Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[gnostic]

strawman...
with metric I simply mean an objective standard…………….just forget about God and No-God stuff for a minute, I am asking in general for an objective standard that would allow us to determine if something is evidence or not.

For example

If we have a hypothesis “A”

And we make an observation “X”

How can we test if X is evidence for A?.....................given that you (plural) don t accept the standard that I proposed, what standard do you suggest?

why is this so hard to answer? @Valjean @TagliatelliMonster @SkepticThinker etc.?

metrics are units of measurements, set by International Standards.

you are asking & demanding metrics which don’t even exist, to be observed.

You are being absurd with your demands. What you are asking for, is downright stupid.

can you even measure God? The answer is no, so why even ask for metric when there are no measurements to be made.

your ignorance and your arrogance are staggering.

 

[shunyadragon]

strawman...
with metric I simply mean an objective standard…………….just forget about God and No-God stuff for a minute, I am asking in general for an objective standard that would allow us to determine if something is evidence or not.

For example

If we have a hypothesis “A”

And we make an observation “X”

How can we test if X is evidence for A?.....................given that you (plural) don t accept the standard that I proposed, what standard do you suggest?

why is this so hard to answer? @Valjean @TagliatelliMonster @SkepticThinker etc.?


I am asking for an objective way to test if an observation “X” is evidence for a Hypothesis “A”………….what I pointless about that?


hOw can we ever know if you don’t provide an objective way to test if something is evidence or not?

Just remove your mind from “God stuff” for a minute, in general how can we test if some observation/experiment/equation/ discovery etc. count as evidence for a particular hypothesis/theory/claim etc.

Scientific and Legal standards of objective verifiable evidence is based on evidence that can be independently and predictably observed, verified evidence as opposed to subjective evidence. A good simple straight forward explanation:

What is Objective Evidence?

Introduction to Objective EvidenceObjective evidence is all about facts and tangible data based on actual observations. It's key for making informed

www.bizmanualz.com

Objective evidence is all about facts and tangible data based on actual observations. It’s key for making informed choices in science, law, and medicine.

In science, objective evidence is critical for credibility and reliability. It helps researchers present their findings with empirical data that can be seen, measured, and repeated by others. This adds transparency to the scientific community and builds trust. Objective evidence is also great for drawing valid conclusions and formulating hypotheses.

The Stanford Encyclopedia gives a more detailed comprehensive description.

Scientific Objectivity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

 

[shunyadragon]

There is nothing foggy about it. And if you think there is, it should be very easy to refute. What have I posted so far that you wish to refute? And how are you going to do that?

Philosophically speaking, everything begins with "I think therefor I am". With that realization comes the realization that there is a "not I" (otherwise how could I recognize an "I"?). So how did we recognize that there is an "I" and a "not I"? And the logical answer to that question is that we are aware of experiencing something that we are not making happen. That we are not responsible for or in control of.

And after "I am" comes "here". I am here. Here is not me, but is effecting me. This is how I am able to recognize it. And finally come the realization, "now". I am here now. And the "now" is the result of our experience of her constantly changing.

When philosophers try to understand the truth of being, this is where they begin.

Problem with your stoic one sided view of things is as above the contrasting beliefs of Atheism and Theism are subjective beliefs without objective evidence based on philosophical/theological assumptions as you say the subjective "I think therefore I am.'

 

[shunyadragon]

There is no existence unless you believe in that concept. No matter how much you "observe".

There is no existence unless you believe in that concept. No matter how much you "observe". - Google Search

www.google.com

Epistemological solipsism

A form of idealism that states that only the mental contents of the solipsistic philosopher are directly accessible. It considers the existence of an external world to be an unresolvable question, rather than false.

 

[leroy]

Your ten-year-old self thinks it's a reasonable conclusion, or your current self thinks it's a reasonable conclusion?

My current self concludes that it is reasonable to prefer hypothesis A over hypothesis B if:

1 A has a practical benefit

2 there are no good reasons to prefer B over A

(you need both 1 and 2 in order for it to be reasobanle)

For example:

if the statistics in your country say that 50% of people cheat on their wifes/husbands

and

• you are the type of person that would not tolerate an infidelity (you would diverse in such case)
• you really have no empirical data to prove or falsify any possibility

I would be reasonable to conclude and act as if your wife/husband is not cheating on you, because you have a lot to gain if you are correct, and a relatively small loss if you are wrong

The same logic could be applied to God (this is Pascal wager)

So I get no answer instead.
Okey dokey.

You are making the dishonest “debate” strategy of asking many complex questions, because you know that it is impossible to address everything in a proper way

Is this your evidence for the god you believe in? How does this get you to a god, and more specifically, to the god you believe in?

I don’t know, but that was not part of your definition and standard for evidence………………..all you said was testable, observable, repeatable etc…

So ether this is evidence for god or you metric fails


the low entropy of the universe is evidence for god (and everything else) according to your standards....................

 

[leroy]

metrics are units of measurements, set by International Standards.

you are asking & demanding metrics which don’t even exist, to be observed.

You are being absurd with your demands. What you are asking for, is downright stupid.

can you even measure God? The answer is no, so why even ask for metric when there are no measurements to be made.

your ignorance and your arrogance are staggering.

You made a straw man, I corrected you and you repeated the same mistake…………….that is quite pathetic……..this is why internet atheist are a joke and a source of memes .

My question is very simple

If we have a hypothesis A

And we make an observation B

How can we know if this observation counts as evidence?.........what metric can we use-.--------------or if you don’t like the term “metric” what standard can we use?



As you can note, this has nothing to do with “measuring God” as you wrongly and dishonestly represented my argument

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You made a straw man, I corrected you and you repeated the same mistake…………….that is quite pathetic……..this is why internet atheist are a joke and a source of memes .

My question is very simple

If we have a hypothesis A

And we make an observation B

How can we know if this observation counts as evidence?.........what metric can we use-.--------------or if you don’t like the term “metric” what standard can we use?



As you can note, this has nothing to do with “measuring God” as you wrongly and dishonestly represented my argument

Hypothesis A should predict observation B.

 

[shunyadragon]

My current self concludes that it is reasonable to prefer hypothesis A over hypothesis B if:

1 A has a practical benefit

2 there are no good reasons to prefer B over A

(you need both 1 and 2 in order for it to be reasobanle)

For example:

if the statistics in your country say that 50% of people cheat on their wifes/husbands

and

• you are the type of person that would not tolerate an infidelity (you would diverse in such case)
• you really have no empirical data to prove or falsify any possibility

I would be reasonable to conclude and act as if your wife/husband is not cheating on you, because you have a lot to gain if you are correct, and a relatively small loss if you are wrong

The same logic could be applied to God (this is Pascal wager)



You are making the dishonest “debate” strategy of asking many complex questions, because you know that it is impossible to address everything in a proper way


I don’t know, but that was not part of your definition and standard for evidence………………..all you said was testable, observable, repeatable etc…

So ether this is evidence for god or you metric fails


the low entropy of the universe is evidence for god (and everything else) according to your standards....................

You do not remotely understand the context of what you are calling 'low entropy' It is not 'evidence for God.'

low entropy universe - Google Search

The universe was born in a low-entropy state because of the transition from an inflationary state to a hot Big Bang state, a process called cosmic reheating. Inflation caused the entropy density to decrease, and the universe's low entropy is also attributed to gravity.

In a system with gravity, like the universe, a low-entropy state is when matter is distributed almost uniformly. A high-entropy state would be when all matter collapses into black holes. When gravitating bodies clump together, they achieve high entropy, while a uniformly spread system of gravitating bodies has relatively low entropy.

The universe's entropy is mostly encoded in the leftover radiation and neutrinos from the Big Bang. The entropy of the universe is so large that the entropy of the things we see, like stars and galaxies, is negligible in comparison. This can make it seem like entropy changes as structure forms, but that's just a coincidence.

Explain how 'low-entropy' is evidence for God.

 

[SkepticThinker]

My current self concludes that it is reasonable to prefer hypothesis A over hypothesis B if:

1 A has a practical benefit

2 there are no good reasons to prefer B over A

(you need both 1 and 2 in order for it to be reasobanle)

For example:

if the statistics in your country say that 50% of people cheat on their wifes/husbands

and

• you are the type of person that would not tolerate an infidelity (you would diverse in such case)
• you really have no empirical data to prove or falsify any possibility

I would be reasonable to conclude and act as if your wife/husband is not cheating on you, because you have a lot to gain if you are correct, and a relatively small loss if you are wrong

The same logic could be applied to God (this is Pascal wager)

No. Because what happens if you throw down with the Christian god, and you die and go to Heaven and you're standing in front of Thor? Or Zeus. Or Allah. Or Osiris. Or, or, or ...

You are making the dishonest “debate” strategy of asking many complex questions, because you know that it is impossible to address everything in a proper way

LOL No, I'm not.
What I'm trying to do is to get answers out of you about what you're talking about.
There's nothing sinister going on here. I'm not trying to trick you.
Good grief.

I don’t know, but that was not part of your definition and standard for evidence………………..all you said was testable, observable, repeatable etc…
So ether this is evidence for god or you metric fails

I also said demonstrable, measurable, quantifiable.


It's not evidence for your god then, if it doesn't lead us to your god. If you can't show us how it leads to your god.
You're confusing the evidence with the argument.

the low entropy of the universe is evidence for god (and everything else) according to your standards....................

No it isn't. As I just pointed out.

 

[leroy]

Hypothesis A should predict observation B.

Hypothesis A

Ghost exist in old houses

Prediction

If Ghost exists we would predict to see testimonies of people who life in old houses, who claim to have seen a ghost.

Those testimonies exist…………..therefore this is evidence according to your standard



I personally agree, and grant this standard, but given this standard, evidence for God would be very easy to provide

 

[PureX]

Problem with your stoic one sided view of things is as above the contrasting beliefs of Atheism and Theism are subjective beliefs without objective evidence based on philosophical/theological assumptions as you say the subjective "I think therefore I am.'

There is no 'subjective' vs 'objective'. WE ARE BOTH. We are object and subject. They are inextricably intertwined in us. So basing our understanding of existence on one to the exclusion of the other is a fundamental flaw, and is doomed to fail.

 

[leroy]

No. Because what happens if you thrown down with the Christian god, and you die and go to Heaven and you're standing in front of Thor? Or Zeus. Or Allah. Or Osiris. Or, or, or ...

What Pascal wager says is that if there is a draw in terms of evidence for Christian God Zeus and "no god"……………one most pick the one that produces best practical benefits

(and I agree)

Since I don’t think there is a draw, this doesn’t apply to me, but it would apply if I ever consider that there is a draw between this 3 options i woudl apply that reasoning

LOL No, I'm not.
What I'm trying to do is to get answers out of you about what you're talking about.
There's nothing sinister going on here. I'm not trying to trick you.

Again answering to all your requests would require me to make a 20 pages long reply…………and I wont do that……………….

Good grief. I don’t know, but that was not part of your definition and standard for evidence………………..all you said was testable, observable, repeatable etc…

I also said demonstrable, measurable, quantifiable.


It's not evidence for your god then, if it doesn't lead us to your god. If you can't show us how it leads to your god.
You're confusing the evidence with the argument.

It´s evidence accrding to your rules..............feel free to change them

If you can't show us how it leads to your god.

Ohhh you are adding new information to your definition of evidence


so evidnece is anything testable, observable, repeatable demonstrable, measurable, quantifiable that leads to the hypothesis/claim/theory in question?

Is this your definition of evidence? Would you add more?........................what do you mean with lead?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hypothesis A

Ghost exist in old houses

Prediction

If Ghost exists we would predict to see testimonies of people who life in old houses, who claim to have seen a ghost.

Those testimonies exist…………..therefore this is evidence according to your standard



I personally agree, and grant this standard, but given this standard, evidence for God would be very easy to provide

Yeah, you are in part right. Replicate is the key word and then you can add instrument measurements if possible. Further you can consider the definitions I gave of objective and subjective and combine with replicate and instruments.
So we still don't agree. Further ghosts have to be integrated as in effect physical processes in a natural world as per methodological naturalism.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What Pascal wager says is that if there is a draw in terms of evidence for Christian God Zeus and "no god"……………one most pick the one that produces best practical benefits

(and I agree)

Since I don’t think there is a draw, this doesn’t apply to me, but it would apply if I ever consider that there is a draw between this 3 options i woudl apply that reasoning

"“Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.”


This doesn't work when there are thousands of different versions of gods to choose from. All with different attributes, qualities, wants, desires, etc. from the other gods.

Again answering to all your requests would require me to make a 20 pages long reply…………and I wont do that……………….

Nah, it wouldn't.

It´s evidence accrding to your rules..............feel free to change them

It isn't, as I just explained.

Ohhh you are adding new information to your definition of evidence

No, it isn't.

And I just explained why:

It's not evidence for your god then, if it doesn't lead us to your god. If you can't show us how it leads to your god.
You're confusing the evidence with the argument.

so evidnece is anything testable, observable, repeatable demonstrable, measurable, quantifiable that leads to the hypothesis/claim/theory in question?

Anything that supports it. All the evidence together, should lead directly to your conclusion.

Is this your definition of evidence? Would you add more?........................what do you mean with lead?

I mean, you don't just get to say "the beginning of the universe was low entropy, therefore the god I believe in exists."

I've already explained why.

 

[leroy]

"“Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.”


This doesn't work when there are thousands of different versions of gods to choose from. All with different attributes, qualities, wants, desires, etc. from the other gods.

As I told you pascal wager only applies in the case of draw,,,,,,,,,,,,, your objection would only apply if there is a draw in terms of evidence between all these 1000 gods

Anything that supports it. All the evidence together, should lead directly to your conclusion.

Ok things are celar now

So testimonies of people having seen ghosts support the claim that Ghost exist…………therefore these testimonies are evidence for the existence of ghost…………agree?

 

[ppp]

So testimonies of people having seen ghosts support the claim that Ghost exist…………therefore these testimonies are evidence for the existence of ghost…………agree?

Evidence has to narrow the possibilities. The mere testimonies of people claiming to have seen ghosts is evidence of both the proposition that the people experienced a ghost, and that they did not experience a ghost.

You can call that evidence if you want, but it is useless evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

As I told you pascal wager only applies in the case of draw,,,,,,,,,,,,, your objection would only apply if there is a draw in terms of evidence between all these 1000 gods

There is no evidence for any of them.

Ok things are celar now

Cool.

So testimonies of people having seen ghosts support the claim that Ghost exist…………therefore these testimonies are evidence for the existence of ghost…………agree?

"I've seen a ghost" is a claim. You'd need evidence to support that claim. And you'd have to define "ghost" first.

 

[leroy]

Evidence has to narrow the possibilities. The mere testimonies of people claiming to have seen ghosts is evidence of both the proposition that the people experienced a ghost, and that they did not experience a ghost.

You can call that evidence if you want, but it is useless evidence.

Testimonies of people having seen ghosts do narrow the possibilities. (at least a little bit)

The existence of Ghost is more likely to be true in this world……………..than in a hypothetical world where these testimonies do not exist and nobody testifies having this experience

 

[ppp]

Testimonies of people having seen ghosts do narrow the possibilities. (at least a little bit)

You are absolutely wrong about that. Now what?

 

[leroy]

There is no evidence for any of them.

In that case PW would apply…………………….as I said it only applies if you think that the evidence is equally good on both sides

Cool.


"I've seen a ghost" is a claim.

Yes, the existence of the claim is a testable, verifiable, reputable-… etc. …………….and the claim supports the hypothesis “ghosts are real”

So by your previous rule, it is evidence…………….. but you can change your mind again, and provide another defitnion/standard for evidence.

You can argue that testimonies are not “conclusive evidence” but they certainly are evidnece

Or we can safe time………..why don’t you simply admit that for you evidence is “anything that supports your own personal world view”……………why don’t you simply admit that for you anything that contradicts your view………..by definition wouldn’t be evidence

You'd need evidence to support that claim.

yes but first you need to explain what you mean by evidence…………that is the issue

And you'd have to define "ghost" first.

ghost: a nebulous image of an apparition of a dead person

But Since this is a hypothetical example, you can define ghost however you want……….it is still true that by your rules testimonies are evidence for ghosts


Your rules where

1 testable, falsifiable, repeatable, etc. (the testimonies are there, you can test them and show that these people really exist and that they really testify having seen a ghost)……….there really are people claiming to have seen ghosts

2 that supports the hypothesis: if ghost where real, we would expect to see these testimonies………correct prediction is one way in which a hypothesis can be supported.

These are your rules

If you want to insist in that there is no evidence for ghost, then change your criteria