What evidence, solid scientific, universally proven evidence do you have that your back pain truly exists?

[cho_pilo]

What evidence, solid scientific, universally proven evidence do you have that your God truly exists?

If you cannot prove to me or anyone outside of yourself that God exists, then we can only assume that God does not exist and that you are either a) lying, or b) mentally disturbed.

The argument that God as spoken to you or shown himself to you is not evidence because it only pertains to you an you alone. Show me proof that God exists. Heck, even show me some kind of proof that God as contacted you in any way!

I need only ONE person to prove God’s existance and I will believe. How does that feel? YOU can be personally responsible for saving my soul! I’m sure that gives you brownie points with God - sure to secure a one-way ticket to Heaven!

Taken from another thread. I’d like to pose the following argument:

What evidence, solid scientific, universally proven evidence do you have that your back pain truly exists?

If you cannot prove to me or anyone outside of yourself that your back pain exists, then we can only assume that your back pain does not exist and that you are either a) lying, or b) mentally disturbed.

The argument that your back pain has spoken to you or shown itself to you is not evidence because it only pertains to you an you alone. Show me proof that your back pain exists. Heck, even show me some kind of proof that your back pain has contacted you in any way!

I need only ONE person to prove your back pain’s existance and I will believe. How does that feel?

What are your thoughts on this? Let’s discuss.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Back to your original quote. I see atheist on forums saying stuff just like that all the time, often the same people saying it a variety of ways week after week. And I always wonder “why are you even here, asking other people to prove to you that God exist? If you don’t believe in Him why aren’t you doing something more enjoyable with your free time?” Some of these guys spend hours after hours on religion forums demanding religious people give them evidence that God exist. It starts to look a little like “me thinks thou dost protest too much”. Or like a “straight” guy spending all his free time hanging out in a gay bar, he says he’s not there to meet the guys, just to understand them better. Sure

 

[Aleksa]

I can prove that my back pain exists because, if you look at the x-rays, you can see my bones pinching the nerves. Ouch.

But anyway, I think we should be extra kind to Atheists here. The worst thing to do is just give them more “ammo” against Christians by being rude to them.

 

[danserr]

What evidence, solid scientific, universally proven evidence do you have that your back pain truly exists?

The trick here is what do you mean by “proof.” You said “scientific” proof, but I think you really mean you want someone to give you a “mathematical” proof. Which is a completely different thing.

I suspect if I give you some argument that your back pain exists, you will say "but wait it could be the case you are insane, or are lying, or imagining it, or a brain in a vat (matrix style) or some other excuse that is a theoretical possibility, but not a plausible possibility.

There are many problems with this brand of skepticism, but I want to focus on your confusion of “scientific” (similar to “historical”) proof with “mathematical proof.” When you are asking me to prove that your back pain exists, you really want a mathematical proof that accounts your back pain and leaves no other theoretical possibility. *But this is not scientific. *

Scientists deal in probability because the scientific method tends to be inductive rather than deductive. I will give an example

• Cancer patients in test group A were given a new drug, those in group B were given a placebo, and those in group C given nothing.
• Those in group A showed a 90% improvement rate
• Therefore the drug was effective.

Now this is a scientific proof. It does not furnish mathematical certainty because it is an inductive argument, but it is a scientific proof nonetheless, and on the basis of it we can be said to “know” that the drug in question is effective. Scientists reason this way all the time, historians as well. There is no mathematical proof for any event in history yet we can still be said to “know” historical facts such as that the holocaust occurred, world war two occurred, the crusades occurred, Richard Lionheart was king of england etc.

So inductive style reasoning is different from deductive mathematical reasoning, but in spite of that we believe (and so do you) that inductive reasoning can furnish one with proof and knowledge. We only attain probabilistic certainty in most of our daily life anyway.

So you want an argument that my back pain exists, here is a scientific (probabilistic) argument:

1. I tell you seriously that my back pain exists.
2. I am an honest person not given to lying.
3. I am known to be mentally sound.
4. x rays confirm a vertebrae is slightly out of place
5. the x ray machine is probably functioning correctly.
6. Therefore, my back pain probably exists.
   -This is a scientific argument. We attain only probabilistic certainty, but nonetheless, on the basis of this, a scientist would conclude that this a scientific proof that my back pain really does exist.

Knowledge, is “warranted true belief.” I can be said to know something if believe something to be true that is true, and I have rationally sufficient grounds for believing it to be true. Those grounds need not require mathematical certainty. Scientific certainty will suffice.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

Trained medical practitioners can, by observation and examination, prove that back pain actually exists.

Trained examiners can, by observation, prove that something created the Universe. We call that “something” God.

 

[inocente]

Taken from another thread.

Would that thread be at sciforums.com? A quick google showed the OP to be remarkably similar to post #21 there by user Signal, including the typos.

I liked Signal’s later response to an atheist who is trying to argue something-from-nothing:

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/00...then_it_exploded_5949_207100_poll_xlarge.jpeg

 

[St_Francis]

Some back pain is caused by certain problems not currently perceived by machines, etc, and so cannot be “proved.”

I myself experienced a fair amount of pain in various areas and saw several doctors about it. My pain was dismissed as they could not figurr out why I had it.

Then I saw a doctor fresh out of med school for something else, and he said, did you know you have TMJ syndrome? And there it was…

So, did my pain not truly exist until doctors had figured out what caused it? No; in fact, it was the pain expeienced by people which caused doctors to look for and find the cause.

The necessity for the existence of a Being can be shown philosophically, and some of this Being’s attributes can be deduced by examining what He has made.

However, atheists refuse this evidence, citing the necessity for an inappropriate type of proof. This is actually intellectually dishonest, tho I assume that most do not mean to be so.

 

[Spirithound]

So you want an argument that my back pain exists, here is a scientific (probabilistic) argument:

1. I tell you seriously that my back pain exists.
2. I am an honest person not given to lying.
3. I am known to be mentally sound.
4. x rays confirm a vertebrae is slightly out of place
5. the x ray machine is probably functioning correctly.
6. Therefore, my back pain probably exists.

Can this sequence be used to give a probabilistic proof of God? Perhaps

1. I tell you seriously that I have received guidance from God.
2. I am an honest person not given to lying.
3. I am known to be mentally sound.
4. Therefore, God probably exists.

 

[AntiTheist]

What evidence, solid scientific, universally proven evidence do you have that your back pain truly exists?

The OP makes the elementary mistake of assuming that one needs “scientific” evidence to demonstrate all claims. One does not.

I have no “scientific” evidence that I’m hungry when I decide to eat. There is no need to run tests on myself to verify my claim that I am hungry. The only evidence that is required in that case – since it’s a claim about my inner state – is my observation of my inner state. The fact that I can’t demonstrate it to anyone else is irrelevant in this case because the experience described in this claim, by its nature – pertaining to the individual – can only be experienced by the individual.

It’s an entirely different matter when we come to claims made about the universe, outside of the individual. If you claimed that there was a conspiracy against you – people following you, bugging your phone, spying on you, etc. – your observation of your paranoid feelings would not be sufficient to establish this claim because this claim is the kind of thing that we would expect other people to be able to confirm.

It’s the same when you make claims about gods – your “inner experiences,” no matter how strong, cannot confirm that you’ve really been in touch with a god, just like your inner experiences cannot confirm that there is a conspiracy against you. However, your inner experiences can confirm things about your inner state, such as the fact that you’re hungry or the fact that your back hurts.

 

[AntiTheist]

I liked Signal’s later response to an atheist who is trying to argue something-from-nothing

Of course, no atheist who is even halfway educated in the Big Bang theory would ever argue that the universe “came from nothing.”

So either this is a strawman, or this weird internet chap is debating a dim-witted opponent who is poorly representing the atheist argument.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Of course, no atheist who is even halfway educated in the Big Bang theory would ever argue that the universe “came from nothing.”

So either this is a strawman, or this weird internet chap is debating a dim-witted opponent who is poorly representing the atheist argument.

Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Whatever you say pal. I see all the atheists over on the RichardDawkins forum are in love with that idea.

 

[AntiTheist]

I see all the atheists over on the RichardDawkins forum are in love with that idea.

Context: I specifically said "no atheist who is even halfway educated in the Big Bang theory would ever argue that the universe “came from nothing.”

I was writing in the context of a poster who claimed that “nothing …] exploded” – i.e. that the Big Bang theory was asserting an emergence of the universe from nothing. I was pointing out that this was in error, as the Big Bang theory is nothing more than the universe beginning to expand into its current shape.

No one knows what the universe was like before the Big Bang – or even if “before the Big Bang” makes any rational sense – and no one knows where it came from. There have been some interesting speculations – for example, the possibility that the universe has always existed in some form or that the “stuff” that preceded the Big Bang may have arisen spontaneously from “nothing” (though, to be fair, when quantum physicists say “nothing” they don’t quite mean the same thing that we commoners mean when we say "nothing). Of course, these speculations are very tentative. No one really knows.

Anyway, this is all a tangent. But I hope you enjoyed the lesson, “pal.”

 

[inocente]

It’s the same when you make claims about gods – your “inner experiences,” no matter how strong, cannot confirm that you’ve really been in touch with a god, just like your inner experiences cannot confirm that there is a conspiracy against you. However, your inner experiences can confirm things about your inner state, such as the fact that you’re hungry or the fact that your back hurts.

And friend, your “inner experiences”, no matter how strong, cannot confirm that you’ve not been in touch with a god.

The OP quotes “If you cannot prove to me or anyone outside of yourself that God exists, then we can only assume that God does not exist and that you are either a) lying, or b) mentally disturbed”.

Alternatively “If you cannot prove to me or anyone outside of yourself that God does not exist, then we can only assume that God exists and that you are either a) lying, or b) mentally disturbed”.

If we discount option a) by assuming all posters have basic integrity, and remembering that there are no absolute proofs for the existence or non-existence of God, we’re left with the vaguely insulting notion that all atheists and theists are b) mentally disturbed if they can’t prove whatever they believe.

Not really something I want to take further.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Context: I specifically said "no atheist who is even halfway educated in the Big Bang theory would ever argue that the universe “came from nothing.”

I was writing in the context of a poster who claimed that “nothing …] exploded” – i.e. that the Big Bang theory was asserting an emergence of the universe from nothing. I was pointing out that this was in error, as the Big Bang theory is nothing more than the universe beginning to expand into its current shape.

No one knows what the universe was like before the Big Bang – or even if “before the Big Bang” makes any rational sense – and no one knows where it came from. There have been some interesting speculations – for example, the possibility that the universe has always existed in some form or that the “stuff” that preceded the Big Bang may have arisen spontaneously from “nothing” (though, to be fair, when quantum physicists say “nothing” they don’t quite mean the same thing that we commoners mean when we say "nothing). Of course, these speculations are very tentative. No one really knows.

Anyway, this is all a tangent. But I hope you enjoyed the lesson, “pal.”

I love how some atheists are so arrogant that the idea of even suggesting they said something boneheaded causes a gag reflex in them.

You said "no atheist who is even halfway educated in the Big Bang theory would ever argue that the universe “came from nothing.” The Big Bang theory speculates the universe exploded outward from an initial Singularity, a dimensionless point of infinite density, where this Singularity “came from” is the flaw in the Big Bang theory, over the years many scientists, especially atheist scientists have hated the Big Bang theory because that initial Singularity looks too much like a “creation event”, the theory itself wasn’t even accepted by a majority of scientists until the 1970’s when the cumulative evidence for it was unavoidable.

So now we have physicists trying to explain that “creation event” of the initial Singularity in terms that don’t require a “creator”. Currently, one of the more popular ideas is that the universe was brought into being from “nothing” in a quantum vacuum fluctuation, the idea that Hawking is talking about now, including in his new book. And many "atheist who are even halfway educated in the Big Bang theory DO argue that the universe “came from nothing” in that quantum vacuum fluctuation.

For once in my life I’d like to meet an atheist who has the humility to admit they said something boneheaded. I ain’t holding my breath.

 

[Ignatius]

I can prove that my back pain exists because, if you look at the x-rays, you can see my bones pinching the nerves. Ouch.

Not all chronic back pain has scientifically verifiable causes. What about all of the people in excruciating pain for which the doctors can find no cause? They try treatment after treatment because they cannot find what is causing it. There is no scientific evidence. The only evidence is these peoples debilitating pain attested to by the people themselves.

 

[AntiTheist]

where this Singularity “came from” is the flaw in the Big Bang theory

No, it’s not a flaw in the theory. That’s the theory itself.

looks too much like a “creation event”

No, it doesn’t. It looks like the expansion of the universe from one form into another. It doesn’t imply the existence of any intelligent force behind this expansion.

The question of where the Singularity “came from” is an entirely different question than the Big Bang. It might, for example, have always existed.

And many "atheist who are even halfway educated in the Big Bang theory DO argue that the universe “came from nothing” in that quantum vacuum fluctuation.

But they don’t argue that “nothing …] exploded,” which was the point I was responding to.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

No, it’s not a flaw in the theory. That’s the theory itself.

No, it doesn’t. It looks like the expansion of the universe from one form into another. It doesn’t imply the existence of any intelligent force behind this expansion.

The question of where the Singularity “came from” is an entirely different question than the Big Bang. It might, for example, have always existed.

But they don’t argue that “nothing …] exploded,” which was the point I was responding to.

Your words were quote "Of course, no atheist who is even halfway educated in the Big Bang theory would ever argue that the universe “came from nothing.” which were clearly misguided and wrong. And the idea that the Singularity might have “always existed” shows you are not “even halfway educated” in the Big Bang theory, NO ONE of any standing in science takes that position.

 

[gentle_atheist]

What evidence, solid scientific, universally proven evidence do you have that your God truly exists?

There are people who experience pain or itching in a limb that has been amputated. So even though the experience is real it does not prove that the object of that experience is real.

Furthermore, there is a difference between proving that my back pain exists and proving that back pain itself exists. Just wrench the back of the unbeliever and you will gain an instant convert to the existence of back pain.

I mention this because there is a linguistic sleight-of-hand in the believer’s response to the atheist’s challenge:

Atheist: What evidence, solid scientific, universally proven evidence do you have that your God truly exists?

Believer: What evidence, solid scientific, universally proven evidence do you have that your back pain truly exists?

Simply drop the word “your” from each sentence and you will understand my point.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You should immediately dismiss anyone who insists on the need for empirical evidence to prove anything. If they are not informed enough to know that they are employing a logical contradiction. Then they are not informed enough to be taken seriously.

For instance

If a statement can only be proven true by empirical evidence, the very statement " a statement can only be proven true by empirical evidence" is not itself supported by any empirical evidence and is therefore refutes itself.

This is an extremely effective way to deal with the insistence for physical evidence. It won’t stop the individual doing the insisting from continuing, but it does inoculate every other person in the audience from such silliness. When they continue to insist on the need for empirical evidence it only makes them and their argument look bad.

 

[gentle_atheist]

You should immediately dismiss anyone who insists on the need for empirical evidence to prove anything.

That is an odd statement for a Catholic to make. Paul wrote that “if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.” (1 Corinthians 15:14) Doesn’t all of Christianity stand or fall on the empirical evidence of the Resurrection?