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?
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?
1 Like
It’s your term. You define it and tell us how to objectively determine it.
2 Likes
I’m curious as to how you conclude "both of which cannot be defined in any way.
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?
1 Like
Then please provide some of this "lots… Your claimed scientific evidence indicating supernatural entities have meddled with the physical world.
2 Likes
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.
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.
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.
2 Likes
Clearly not by examining the evidence!
How do you know that they are not already doing so?
“Heavier-than-air flying craft are impossible.”–Lord Kelvin, 1895
Thankfully, no one packed up their workshops and went home.
4 Likes
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?
What was the evidence he based his claim on?
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?
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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.
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.
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.
2 Likes
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?
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.
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.
2 Likes