# Looking at issues raised by Tour

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Created:** [May 5, 2019, 9:40pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072 "2019-05-05T21:40:35Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ac91a4/32.png) [@Jim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jim)\
**Post date:** [May 7, 2019, 4:21pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/42 "2019-05-07T16:21:15Z")

</div>

> [@Roy](#):
>
> It would have been quicker and easier to refer to some of the evidence and ask whether it was acceptable. That you didn’t suggests you don’t have any.

> [@pevaquark](#):
>
> Did you actually give him any?

Maybe it wasn’t clear what I was doing. But it seemed like it was obvious enough. To avoid talking past each other, it’s customary, at least it seems to me that it is, that an understanding of how terms are being used is needed. So depending on how @Timothy_Horton is defining “related scientific evidence” will determine how I proceed with my reply. Does that make sense?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [May 7, 2019, 4:26pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/43 "2019-05-07T16:26:59Z")

</div>

> [@Jim](#):
>
> If the evidence points to no known natural cause, then follow the evidence where it leads and don’t use lack of knowledge as an excuse. Can you imagine if criminal investigations had sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt if they were to say, “Well, we don’t know everything about the crime yet, so we’ll have to wait until we have investigated all the possible explanations, which may or may not even be plausible and could take forever as far as we know, even though we’ve got what seems to be sufficient evidence to win the case.” The justice system would be in shambles in no time.

What would happen if God was assumed to be the cause of a crime if investigators couldn’t come up with evidence for a human criminal in an arbitrary amount of time? If investigators aren’t able to point to a suspect after a year, should they just say “God did it” and stop investigating?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Timothy\_Horton](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/timothy_horton/32/9410_2.png) [@Timothy\_Horton](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Timothy_Horton)\
**Post date:** [May 7, 2019, 4:29pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/44 "2019-05-07T16:29:49Z")

</div>

> [@Jim](#):
>
> So depending on how @Timothy_Horton is defining “related scientific evidence” will determine how I proceed with my reply. Does that make sense?

It’s your term. You define it and tell us how to objectively determine it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ac91a4/32.png) [@Jim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jim)\
**Post date:** [May 7, 2019, 4:30pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/45 "2019-05-07T16:30:02Z")

</div>

> [@pevaquark](#):
>
> It seems that your position is there is some kind of supernatural entity that can interact in some kind of way - both of which cannot be defined in any way.

I’m curious as to how you conclude "both of which cannot be defined in any way.

> [@pevaquark](#):
>
> There are no experiments that can ever be done to demonstrate such

And I’m not clear what exactly you mean by “demonstrate such?” Are you saying that God cannot be demonstrated, or that His actions in the world cannot be demonstrated? Or maybe something else?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Timothy\_Horton](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/timothy_horton/32/9410_2.png) [@Timothy\_Horton](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Timothy_Horton)\
**Post date:** [May 7, 2019, 4:40pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/46 "2019-05-07T16:40:54Z")

</div>

> [@Jim](#):
>
> Oh, as far as I can tell there’s lots.

Then please provide some of this "lots… Your claimed scientific evidence indicating supernatural entities have meddled with the physical world.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ac91a4/32.png) [@Jim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jim)\
**Post date:** [May 7, 2019, 4:41pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/47 "2019-05-07T16:41:54Z")

</div>

> [@cwhenderson](#):
>
> How do you propose to determine when all explanations from natural cause have been exhausted? Who do you suggest would do the justifying for when a cause outside the natural realm is in order?

I think it would be similar to how a jury decides if there’s enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. However, that may be to high of a standard considering we’re not deciding whether or not someone should live. But that would at least be a good starting point.

> [@cwhenderson](#):
>
> Personally, I still lean toward God’s divine action as the answer to the OoL issue, but by no means are scientists at a point where they should just “throw in the towel” and stop studying the issue.

I’m not suggesting scientists “throw in the towel” so to speak. Simply that they temper their efforts more accordingly. If it seems like the more research is done the more implausible it becomes for a natural cause, that might be a good indication that before spending considerably more man hours and money on research, the main OoL researchers should put the brakes on and spend some considerable time thinking about a different approach that would at least have a chance to account for the data. Now if that’s what’s already the case then there’s no need to continue the discussion on this particular aspect of the issue. But the impression I get is that it is not the case.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Timothy\_Horton](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/timothy_horton/32/9410_2.png) [@Timothy\_Horton](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Timothy_Horton)\
**Post date:** [May 7, 2019, 4:47pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/48 "2019-05-07T16:47:04Z")

</div>

> [@Jim](#):
>
> I think it would be similar to how a jury decides if there’s enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. However, that may be to high of a standard considering we’re not deciding whether or not someone should live. But that would at least be a good starting point.

You have it bass ackwards. The standard " evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" is to establish the **positive** case of an accused person’s guilt. If such evidence is not available in sufficient quantity or quality the conclusion is “we don’t know”, NOT “God committed the crime”.

You are claiming to have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for the **negative** case, there is no natural means for OOL. That’s the blunder people keep pointing out to you which for some reason you keep making.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [May 7, 2019, 4:47pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/49 "2019-05-07T16:47:43Z")

</div>

> [@cwhenderson](#):
>
> > Jim: Simple. Just use the usual practices of reasoning. In the case of a cause outside of the natural once there’s sufficient scientific evidence that suggests there is no natural cause, then it’s justified to look for causes outside of the natural realm.
> 
> How do you propose to determine when all explanations from natural cause have been exhausted?

Clearly not by examining the evidence!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [May 7, 2019, 4:48pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/50 "2019-05-07T16:48:20Z")

</div>

> [@Jim](#):
>
> I’m not suggesting scientists “throw in the towel” so to speak. Simply that they temper their efforts more accordingly.

How do you know that they are not already doing so?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [May 7, 2019, 4:50pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/51 "2019-05-07T16:50:06Z")

</div>

> [@Jim](#):
>
> I’m not suggesting scientists “throw in the towel” so to speak. Simply that they temper their efforts more accordingly. If it seems like the more research is done the more implausible it becomes for a natural cause, that might be a good indication that before spending considerably more man hours and money on research, the main OoL researchers should put the brakes on and spend some considerable time thinking about a different approach that would at least have a chance to account for the data. Now if that’s what’s already the case then there’s no need to continue the discussion on this particular aspect of the issue. But the impression I get is that it is not the case.

“Heavier-than-air flying craft are impossible.”–Lord Kelvin, 1895

Thankfully, no one packed up their workshops and went home.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ac91a4/32.png) [@Jim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jim)\
**Post date:** [May 7, 2019, 4:57pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/52 "2019-05-07T16:57:51Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> What would happen if God was assumed to be the cause of a crime if investigators couldn’t come up with evidence for a human criminal in an arbitrary amount of time? If investigators aren’t able to point to a suspect after a year, should they just say “God did it” and stop investigating?

I assume we’re talking hypothetically here. And just to clarify, it’s not an arbitrary amount of time, it’s when sufficient evidence is available to meet the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Now if we imagine that there were no evidence whatsoever that there was any physical cause, then we’d have to rule out all physical options. Then we couldn’t just assume God as a suspect without having some evidence to suspect that He could have done it. Does that make sense?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ac91a4/32.png) [@Jim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jim)\
**Post date:** [May 7, 2019, 4:59pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/53 "2019-05-07T16:59:26Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> “Heavier-than-air flying craft are impossible.”–Lord Kelvin, 1895

What was the evidence he based his claim on?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [May 7, 2019, 5:01pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/54 "2019-05-07T17:01:01Z")

</div>

> [@Jim](#):
>
> I assume we’re talking hypothetically here. And just to clarify, it’s not an arbitrary amount of time, it’s when sufficient evidence is available to meet the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Now if we imagine that there were no evidence whatsoever that there was any physical cause, then we’d have to rule out all physical options.

Let’s say we find a murder victim with a knife sticking out of their chest. If we are not able to find evidence of a human or any other natural being sticking that knife in that chest, do we then conclude that God did it?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [May 7, 2019, 5:01pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/55 "2019-05-07T17:01:46Z")

</div>

> [@Jim](#):
>
> What was the evidence he based his claim on?

The lack of anyone being able to build a heavier-than-air flying machine. People had been trying for thousands of years to build such a machine, and no one had.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ac91a4/32.png) [@Jim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jim)\
**Post date:** [May 7, 2019, 5:04pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/56 "2019-05-07T17:04:32Z")

</div>

> [@Timothy\_Horton](#):
>
> It’s your term. You define it and tell us how to objectively determine it.

So I would define it as both direct and indirect empirical evidence according to how I laid those distinctions out in my previous comment regarding such.

So are you OK with that definition? If so we can proceed onto the actual evidence. If not, then you would need to explain why you don’t agree and how you think it should be defined.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ac91a4/32.png) [@Jim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jim)\
**Post date:** [May 7, 2019, 5:06pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/57 "2019-05-07T17:06:32Z")

</div>

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> How do you know that they are not already doing so?

As I mentioned in my post to @cwhenderson I don’t. I don’t get that impression, but if I’m wrong I’m happy to hear it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Timothy\_Horton](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/timothy_horton/32/9410_2.png) [@Timothy\_Horton](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Timothy_Horton)\
**Post date:** [May 7, 2019, 5:09pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/58 "2019-05-07T17:09:50Z")

</div>

> [@Jim](#):
>
> So I would define it as both direct and indirect empirical evidence according to how I laid those distinctions out in my previous comment regarding such

OK then, let’s see your direct or indirect empirical evidence for supernatural meddling in the physical world. You claimed to know of “lots” of such evidence, remember?

Please keep the discussion to **positive evidence** for the supernatural please. The negative “we don’t know so we can assume the supernatural did it” isn’t positive empirical evidence.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ac91a4/32.png) [@Jim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jim)\
**Post date:** [May 7, 2019, 5:12pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/59 "2019-05-07T17:12:55Z")

</div>

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> Clearly not by examining the evidence!

That’s precisely how it would be done. Are you suggesting that there is no evidence that would suggest that known natural causes of OoL are implausible?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ac91a4/32.png) [@Jim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jim)\
**Post date:** [May 7, 2019, 5:34pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/60 "2019-05-07T17:34:15Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> Let’s say we find a murder victim with a knife sticking out of their chest. If we are not able to find evidence of a human or any other natural being sticking that knife in that chest, do we then conclude that God did it?

According to our experience of reality I think the available evidence of the knife itself would obviously implicate human activity and we would therefore have to conclude that either the murderer has not been found, or that maybe it wasn’t a murder after all, but suicide.

I don’t think any rational person would conclude that it must have been God. After all, how many cases of the sort you’re proposing has ever happened? So I think your analogy is just a bit too unrealistic to make any sense of it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [May 7, 2019, 5:58pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072/61 "2019-05-07T17:58:23Z")

</div>

> [@Jim](#):
>
> According to our experience of reality I think the available evidence of the knife itself would obviously implicate human activity and we would therefore have to conclude that either the murderer has not been found, or that maybe it wasn’t a murder after all, but suicide.

In the case of biology and origin of life, there are analogous observations. If abiogenesis did occur through natural processes then what would we expect to see in the fossil record? We would expect to see only very simple life in the earliest fossil records. This is what we see. For billions of years all we see is evidence of simple single celled life.

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072.md?page=2)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/looking-at-issues-raised-by-tour/6072.md?page=4)