the existence of God is the rational to do, then you, yourself, cannot be justified in witholding a belief in God.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No its not. For not every experiment is published. The ones that are have undergone peer review and the process of peer review involves repeating and VERIFYING the experiment and the results. So testimony is utterly irrelevant.

ok then.

say that you verify experiment X a billion times without me present .

now you publish it, or tell it to me or communicate it in any way to me.

how do i know it is true?

i wasnt there.

i didnt do the experiments.

therefore,

i have to trust your testimony.

there is no way around it, if i didnt participate, i just have to trust you. it doesnt matter if it is verified a billion times, if i didnt do the verifications myself its still a matter of trusting you.

this is the exact same situation for any event that you didnt witness.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

LMAO, i was showing you that aquating the evidence for the moon landings with the evidence for god is utterly absrud. If you can’t see that is what i was getting at then i don’t know what to say. Would you like me start explaining my posts as if a were talking to a child?

maybe you need to, because we arent talking about the evidence for G-d, we are talking about the evidence for Biblical events.

it isnt absurd at all, you keep repeating your opinion, but i keep posting the evidence that your arguments so far, amount to logical contradictions and fallacies. and are therefore false.

If you think that mountains of empirical evidence has the same validity as the hearsay evidence

what mountains of empirical evidence? evidence for what? because i dont know of any evidence disproving the veracity of events in the Bible. you have no evidence, you just keep repeating the logical contradictions and fallacies you refuse to addfress directly.

please. feel free to post this evidence.

of a bunch of bronze age desert nomads, then best of luck to you.

you trust bronze age folks everytime you use geometry, casting aspersions because of their place in time, or their metalurgical staus, or their nomadic lifestyle doesnt mean jack

Given that i am not surprised you believe in the outlandish claims of religion.

However i don’t think the two evidences are anywhere near the same, but then i care that what i believe is true.

for past events there is no difference all evidence is hearsay. if i show you the moonlander, how do you know its not a prop? you dont, you just have to trust my testimony about the evidence.

they are exactly the same for any past event you didnt witness.

 

[Syntax]

Dear me, got back and reread my post.

If claim 1 has 99.99999999999999999999999% chance of being correct and claim 2 has 0.000000000000000000000000001% change of being correct. Just because there is a 0.00000000000000000000000001% change of claim 1 being wrong, does not mean claim two is as valid as claim one! And does not show double standard when someone rejects claim 2 and accepts claim one!

The critique is that you are assigning probabilities for events for which you have no knowledge of. Did you just miss the point of that post? Again, you seem to have difficulties reading.

Where did i mention miracles, where did i assign a probability to a specific claim, I DIDN’T! Hence why i used claim 1 and claim 2! Hence why i made up a scenario about “bill”. Can you PLEASE try and address the point instead making up what you want me to have said and arguing against that, there is a name of that its called A STRAW-MAN.

Then what DO you believe? That miracles are likely? Since you are so good at assigning probabilities to events you know nothing about, what is the probability of Jesus Rising from the Dead?
And what’s the probability that all the eye-witness accounts were forgeries, lies, or results of a mass delusion?

I am not committing a strawman. I am just one step ahead of you in trying to pull out the assumptions in your arguments. This is a very legitimate enterprise to perform when we are discussing these kinds of topics. So stop straw-manning what you think is a strawman!! My accusations against you are **LOGICALLY IMPLIED ** by what YOU are saying in the context of this discussion. So let me ask you this: how would you go about evaluating the following claims, and on what grounds?:

(1) Eye witnesss testimony of people in the Bible does not provide sufficient evidence for belief that Christ Rose from the Dead.
(2) Eye witness testimony of people in the Bible that there was at least a man named Jesus who preached in Galilea IS sufficient evidence that such a man existed.

Do you agree with both (2) and (1)? Accept (2) but deny (1). Or do you deny both are plausible beliefs to hold? Is it reasonable to believe on your account that you would reject (1) but believe (2) because you think Jesus Rising from the Dead is highly unlikely? Is it not because you think miracles are highly unlikely?

It is a very fair deduction, Mr. Smarty pants. It’s not a strawman. You use that term quite liberally where it doesn’t apply. Have you heard of self-inconsistency? Either I am straw-manning you, or you have a wealth of inconsistent beliefs.

 

[Image_of_God]

Err, no. hinckleytimes.net/news-in-hinckley/local-news/hinckley-news/2010/02/26/true-location-of-the-battle-of-bosworth-is-revealed-105367-25919874/
If the document proves what I’ve been saying. The document (empirically) proves nothing. Let’s look:

But last week experts revealed the place where King Richard III is ***thought ***

 

[AlbertBall]

The critique is that you are assigning probabilities for events for which you have no knowledge of. Did you just miss the point of that post? Again, you seem to have difficulties reading.

No but it seems you have, exactly what event did i assign probalities to? Go read my post.

Then what DO you believe? That miracles are likely? Since you are so good at assigning probabilities to events you know nothing about, what is the probability of Jesus Rising from the Dead?
And what’s the probability that all the eye-witness accounts were forgeries, lies, or results of a mass delusion?

I am not committing a strawman. I am just one step ahead of you in trying to pull out the assumptions in your arguments. This is a very legitimate enterprise to perform when we are discussing these kinds of topics. So stop straw-manning what you think is a strawman!! My accusations against you are **LOGICALLY IMPLIED ** by what YOU are saying in the context of this discussion. So let me ask you this: how would you go about evaluating the following claims, and on what grounds?:

(1) Eye witnesss testimony of people in the Bible does not provide sufficient evidence for belief that Christ Rose from the Dead.
(2) Eye witness testimony of people in the Bible that there was at least a man named Jesus who preached in Galilea IS sufficient evidence that such a man existed.

Do you agree with both (2) and (1)? Accept (2) but deny (1). Or do you deny both are plausible beliefs to hold? Is it reasonable to believe on your account that you would reject (1) but believe (2) because you think Jesus Rising from the Dead is highly unlikely? Is it not because you think miracles are highly unlikely?

It is a very fair deduction, Mr. Smarty pants. It’s not a strawman. You use that term quite liberally where it doesn’t apply. Have you heard of self-inconsistency? Either I am straw-manning you, or you have a wealth of inconsistent beliefs.

There is nothing to evaluate. Firstly they were not eye witness accounts, but hearsay, However that is utterly irrelevant. This point is simple, testimony is not sufficient evidence to verify the god claim.

 

[AlbertBall]

There is absolute certainty here whatsoever. The archeologists have basically assumed that this must be the place where the Battle of Bosworth happened based on the faith they’ve placed in documents which are nothing more than testimonies from contemporaries. I *believe * that they are *probably * right. But there just isn’t any absolute certainty.

Of course not, for many claims absolute certainty is an absurd notion.

If however, we were to accept your view on this matter, let me ask you: What about all the biblical archeology? Why can’t I believe the Bible because of it?

Like?

I did not misunderstand the scientific method. I understand it. You, however, have misunderstood my point. Even if I read the scientific paper, based on empiricism, what they have written could not be accepted as true because I have not experienced the experiment with my senses. I am just trusting the testimony of the scientists who wrote it. I have no absolute certainty that it’s true.

Wrong, testimony has nothing to do with it. Go read up some basic science. Oh and again who is claiming absolute certainty?

You want me to believe you. But why shouldn’t I believe the writers of the Bible in the same way?

Because unlike science you can’t verify their claims.

Your believe in science and history, for the most part, has little to do with evidence. You have placed complete faith in those scientists and historians which you believe to be telling the truth.

Wrong again, i understand the methods, faith and testimony have nothing to do with it. You really should go read up some basic science it would clear up your misunderstanding.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

There is nothing to evaluate. Firstly they were not eye witness accounts, but hearsay, However that is utterly irrelevant. This point is simple, testimony is not sufficient evidence to verify the god claim.

almost all of the New Testament are eyewitness accounts. that aside

that said

once again you present the straw man of the “G-d claim” when what we are talking about is the Biblical Claims, specifically Messianic Prophecies fulfillment.

further, testimony is the way all events that you didnt witness are verified.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Wrong, testimony has nothing to do with it. Go read up some basic science. Oh and again who is claiming absolute certainty?

wrong, we arent talking about testimony being the scientific method, we are talking about testimony being the way you know an event of any kind that you were not present for is true.

if you didnt do the experiments yourself, you have to trust the testimony of others. no matter how many times they verified it.

Because unlike science you can’t verify their claims.

you cant verify the moonlanding, the American revolution, the french revolution, woodstock, or WWII, but you accept all of those. its a basic double standard. your willing to accept evidence for those things but not for Biblical events. thats not a rational way to approach an issue, its just meant to protect your cherished belief.

and as usual

verification/falsification schemes are self refuting. as we have demonstrated and proven time and again. do you think the general audience wont notice your dodging it?

Wrong again, i understand the methods, faith and testimony have nothing to do with it. You really should go read up some basic science it would clear up your misunderstanding.

all of us have at least one degree here. what exactly is yours in that you have some great command of the scientific method that isnt taught to every highschool kid in the country?

considering that you dont have a firm grasp on the philosophy of science, im not sure that you have a right to run around telling people they “dont understand science” it seems that you dont really understand science.

 

[Image_of_God]

Of course not, for many claims absolute certainty is an absurd notion.

Then empiricism is also an absurd notion. To the empiricist, what distinguish material objects from spiritual objects is the absolute certainty that the former exist and the uncertainty, either partial or total, that the latter do. If we cannot prove with absolute certainty that atoms exist or that the Pythagorean Theorem is true, then many scientific theories are in great danger (following empiricism).

Like?

The Resurrection for example.

Wrong, testimony has nothing to do with it. Go read up some basic science. Oh and again who is claiming absolute certainty?

When you say “go read up some basic science”, what you really want me to do is to assume that science is correct simply because…

If you are truly willing to understand, you will understand that testimony has *every *thing to do with it. If you can step back from your blind faith in the words of scientists, you will completely understand.

If testimony has nothing to do with it, then prove to me that King Richard existed. Prove to me that there was such a battle as mentioned in the article (the archeological remains do not necessarily prove that that particular battle happened there). Prove to me that the atom exists. Prove to me that within the atom there are subatomic particles. Prove to me that Newton’s Laws are correct. Prove to me that e=mc2. Prove to me that Kepler’s Laws are correct. Prove to me that space exists. Prove to me that matter is real. When you *prove *something, you are supposedly showing it to be true with *absolute *certainty.

It has everything to do with testimony for faith in testimony fills the gap between partial and absolute certainty.

Because unlike science you can’t verify their claims.

Verify claims? Most of the scientific “facts” you believe in you have never verified yourself nor have you seen them verified. How then, do you know them to be true?

Wrong again, i understand the methods, faith and testimony have nothing to do with it. You really should go read up some basic science it would clear up your misunderstanding.

I am only wrong because you assume science is correct. I have no misunderstanding at all. You misunderstand because of your blind belief in science and the scientists you listen to. Faith and testimony have everything to do with it. You have probably never verified yourself most of the claims written in science textbooks and scientific papers. You have probably never seen half of the things they talk about. Yet, you except them as true not because of any evidence they’ve given you for you to see, but simply because you are reading from scientists, who you are *biased *to believe are more reliable and more honest than the people who wrote the Bible.

 

[Syntax]

There is nothing to evaluate.

Oh my word! You’re a coward! You avoid answering question so you can hide.
Nothing to evaluate??

Firstly they were not eye witness accounts, but hearsay,

How do you know this? Do you have evidence that they were merely hearsay, and NOT eye-witness accounts?

However that is utterly irrelevant. This point is simple, testimony is not sufficient evidence -]to verify the god claim/-].

The Bible is a historical text treated like all other historical texts! And historians look to it to back up historical claims all the time. I never even suggested you evaluate the “god claim” based on the text. I am trying to get to your criterion of what counts as sufficient historical textual evidence, and what does not. So tell me: when is textual evidence sufficient to support a historical claim, and when is it not sufficient? Where do you draw the line? Or do you just arbitrarily reject things you don’t want to believe?

 

[Image_of_God]

all of us have at least one degree here. what exactly is yours in that you have some great command of the scientific method that isnt taught to every highschool kid in the country?

Well, no I don’t have a degree. I’m still in high school.

But I think it’s enough that I read from a science textbook most days a week (as required by school). However, all that I’m reading are testimonies from people who wrote the textbook. I have never seen many of the things they are talking about and I probably will never see them. Many of the laws discussed are based on foundations that the authors assume to be true. They aren’t proven in most textbooks. Yet, I believe all that they tell me to be true, not because of any empirical evidence, but because it is reasonable to do so.

Likewise, I read the Bible. When I do, I also read testimonies from other people. Why, however, should I believe in the science textbook and more than I believe in the Bible?

I think something should be made clear to AlbertBall. None of us are disagreeing that science leads to truth. We are disagreeing with the idea that everything has to be subject to science in order to be proven true.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, no I don’t have a degree. I’m still in high school.

But I think it’s enough that I read from a science textbook most days a week (as required by school). However, all that I’m reading are testimonies from people who wrote the textbook. I have never seen many of the things they are talking about and I probably will never see them. Many of the laws discussed are based on foundations that the authors assume to be true. They aren’t proven in most textbooks. Yet, I believe all that they tell me to be true, not because of any empirical evidence, but because it is reasonable to do so.

Likewise, I read the Bible. When I do, I also read testimonies from other people. Why, however, should I believe in the science textbook and more than I believe in the Bible?

I think something should be made clear to AlbertBall. None of us are disagreeing that science leads to truth. We are disagreeing with the idea that everything has to be subject to science in order to be proven true.

then you are an awful smart kid.

 

[Image_of_God]

then you are an awful smart kid.

Thank you very much for the compliment.