Happy Atheist Forum

What counts as evidence? What is a proper definition of evidence? Alot of people would say that there is no evidence for God, but define it first? I have a bunch of evidence for God. My believes are not irrational, illogical, or without thought. I want to get feedback as to what "evidence" is.

Hi perspective, let's see if I can answer you on this one.

If we are looking for evidence of anything supernatural then I think we are going to need either observations any of us can make or, perhaps, some statistical evidence that something supernatural is behind something we can observe. I'll elaborate.

1. Is there anything we might observe that shows the leaking through of the supernatural into the ordinary world? the appearance of an angel would be great - but only if anyone could see it not just a few religious people. The same thing would be true of the Virgin Mary perhaps or even a ghost. The only limiting factor would be that anyone could see it and not a\ select few. Obviously stories about this, especially ones written by writers now dead and thus unable to answer questions about what they saw  would not count.

2. Much a science is based on statistical analysis of data. have you anything you could bring along like this. How about an experiment to test the power of prayer? Perhaps two groups of patients with similar fates awaiting them might be prayed for (1 group) and not prayed for (the other group) and compare the outcomes. If there is a god out there who answers prayers, why would he not affect the lives of those prayed for? I'm sure you cana think of other things that might be suitable here.

What is not evidence

1. Hearsay evidence of any kind. This applies to any individual who feels the power of god of those from the past who have written accounts of this. This is too subjective and has the possibility of being generated in the mind of the person giving the account.

2. Holy books. Now, up to now I have really tried to be referring to the supernatural in general, so ghosts would count as much as angels. However there are a rather large number of deities been claimed at various times and many have a holy book attached to their cult. Of course, these holy books are not evidence for anything more than the belief of the writers and don't really claim to be so.


OK, what have you got?

Quote from: "perspective"What counts as evidence? What is a proper definition of evidence? Alot of people would say that there is no evidence for God, but define it first? I have a bunch of evidence for God. My believes are not irrational, illogical, or without thought. I want to get feedback as to what "evidence" is.

For me personally a sound logical argument, or scientific evidence will do.

Good question, but one I'm afraid will not ever be agreed upon by people of "faith" vs. people who demand "evidence" for things. Here's a tidbit I found from another site that illustrates what I mean, and how tangled up the definitions become. http://www.freegrace.net/FAQArticles/wh ... _faith.htm (http://www.freegrace.net/FAQArticles/what_is_the_evidence_of_faith.htm)

The author, through a series of philosophical steps, eventually determines that faith itself is evidence. I couldn't disagree more on this statement.

This next is from a christian apologetics site, and shows you step by step why christians or atheists should believe.
http://www.knowwhatyoubelieve.com/belie ... lusion.htm (http://www.knowwhatyoubelieve.com/believe/evidence/conclusion.htm)

I was heavily into apologetics way back when, and found the more I learned, the more I realized apologeticists (I guess that's a word?) were either: lying, or fooling themselves. This site twists the meaning of words like faith and evidence as well, and gives them new meanings that support a belief system that should be based on faith, but instead, tried to use evidence to support that belief system. Two problems are that one, the belief system is not supposed to be based on evidence, and two, that the evidence that is used is mostly baloney and not supported by most modern biblical historians.

So, it's tough to answer your question. Scientific evidence is specific (sorry, the reference is from Wiki, which references the original source...didn't have time or room to post the whole source! But it gives an accurate definition):

Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1]

[1] ^ "[4] Rules for the study of natural philosophy", Newton 1999, pp. 794-6, from the General Scholium, which follows Book 3, The System of the World.


Anyway, that's the general direction I'm coming from. The supernatural is simply outside the realm of evidence. If people want to believe based on faith alone, then I can't argue to that point of view. But if they start pointing to evidence, then that can be addressed and debated.

thats good feed back! thank you so much. Let me throw something out there. My father-in-law is a Pastor at a church. I don't attend there, but I have been there when we visit for vacations and such. Anyway, there was this lady in the church that had cancer and the doctors told her that she was going to die. My father-in-law and the whole church gathered that night at the church and prayed for this lady. On her next appointment the cancer was completely gone. The doctors told her that it was impossible. This is no hear say, I know these people. Now, you all don't know me, so maybe I made it up. But, what if you were there that night, and you heard the doctor say that the cancer was gone. Would that count as evidence for God? Further, if a test case was set up where a group was prayed for and a group was not, I highly doubt that God would bow down to our test and do what we want. doesnt work that way. Further, what if He did heal the people we prayed for and let the others die. would you be mad at Him for not saving the others when he could? The problem with demanding God to act is that it is a lose-lose for God. If he doesnt act, He's not there. If he does act, He must always act to keep us happy, and he will inevitably act to the exclusion of others. It seems to me that He must act on His terms, because they are the only terms that are fair. I have seen God act. So the question is, Who's testimony counts as credible? After all, the testimony of one man is enough to convict in our court system, but is it not enough evidence on millions of testimonies that God is there?

I really don't understand why God would keep someone alive. Doesn't that mean that God hates whoever he kept alive because he's putting off their visit to heaven. God - "Jesus Christ! I don't want to see this woman." Jesus - "Then keep her on earth pa!"

Great story about the cancer, perspective, but it is not really quite enough. You see sometimes cancers do go into remission and we don't know why or how. Maybe it is only 1 in 10,000 cases it happens but still it happens. That is why I referred to statistics - we need a control group for this. Let me get another example.

We have a National Lottery in the UK and there are some 14 million possible combination of numbers. Suppose we were to chose our numbers and enter the lottery. We then pray that god will allow us to win. At the draw, guess what, we win. Did god do it? I would bet you that most people entering dod the same yet their gods did nothing to help them win. We have to include the failures as well as the successes to see if anything might be a cause.

So, the cancer? We need more cases, maybe many more to be sure of an effect or the lack of it but perhaps there is some evidence you can bring here.  Were any other cancer victims prayed for by the same church? What were their outcomes? Small numbers are not significant but might be indicative.

Quote from: "perspective"thats good feed back! thank you so much. Let me throw something out there. My father-in-law is a Pastor at a church. I don't attend there, but I have been there when we visit for vacations and such. Anyway, there was this lady in the church that had cancer and the doctors told her that she was going to die. My father-in-law and the whole church gathered that night at the church and prayed for this lady. On her next appointment the cancer was completely gone. The doctors told her that it was impossible. This is no hear say, I know these people. Now, you all don't know me, so maybe I made it up. But, what if you were there that night, and you heard the doctor say that the cancer was gone. Would that count as evidence for God? Further, if a test case was set up where a group was prayed for and a group was not, I highly doubt that God would bow down to our test and do what we want. doesnt work that way. Further, what if He did heal the people we prayed for and let the others die. would you be mad at Him for not saving the others when he could? The problem with demanding God to act is that it is a lose-lose for God. If he doesnt act, He's not there. If he does act, He must always act to keep us happy, and he will inevitably act to the exclusion of others. It seems to me that He must act on His terms, because they are the only terms that are fair. I have seen God act. So the question is, Who's testimony counts as credible? After all, the testimony of one man is enough to convict in our court system, but is it not enough evidence on millions of testimonies that God is there?

I do wish I had the time to really address all of this thoughtfully, but I must get at least some work done today!    But here is the general disagreement I have with your response, perspective.

What you just did was give an example of anecdotal evidence, which is really not evidence at all. There are so many places where that story wouldn't hold up as actual evidence that it's not even close. Just for example (and no, I don't believe you made it up), how do you know others didn't make it up? Did you speak directly to the woman's physicians? Who were the physicians? Were they oncologists? Do they really exist, or is the term, "the doctors" in your statement referring to people who we cannot verify by name and specialty? That's just for starters.

Even if the woman had medically verified cancer (and I wish I had a dime for every time I've heard this same story over the past 19 years!), who verified that it was a malignant growth? The most commonly pseudo-diagnosed "cancer" in women (besides breast) is ovarian cysts. They contribute to many of the stories of so-called cancer being miraculously healed. And some tumors never grow beyond a certain point and seem to go into remission.

Then there's the issue of spontaneous remission, even if all of the above criteria were met (real, malignant tumor growth). It does not often happen, but spontaneous remission does occur.

So, no, if the tumor suddenly regressed, or even disappeared, I would not make the assumption that it was a god of any kind. There would be no evidence for that assumption. It would simply be something that you would want to believe, not something you could prove evidentially.

Ad your last piece about prayer studies being done. Some studies have been done. Funny thing is that if there is any data to support that healing occurred, it was trumpeted by christians as proof of god, but if none occurred, they used your exact argument that god is in a lose-lose situation and can't be made to conform to our human tests of him.

By the way, large studies have been conducted on this. A few here (first two are articles about the same study)

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0403/p13s02-lire.html (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0403/p13s02-lire.html)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01695.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/14/AR2005071401695.html)
http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-09/miracle-study.html (http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-09/miracle-study.html)

...and a reference on the dangers inherent in prayer studies, and more references to look up:

http://www.sram.org/0802/faith-healing.html (http://www.sram.org/0802/faith-healing.html)

One of the problems is that the variables are so numerous that you can't really have a control group or any valid type of controls over the study. There are always loopholes for them. Which is back to my point that, by definition, faith is faith and it's being of "supernatural" is outside of the realm of scientific study and evidence. Back to square one, unfortunately.

Hope this provides some more clarity on my meaning and some useful reading.

@ the cancer story:

Spontaneous remission is not uncommon or unheard of in oncology.  Unfortunately for most, the cancer returns be it days, weeks, months or even years - it usually returns.

Quote from: "wheels5894"We have a National Lottery in the UK and there are some 14 million possible combination of numbers. Suppose we were to chose our numbers and enter the lottery. We then pray that god will allow us to win. At the draw, guess what, we win. Did god do it? I would bet you that most people entering dod the same yet their gods did nothing to help them win. We have to include the failures as well as the successes to see if anything might be a cause.

Thanks for your input. However, the analogy falls a little short. In the lottery, there has to be a winner. In this case, there was no chance of survival. Also, this was not a remission. This was a cancerious tumor that dissapeared over night. But, this was not meant to be the argument to beat all arguments. I was seeing the reaction to this kind of event. So, do we say that only empirical evidence counts? Is that the only type of evidence used to prove evolution?

Quote from: "Graham"I really don't understand why God would keep someone alive. Doesn't that mean that God hates whoever he kept alive because he's putting off their visit to heaven. God - "Jesus Christ! I don't want to see this woman." Jesus - "Then keep her on earth pa!"

Very good point Graham. It does seem that it would be better in Heaven then here. The answer from a Christian is that to live means that we are to keep telling people about God, and to die is to be with God. So its not that God wants us to stay here to punish us, but a Christian has a mission. Otherwise, as soon as someone became a Christian they would dissapear to Heaven. (Some of you would probably like that wouldn't you   ) Hope that is a logical answer for you.

Quote from: "perspective"

Quote from: "wheels5894"We have a National Lottery in the UK and there are some 14 million possible combination of numbers. Suppose we were to chose our numbers and enter the lottery. We then pray that god will allow us to win. At the draw, guess what, we win. Did god do it? I would bet you that most people entering do the same yet their gods did nothing to help them win. We have to include the failures as well as the successes to see if anything might be a cause.

Thanks for your input. However, the analogy falls a little short. In the lottery, there has to be a winner. In this case, there was no chance of survival. Also, this was not a remission. This was a cancerous tumor that disappeared over night. But, this was not meant to be the argument to beat all arguments. I was seeing the reaction to this kind of event. So, do we say that only empirical evidence counts? Is that the only type of evidence used to prove evolution?

Well, Perspective, the UK National Lottery is not necessarily won at all. It is not the person closest but the person with the exact numbers who wins so many weeks no one wins. However, the point was just that to indicate the  need for including the good and bad results together in deciding if an affect has happened.

We do not have the medical evidence to dispute the cancer case you mention either way but I did ask if you could mention any more cases from the church or others of which you have personal knowledge where prayer was invoked and with what result. The more numbers the better though I suspect that in the USA a majority of cancer patients are prayed for by someone and unless your premise were to be that the group making the most noise gets god's attention, that even one prayer ought to work.

Oh, and finally, yes I think we are looking for some empirical evidence for god. In your case, maybe you might want to consider which god you might want to provide evidence for as there are plenty to choose from. Indeed, atheists have only one difference from Christians - we believe in one less god than you!

So you mean to tell me that the creator of the universe developed cancer that kills people most of the time so that he can give some woman terminal cancer to turn around and take it away?

Do you really believe that you are so important that god would use these people as a way to demonstrate to you that he exists? How many people have died after praying for a miracle cure? The number of dead far outnumbers the people who survive via “miracle” cures.

I guess I’ve never heard of the “miracle” cured amputee or hey! Uncle Ed is back from the dead.

Quote from: "jcm"So you mean to tell me that the creator of the universe developed cancer that kills people most of the time so that he can give some woman terminal cancer to turn around and take it away?

Do you really believe that you are so important that god would use these people as a way to demonstrate to you that he exists? How many people have died after praying for a miracle cure? The number of dead far outnumbers the people who survive via “miracle” cures.

I guess I’ve never heard of the “miracle” cured amputee or hey! Uncle Ed is back from the dead.

Very good point. Its hard to reconcile all of the hurt that goes on in the world. I will save the problem of evil topic for another post. However, I in on way imply that God created sickness to take it away to prove He exist. That would be quit outrageous. What I am saying is that people talk about experiences like this and they are dismissed. If I witnessed a murder and testified to it, the person would be found guilty in our court system, and the sentence might be death. So we can send someone to death on the testimony of people, but if millions testify about God, it doesnt count? let me get some feedback on this.

Quote from: "jcm"I guess I’ve never heard of the “miracle” cured amputee or hey! Uncle Ed is back from the dead.

Never heard of a cured amputee, but people come back from the died all the time. They just haven't be dead very long. If I am not mistaken the record for being dead and coming back was 3 days, well one night, a full 24 hours, and then a morning.  

Quote from: "perspective"If I witnessed a murder and testified to it, the person would be found guilty in our court system, and the sentence might be death. So we can send someone to death on the testimony of people, but if millions testify about God, it doesnt count? let me get some feedback on this.

This may be true but it would be a disgrace to our court system. I would hope that any murder trial would include evidence such as a murder weapon, to go along and support eyewitness testimony. I don't think If I where in a jury I could convict someone of anything based only on the testimony of an eyewitness. There have been numerous studies to support the unreliability of eyewitness reports. It's not that people are willing to lie, it's just that high stress situations don't lead to good memory.

Besides people witness and experience all kinds of crazy things... aliens, Elvis (he's still not dead even I have seen him), my buddy is always seeing this big pink elephant. But that doesn't prove that any of these are true or exist.

QuoteWhat Evidence Is
Kyuuketsuki

Introduction
Recently, in forum, I was asked what evidence was i.e. what is a definition for evidence ... I admit I was shocked, frankly I had never even given the matter any though before, so I sat back to give the matter some thought.

Definitions
An "assertion" is something we can say about the universe in which we live or is relevant to some state of that universe. For the purpose of this discussion I am interested only in assertions as they pertain to the real (natural or materialistic) universe.

"Evidence" is anything that may support an assertion or increase its likelihood of being correct. All assessment of evidence is a form of probability, an interpretation, and is dependent upon the observer or interpreter.

In common usage the word "observe" simply means to see, to view something, but in scientific terms an observation (or rather a relevant observation) is a piece of evidence that has been agreed by all relevant parties to be correctly and accurately associated with the assertion which it is claimed to be. It is important to note that the use of the word "observation" in a scientific sense can refer to data that has not been directly observed, for example if the population of the United States is said to be around 350 million it is understood that that is backed up by population data … no single individual is capable of directly observing all 350 million individuals simultaneously.

An observation should be regarded evidence when it is:
•   Compatible with the assertion … it is pointless to observe that trees are tall and assert that that is why they are green as the observation has no direct relevance to the assertion.
•   Not compatible with other assertions ... it is further pointless to observe that trees are tall and assert that that is why they are green when the (more logical) assertion that chlorophyll (abundant in the leaves of trees) better explains why the tree is green.

It is important to note that a lack of evidence, whilst not obstructing a given assertion, may not be used as a supporting observation for a given assertion i.e. it is not, in scientific terms, evidence.

Assume, for instance, that a respected scientist says there is a very strong case for life on Mars … should people who hear of this necessarily take this as evidence that there is life on Mars? Under normal circumstances people will tend to take the word of such a scientist and assume that what that worthy says is fact however if there is reason to doubt then they might start to ask themselves if that scientist might say that there was life on Mars when he or she had no specific evidence. If such doubt exists the first action would be to question whether that scientists statement actually does constitute evidence … is the scientists sphere of expertise compatible with his or her statement, has that scientist made such statements before and how were they evaluated at that time, has that scientist a hidden agenda or ulterior motive in making such a statement?

Despite the fact that the logic is, itself, self-evident there is a human tendency to ignore the second condition and it is common for individuals to regard as evidence observations which are accepted as compatible with other assertions. Sometimes this is because they simply refuse to consider the alternatives and will, instead, consider only a subset of possible assertions whilst at other times it is simply because they like the observation and assertion in question.

It is also important to understand that the conditions for an observation being acceptable as evidence are entirely independent of the nature of the observation i.e. an observation is valid evidence for a given assertion once verified (agreed to be true), once compatibility with the assertion is established and provided it is not also compatible with others.

Conclusion
When making an assertion about the state of our universe it is important to establish that the observational data used to justify that assertion is both fact (true, verifiable), compatible with the assertion and incompatible with others competing assertions.

For instance when someone claims that the diversity (observation) around us can only be explained by the actions of deity (assertion) not only is their no observed link between deity and diversity (and indeed no observation of deity) but there exists (in the theory of evolution) a perfectly plausible assertion that is supported by a huge number of observations.

References
"What Is Evidence", Yahouda Harpaz

Kyu

Uhmm, good point. The best case for something in court would be to have both testimony and physical evidence. So, how do you get physical evidence of God who is not physical. Thats quit a problem. But I think atheist might have some of the same problems. Like proving the big bang. It's never been physically experienced. So could we not say that both Christians and atheist are in the same boat as far as evidence is concerned? Ever scientific discovery can be both explained from a atheist scientific point of view and equally from a Christian scientific point of view. The Problem is not in the evidence, but in how it is interpreted. I see the sediment layers as the result of a world-wide flood. Most of you would see it a result of millions of years. It can be shown by experiment that these types of layers can form in a flood like situation. So evidence is there, Would you all agree that it is a matter of interpratation?? let me know

Quote from: "perspective"So could we not say that both Christians and atheist are in the same boat as far as evidence is concerned?

Yes, please, let us NOT say that both christians and atheist are in the same boat as far as evidence is concerned.

Quote from: "perspective"Ever scientific discovery can be both explained from a atheist scientific point of view and equally from a Christian scientific point of view. The Problem is not in the evidence, but in how it is interpreted.

I don't even know how to respond... Are you arguing that evolution and creationism are two different perspectives based of the same evidence?

Quote from: "perspective"Would you all agree that it is a matter of interpratation?? let me know

No.

Quote from: "perspective"But I think atheist might have some of the same problems. Like proving the big bang. It's never been physically experienced. So could we not say that both Christians and atheist are in the same boat as far as evidence is concerned? Ever scientific discovery can be both explained from a atheist scientific point of view and equally from a Christian scientific point of view. The Problem is not in the evidence, but in how it is interpreted.

Where do I begin?

The big bang has never been directly observed. Yet, as Kyu pointed out above:

QuoteIt is important to note that the use of the word "observation" in a scientific sense can refer to data that has not been directly observed, for example if the population of the United States is said to be around 350 million it is understood that that is backed up by population data … no single individual is capable of directly observing all 350 million individuals simultaneously.

The key words here, are that data backs up the observation. Just as there is a multitude of data that backs up the assertion of a big bang.
If you were to make an assertion such as "Light was created in route to the earth by a diety, and the observation of an expanding universe was created already in such a state" you could not rightly use the same data to support your assertion. When you ask me "How do you know that the universe wasn't created like this - can you disprove my assertion?" My obvious answer will be "No." But I could just as easily make an equally fantastic assertion: "We were all created today. We were created with our previous experiences and memories implanted in our brains. Yesterday does not exist." And could you rightly disprove me? You can not - because a lack of evidence against an assertion is never ever evidence for its truth.

Perspective-

What you will need to show here, is why I should take your assertion without data that supports it. In essence, why I am wrong in not taking a lack of evidence against your assertion as evidence. What makes your claim worthy of this, while mine - that we and the universe were all created today - is not?

-BP

QuoteNever heard of a cured amputee, but people come back from the died all the time. They just haven't be dead very long. If I am not mistaken the record for being dead and coming back was 3 days, well one night, a full 24 hours, and then a morning.

Any of those people victims of being burned to the point they had to be identified by their dental records? Heck, I’d give them a whole week, but I doubt those people come back from the dead either.

QuoteVery good point. Its hard to reconcile all of the hurt that goes on in the world.

It is easy for me.

QuoteHowever, I in on way imply that God created sickness to take it away to prove He exist. That would be quit outrageous. What I am saying is that people talk about experiences like this and they are dismissed.

If that is the evidence for god, shouldn’t you believe that was what god wanted you to see?  

QuoteIf I witnessed a murder and testified to it, the person would be found guilty in our court system, and the sentence might be death. So we can send someone to death on the testimony of people, but if millions testify about God, it doesnt count? let me get some feedback on this.

A little more goes into convicting someone of murder than saying I saw Joe kill Kate, like an investigation.

Or better yet, try telling the judge, I saw god and he revealed the murderer to me. See how that goes over.

Quote from: "perspective"If I witnessed a murder and testified to it, the person would be found guilty in our court system, and the sentence might be death. So we can send someone to death on the testimony of people, but if millions testify about God, it doesnt count? let me get some feedback on this.

Eye witness testimony is not considered strong evidence by itself in court because it has been shown that eye witness testimony is often faulty even if the person is intending to give an accurate account.  If all you had was one witness and no hard evidence the jury would have to decide not guilty due to reasonable doubt.

Quote from: "perspective"Uhmm, good point. The best case for something in court would be to have both testimony and physical evidence. So, how do you get physical evidence of God who is not physical. Thats quit a problem. But I think atheist might have some of the same problems. Like proving the big bang. It's never been physically experienced. So could we not say that both Christians and atheist are in the same boat as far as evidence is concerned? Ever scientific discovery can be both explained from a atheist scientific point of view and equally from a Christian scientific point of view. The Problem is not in the evidence, but in how it is interpreted. I see the sediment layers as the result of a world-wide flood. Most of you would see it a result of millions of years. It can be shown by experiment that these types of layers can form in a flood like situation. So evidence is there, Would you all agree that it is a matter of interpratation?? let me know

I don't depend on the big bang being true to be an atheist; I could just as easily be a theist (or even a Christian) and accept the big bang theory. However, I do think that there is evidence with supports the Big Bang theory that it has a big leg up over young earth creationism.

Of course all scientific discoveries can be incorporated into a religious view...the question is which one is the actual explanation and which one was just trying to make reality fit the story.

How would a flood from 40 days and 40 nights of rain produce the grand canyon?  That, my friend, is much more extraordinary of a claim than thousands of years of river erosion.  However, I think we should save the flood topic for a different thread (there are actually a couple old flood threads deposited throughout the forum).

All I require is a logical argument for god that doesn't have false premises or leaps in logic  You don't even have to come up with hard evidence.  That should be easy, right?  You'd think so...but philosophers have been trying to do that for quite some time now.

Wait, I always thought that evidence could be defined as "phenomena whose existence indicates the existence of some other phenomena about which we are referring to through a statement or hypothesis."?

Is that correct?  or am I wrong?

Quote from: "jcm"

QuoteNever heard of a cured amputee, but people come back from the died all the time. They just haven't be dead very long. If I am not mistaken the record for being dead and coming back was 3 days, well one night, a full 24 hours, and then a morning.

Any of those people victims of being burned to the point they had to be identified by their dental records? Heck, I’d give them a whole week, but I doubt those people come back from the dead either.

No, it's a joke. Get it?

Perspective, you said

QuoteVery good point. Its hard to reconcile all of the hurt that goes on in the world. I will save the problem of evil topic for another post. However, I in on way imply that God created sickness to take it away to prove He exist. That would be quit outrageous. What I am saying is that people talk about experiences like this and they are dismissed. If I witnessed a murder and testified to it, the person would be found guilty in our court system, and the sentence might be death. So we can send someone to death on the testimony of people, but if millions testify about God, it doesnt count? let me get some feedback on this.

You are only partly right here. I don't know in what country you live, but most countries have rules for what can be used as evidence in a trial and nin general a witness may only testify to something of which they are a direct witness - someone being attacked for example. A witness may not tell of what someone else saw or did - that is called hearsay.

Quote from: "perspective"So, how do you get physical evidence of God who is not physical. Thats quit a problem.

I agree, and it is a great justification for my strong agnosticism. We cannot ever know if a supernatural god exists or not.

Some of you may now be pointing at my worldview that says atheist. (although atheism isn't in itself a worldview)
Well, I believe no gods exist. That's certainly different from knowing so, but ample to be called an atheist.

Quote from: "perspective"But I think atheist might have some of the same problems. Like proving the big bang.

That's more a problem for science, but at least the big bang is a physical phenomenon. With physical consequences, which have measurable and detectable results today. The big bang model has been used to predict certain observations, which were later confirmed. That is a strong form of evidence.

Quote from: "perspective"It's never been physically experienced.

That's not really true. The big bang theory does not only describe early conditions, it describes conditions up to and past our present time. In a very real sense, the big bang is still going on.

Quote from: "perspective"So could we not say that both Christians and atheist are in the same boat as far as evidence is concerned?

Concerning the existence of god, yes. Of course some gods that theists propose are logically impossible, which gives atheists evidence for their non existence.

Quote from: "perspective"I see the sediment layers as the result of a world-wide flood. Most of you would see it a result of millions of years. It can be shown by experiment that these types of layers can form in a flood like situation. So evidence is there, Would you all agree that it is a matter of interpratation?? let me know

I'm no geologist, but afaik there is no disagreement among geologists concerning the age and way of forming of certain sediment layers. At least not enough to allow for a young earth theory.

Quote from: "parllagio"

Quote from: "perspective"Every scientific discovery can be both explained from a atheist scientific point of view and equally from a Christian scientific point of view. The Problem is not in the evidence, but in how it is interpreted.

I don't even know how to respond... Are you arguing that evolution and creationism are two different perspectives based of the same evidence?

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. I know none of us here are experts in ALL scientific fields, but I have studied scientific research. What I have seen is that the evidence can go both ways. The problem is not the phenomina, but the cause of it. Further, there is no one that can claim that they absolutely know the origin of life. Whether it be evolutionist of Christians. Fair enough. Thats what I mean when I say that we are in the same boat. We both can not claim with absolute cartainty (from the evidence) that we are right. I would further argue that if you tried, you would be making claims way beyond the scientist who are masters in their fields. So then the question really becomes, What explains ALL of the phenomina of this life BETTER. I am arguing that a true and honest answer would be God. Further, that it is the God of Christianity, because all other religions contridict themselves or just arent logical. So would you all agree, that it really is a matter of preference?

Quote from: "perspective"Further, that it is the God of Christianity, because all other religions contridict themselves or just arent logical.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages14.fotki.com%2Fv363%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2Fyoureawesome-vi.gif&hash=bd3bf9318c21745460e047f7a10eba35850ed65b)

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2322&start=15 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2322&start=15)

Kyu

Quote from: "perspective"Further, there is no one that can claim that they absolutely know the origin of life. Whether it be evolutionist of Christians.

Well no "evolutionist" would claim with absolute certainty that they know the origin of life, evolution does not even address this. And I know plenty of christians that would claim with absolute certainty that they know the origin of life, but kudos to you for not claiming this.

But I think your overall theme is that atheist/christians look at the same evidence but come up with two different answers based on there preferences. This I believe is wrong, let's look at the origin of man for example. The bible says god created man by breathing life into dirt, and then created women from one of man's ribs. The bible is the evidence (there may be other evidence that you use, if so, let me know). Science looks at a multitude of evidence from DNA to the fossil record to prove that man evolved from apes. The "evidence" is different, that is why the outcome is different, it has nothing to do with preference.

Quote from: "perspective"I am arguing that a true and honest answer would be God. Further, that it is the God of Christianity, because all other religions contridict themselves or just arent logical. So would you all agree, that it really is a matter of preference?

Since when did christianity not contradict itself, and how is it logical?

Okay, I just have to jump in here about this cancer thing, because I do have a real life story about this that I actually was there for.

My sister is a life-long fundamentalist.  This is because, as some of you know and some of you don't, she was raised by my Christian father while I was raised by my atheist mother.  I love my sister, and although she's a fundie, she's not quite as bad as some.  Over the years she has become convinced that evolution is real, and that the Earth is not 6,000 years old.  She believes god started evolution and that the earth is actually billions of years old.  Unfortunately, this is the only thing in her belief system that has changed.  She still believes in angels, demons, Jesus talks to her personally and puts things into her heart, the whole nine yards.

My sister had colon cancer.  Luckily they caught it early.  A section of her colon was removed, she went through chemo and radiation and whatever else they did to her, and eventually the doctors agreed that they'd managed to remove the whole tumor and she was cured.  During the time of this treatment, however, she had been going to some really wacko revivalist church where they moan and scream and faint in the aisle and so forth.  So this preacher keeps "laying hands" on her during this whole cancer ordeal.  And she will swear to you on a stack of bibles that the last time he did this she could feel god's mighty hand go into her body through the stomach and pull the cancer out of her body through her spine.

So my sister, my family, her whole church and the entire town absolutely and completely believe without a shadow of a doubt that god healed my sister in church that very day.  She has conveniently forgotten all the medical treatment she had, and that the doctors had told her two weeks before her "faith healing" that she was now cancer free.  She loves to tell this story, too, because it affirms for her that Jesus loves her and that god healed her.  The last time I called her on it and said, "What about the surgery, the treatment, and the fact that the doctors told you it was cured before you went to church?"  She said that the doctors couldn't have cured her because there was still a little left in there, and if god hadn't cured her she'd be dead.  Seriously.

So that's how a normal cancer story can get blown out of proportion so that a multitude of credulous sheep can proclaim god did it.

Perspective, do you believe in christianity? It would make sense, if you did, that you are claiming christianity as equally scientific as, well, science.

personally, my brother went to a faith healing when he had cancer, and god didn't do anything for him. I hate the fact that my brother is dead. He was a good guy. A real character. Sometimes I miss him a lot. I just wish he had been at peace when he died, because he wasn't. He cried the night before his death. Dammit!

forget it. I don't even know why I'm saying this.

Quote from: "perspective"

Quote from: "parllagio"

Quote from: "perspective"Every scientific discovery can be both explained from a atheist scientific point of view and equally from a Christian scientific point of view. The Problem is not in the evidence, but in how it is interpreted.

I don't even know how to respond... Are you arguing that evolution and creationism are two different perspectives based of the same evidence?

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. I know none of us here are experts in ALL scientific fields, but I have studied scientific research. What I have seen is that the evidence can go both ways. The problem is not the phenomena, but the cause of it. Further, there is no one that can claim that they absolutely know the origin of life. Whether it be evolutionist of Christians. Fair enough. That's what I mean when I say that we are in the same boat. We both can not claim with absolute certainty (from the evidence) that we are right. I would further argue that if you tried, you would be making claims way beyond the scientist who are masters in their fields. So then the question really becomes, What explains ALL of the phenomena of this life BETTER. I am arguing that a true and honest answer would be God. Further, that it is the God of Christianity, because all other religions contradict themselves or just aren't logical. So would you all agree, that it really is a matter of preference?

I think you have some problems with the science here.

1. Evidence, facts if you like, in science is collected together and a hypothesis made that explains the facts. This hypothesis has to be able to explain all the facts known. It also has to have some power of prediction so that  it can predict what other, new, evidence might come in. If it can do that and cannot be dislodged by the scientific community who are keen to knock it down, it becomes a theory.

2. Every time new facts come in, the theory is examined to see if it still holds - theories are always open to challenge.

3. For most science, probability is the key here, not absolute certainty.  So we cannot be absolutely sure gravity will still be the same tomorrow but it is a fair bet. Evolution is like this. We have fossil evidence, we have DNA evidence, we have we have comparative anatomy all of which point towards our theory being correct but no one is giving up looking for holes. However, because of all the pieces of evidence we have, no one can bring the theory down by arguing with one piece of the evidence or by claiming something is missing.

4. Evolution is to do with the progress of the earliest life through to higher forms. This is what Darwin started. The way life first appeared is called abiogensis and there have been a number of experiments which seem to suggest how it might have happened. Google will give the details for you. We have at least a hypothesis and some evidence for how this may have happened and you have a supernatural being for which there seems not to be direct evidence. I would expect that we might well make progress on this front in the years to come.

Broadly, if you want to negate the results of science, probability is not going to be the answer as you will also have to discuss the probability of your ideas being true as well and given the evidence science has I would expect that the balance would be on the side of science. That said, whilst I see no problem with you believing what you chose to believe, indeed I think it important you have that right, that does not mean I would put god and science on the same platform (assuming you mean by god an omnipotent supernatural being). The totality of science has given us huge insights into our world, universe and ourselves and will continue to do so. This has been to the benefit of people generally (war doesn't count unless you concede genocide in the books of Moses) and, given the choice, were you ill, of a scientifically development medical treatment or prayer and laying on of hands Paul suggests, I bet you would go for the former but I could be wrong.

Quote from: "Wechtlein Uns"Perspective, do you believe in christianity? It would make sense, if you did, that you are claiming christianity as equally scientific as, well, science.

personally, my brother went to a faith healing when he had cancer, and god didn't do anything for him. I hate the fact that my brother is dead. He was a good guy. A real character. Sometimes I miss him a lot. I just wish he had been at peace when he died, because he wasn't. He cried the night before his death. Dammit!

forget it. I don't even know why I'm saying this.

Before I reply to anything else, I want to say that I am sorry that this has happened. It is hard when our loved ones go. My grandfather died recently and I spoke at his funeral. It was the hardest thing I have ever done. I wont say anything else about it but death is hard.

QuoteIt seems that the body of evidence for evolutionary biology is at a minimum overwhelming.

All evidence is interpreted in light of a person’s worldview. It’s hardly surprising that evolutionists think that the evidence supports their position, and creationists think the evidence confirms creation. So, the real question is, “which worldview can make sense of science at all?” We have shown that only creation can.

The evidence agrees with all the observations from the different sects of science.

Evidence doesn’t agree or disagree or make conclusions. You are falsely giving human qualities to things that don’t have them. This is called the fallacy of reification. People interpret facts and observations as evidence. Such inanimate things simply can’t do that.

This is a section of article that I think can help show my point.

Quote from: "parllagio"

Quote from: "perspective"I am arguing that a true and honest answer would be God. Further, that it is the God of Christianity, because all other religions contridict themselves or just arent logical. So would you all agree, that it really is a matter of preference?

Since when did christianity not contradict itself, and how is it logical?

I can assure you that the Bible NEVER contridicts itself. And I can assure that it is most logical. I think I might start a new topic to address this issue.

Quote from: "perspective"I can assure you that the Bible NEVER contridicts itself. And I can assure that it is most logical.

 

...you do realize that you just made what most atheists consider to be quite possibly the single most laughable, dead wrong statement in the history of statements? Also, one which many of us have dozens upon dozens of examples to refute?

I have posted a new topic under religion about contradictions. However, I wont talk about it here so we can stay on topic.

Evidence, in our case, should be more than just a justification of why something could be, as we see so often used by theist of many different faiths. Rather evidence should be what overwhelms us. Something that would take mental stamina to actually resist. Cognitively speaking, what works as evidence for one will not work for another. Some folks are actually destined to be theists for life.

I don't question that your beliefs could be rational. A rational belief is merely a genuine conclusion arrived upon by ones own thinking. An irrational belief is a belief built upon influence from others. However I find that many theists want to stay with that group of people (whether their beliefs were originally founded for rational or irrational reasons) that they will eventually reject real evidence when freshly presented and substitute justifications for why God can exist in lieu of providing me with a valid reason for why he absolutely must exist.

Sophus

You helped me with my school project, remember. Very good answers you gave. Logical.

all I can say to you is, I like your style, and your reference to RUSH. Rush: Roll the Bones.

Quote from: "perspective"Sophus

You helped me with my school project, remember. Very good answers you gave. Logical.

all I can say to you is, I like your style, and your reference to RUSH. Rush: Roll the Bones.

Ah, I remember now. I suppse I didn't expect you to actually hang around on the forum. Thought you were hit and run for your project.   Well I'm pleasantly surprised... it's good to have you on board. I'm sure our once lone Christian, Titan, will much appreciate your presence too.

Is this a part of your project too?

Quote from: "Sophus"Ah, I remember now. I suppse I didn't expect you to actually hang around on the forum. Thought you were hit and run for your project.  :D  and scare you with hell fire    ) just kiddin. I rather enjoy talking with people and arguing my beliefs. Anyway...

Quote from: "Faithless"Okay, I just have to jump in here about this cancer thing, because I do have a real life story about this that I actually was there for.

My sister is a life-long fundamentalist.  This is because, as some of you know and some of you don't, she was raised by my Christian father while I was raised by my atheist mother.  I love my sister, and although she's a fundie, she's not quite as bad as some.  Over the years she has become convinced that evolution is real, and that the Earth is not 6,000 years old.  She believes god started evolution and that the earth is actually billions of years old.  Unfortunately, this is the only thing in her belief system that has changed.  She still believes in angels, demons, Jesus talks to her personally and puts things into her heart, the whole nine yards.

My sister had colon cancer.  Luckily they caught it early.  A section of her colon was removed, she went through chemo and radiation and whatever else they did to her, and eventually the doctors agreed that they'd managed to remove the whole tumor and she was cured.  During the time of this treatment, however, she had been going to some really wacko revivalist church where they moan and scream and faint in the aisle and so forth.  So this preacher keeps "laying hands" on her during this whole cancer ordeal.  And she will swear to you on a stack of bibles that the last time he did this she could feel god's mighty hand go into her body through the stomach and pull the cancer out of her body through her spine.

So my sister, my family, her whole church and the entire town absolutely and completely believe without a shadow of a doubt that god healed my sister in church that very day.  She has conveniently forgotten all the medical treatment she had, and that the doctors had told her two weeks before her "faith healing" that she was now cancer free.  She loves to tell this story, too, because it affirms for her that Jesus loves her and that god healed her.  The last time I called her on it and said, "What about the surgery, the treatment, and the fact that the doctors told you it was cured before you went to church?"  She said that the doctors couldn't have cured her because there was still a little left in there, and if god hadn't cured her she'd be dead.  Seriously.

So that's how a normal cancer story can get blown out of proportion so that a multitude of credulous sheep can proclaim god did it.

Thank you, thank you, thank you a hundred times for sharing this!!!

Seriously, this is a perfect example of how this stuff gets reported as miraculous. Really appreciate you letting us hear about it.
Also, despite her claims that it was from god, I'm happy to hear about the positive outcome for your sister!

Quote from: "perspective"

QuoteIt seems that the body of evidence for evolutionary biology is at a minimum overwhelming.

All evidence is interpreted in light of a person’s worldview. It’s hardly surprising that evolutionists think that the evidence supports their position, and creationists think the evidence confirms creation. So, the real question is, “which worldview can make sense of science at all?” We have shown that only creation can.

The evidence agrees with all the observations from the different sects of science.

Evidence doesn’t agree or disagree or make conclusions. You are falsely giving human qualities to things that don’t have them. This is called the fallacy of reification. People interpret facts and observations as evidence. Such inanimate things simply can’t do that.

This is a section of article that I think can help show my point.

''

I can see how your argument about evidence can make sense. Yes, we all interperet things based on our own world views. I guess a relative example here would be some of the stories people have shared about cancer. Christians may see a miracle from god where atheist see a simple regression, or doctors doing there job well.

I do have to disagree with you on the evolution vs. creationism. Both sides are simply not looking at the same evidence. One side tends to ignore quite a bit of evidence. The only thing I ask you to do is to take a step back and a look at both sides with an open mind. Which side had a conclusion prior to examining any evidence? Which side will change their stance in light of new evidence? Which side is routinely looking for holes in their theory?

Evolutionist did not get together one day, gather up evidence for evolution and say "hey, this fits in our worldview". Evidence was gathered and the best conclusion was drawn from that evidence, predictions were made, and future evidence proved those predictions. From Darwin until now the Theory of Evolution has been fine tuned as more and more evidence has shown that evolution is a fact. We evolved from other species - Fact. This is in complete disagreement with the biblical account of creation.

Well. I agree that christians and Atheists are looking at two different sets of rationale for their beliefs.