Evidence

[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.

[wheels5894]

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?

[bowmore]

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.

[McQ]

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

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

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.

[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?

[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!"

[wheels5894]

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.

[McQ]

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.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01695.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

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.

[Squid]

@ 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.

[perspective]

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?

[perspective]

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.

[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!

[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.

[perspective]

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.

[parllagio]

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.  

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.