May I take this opportunity to point out the amazing irony in your post?
1 Like
1 Like
You say a metaphysical conclusion is impossible to confirm. And then you provide one.
That’s ironic.
1 Like
But this is a religious conclusion im offering. Its a position of conviction. And im perfectly content that i cannot prove it.
Whereas, i think you really believe your sciences prove your personal conclusions.
1 Like
So you believe something despite knowing you have zero evidence for it? Is that what you’re saying? I don’t want to straw man you here, so before we proceed I’d like some clarification from you.
Whereas, i think you really believe your sciences prove your personal conclusions.
Isn’t that what you are doing? You really just believe your personal conclusions, apparently regardless of evidence and scientific arguments?
I have to note I don’t think you’ve understood what my argument is. I’ve laid out a case for why one particular explanation is more plausible than another, and in that respect I’d like to add that in so far as we are to believe any of the offered explanations, we should believe the better and more plausible and likely explanation.
You may disagree with me about whether my offered explanation is more plausible, but hopefully we can agree that when it comes to choosing between competing explanations, we should prefer the more plausible ones, right?
1 Like
You use the same flawed definition of the term “evidence” that @T_aquaticus does.
Evidence for God and God’s work is endless… but little of it is “scientific evidence”.
When more atheists do a better job of acknowledging the role of evidence other than scientific evidence, atheists will gain important credibility.
1 Like
That’s not a flawed definition of evidence. There IS no other kind of evidence.
Saying there is another kind of evidence besides empirical scientific evidence is the shitty excuse people give when they don’t actually have ANY evidence.
2 Likes
I didnt think you were
one of those Atheist bullies…
trying to tell people what is a valid “reason” and what is not.
Evidence is any “justification” for holding a belief. There are lots of justifications other than formal scientific ones.
Ahh, the atheist bullies. Damnit, why can’t you just have your wishful thinking in peace? Here I am nasty asshole asking you to be rational.
C’mon.
Evidence is any “justification” for holding a belief. There are lots of justifications other than formal scientific ones.
Wow, no, that’s not what evidence is. You might have other justifications for holding your beliefs, but those justifications aren’t evidence.
You might say that you are emotionally justified in believing you are a billionaire because it gives you a feeling of economic security and comfort (now you don’t have to worry about being unable to pay your bills), but that’s not actually evidence that you are a billionarie.
2 Likes
People go to jail based on evidence which scientists do not acknowledge as part of the scientific method.
Like eye witness accounts. Saying there is no other kind of evidence is just being unrealistic.
None of them miraculous.
No, they don’t. Eye witness accounts are intrinsic to the scientific method. If you have some apperatus and you need to read some display and write down a number, like voltage or temperature or whatever, then what do you do if actually witnessing this is disallowed by the scientific method?
Eye witness accounts is not very reliable or good evidence(which is why repeatability and reproducibility, and double-blind test protocols and all that are also part of good scientific practice), but it IS part of scientific evidence.
2 Likes
Unfortunately? If you believe that these people in some “western churches” are having genuine religious experiences, why would that be unfortunate? If these experiences are genuine, what are the Hindus experiencing? Presumably not the Christian god, right?
What kind of evidence is it, then?
2 Likes
Logical conclusions are based on logical justifications.
Mathematical conclusions are based on mathematical justifications.
Conclusions regarding the physical worlds are based on empirical evidence.
Which category does God fit into? Logic and math deal with abstract concepts which have no physical agency. So that leaves the physical. Unless you are going to beg the question and insist on the incoherent claim that “supernatural” things exists which have effect effect on the natural, physical world.
3 Likes
You are not only wrong… you are egregiously so.
First definition of Webster:
" Definition of evidence
(Entry 1 of 2)
1a : an outward sign : INDICATION"
The alternate definition is “something that furnishes proof”…
But a more “middle of the road” understanding is:
“Anything that furnishes support.”
Any time you try to wedge the word “proof” or “prove” into a single solitary definition, you are abusing logic and your audience.
Evidence is any kind. There is no limit to what a person might find relevant to his metaphysical views of the Cosmos!!!
There is no requirement that religious ideas must be logical… if that were true, there would be no YECs.
1 Like
So, to use an example I used in another discussion here:
I look at hoofprints in the ground that match those that are made by a horse. Based on this evidence I say, “A horse walked here in the recent past.”
Someone else looks at the hoofprints and says, “These hoofprints are definitive proof that the square root of nine is 100.”
If “Evidence is any kind”, wouldn’t that mean my conclusion is no better supported than his?
1 Like
You presume that YEC is a sound and defensible worldview. It is not. I think religion has no less obligation than any other human endeavour to adhere to logic. That does not mean it achieves this,
1 Like