Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Your rules were

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.

...

Yes, repeatable. So when such claims has been tried to be repeated, what has happened?

 

[leroy]

You are absolutely wrong about that. Now what?

now what?.................. in a debate the proper thing to do is explain and show why your interlocutor is wrong ……………….. but in this forum it is ok to simply say, “you are wrong because you say so “

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

now what?.................. in a debate the proper thing to do is explain and show why your interlocutor is wrong ……………….. but in this forum it is ok to simply say, “you are wrong because you say so “

Because your claim of evidence as per ghosts don't live up to being repeated as far as I can tell.

 

[cladking]

As opposed to coloring it in with unseen 40,000 year old science, non-existent brain scans of 5,000 year old brains, secret definitions, and unsupported sudden change.

You can't show that the brains were the same either.

But I can show they said things like "the way goes over the flames under which the gods create." Far more ludicrous things than this came out of ancient brains. It's almost like they didn't think like us.

I disagree. Your claims and the lack of any support for them in the form of coherence, specificity, logic, reason or evidence is what drives the rejection.

And exactly what supernatural or esoteric beliefs do you have?

I disagree. Your claims and the lack of any support for them in the form of coherence, specificity, logic, reason or evidence is what drives the rejection.

And the irony being I'm the only one to have beliefs about the nature of religion, consciousness, beaver science, and how the fossil recoird supports sudden change in species.

 

[leroy]

You are absolutely wrong about that. Now what?

now what?.................. in a debate the proper thing to do is explain and show why your interlocutor is wrong ……………….. but in this forum it is ok to simply say, “you are wrong because you say so “

 

[leroy]

Because your claim of evidence as per ghosts don't live up to being repeated as far as I can tell.

Sure, the claim (the testimony) is repeatable……………one person can repeat his testimony over and over again

I am not saying (nor denying) that there is evidence for ghost…………………….I am saying that according to the rules provided by @SkepticThinker testimonies should count as evidence

 

[cladking]

The Bible writers didn't know where the rain came from or where the sun went at night, nor that bats aren't birds nor that insects are hexapods.

After the Tower of Babel 1.0 everyone was confused and ancient science was lost in its entirety. The universal Ancient Language was the very metaphysics of ancient science. Cavemen were certainly able to deduce and observe the cause of rain and evaporation and they said so;

1140c. (he is dried) by the wind of the great Isis, together with (which) the great Isis dried (him) like Horus.
...
1146a. N. is the pouring down of rain; he came forth as the coming into being of water;
1146b. for he is the Nḥb-kȝ.w-serpent with the many coils;

"Nehebkau" was the hydraulic cycle as seen from the inside. We can't see it because we can't think as they did. Bees probably have a fair understanding of the hydraulic cycle.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure, the claim (the testimony) is repeatable……………one person can repeat his testimony over and over again

I am not saying (nor denying) that there is evidence for ghost…………………….I am saying that according to the rules provided by @SkepticThinker testimonies should count as evidence

No, that is not what it means. It means that any other person can repeat it and observe the ghost.

 

[cladking]

Mate. Newton is one of the most influential people in the world. And there is a measurement named after him. N. There is no point in discounting him or any other scientist who made something great out of themselves. Every scientist builds himself standing on greats. That's how science works. Don't discount them. There is absolutely no point.

I'm hardly discounting Newton. His work in countless areas including math, physics, numismatics, alchemy, and translation of ancient Syriac were important to me. It is largely his shoulders on which I stand. But he still failed to make sense of the documents he translated and which make perfect sense to me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

I don't think you understand Pascal's Wager.

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

And you don't know the difference between evidence and the claim being made.
I don't know how else to explain it at this point .

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

By my previous rule it is a claim.
First, you need to define what a ghost is, and what properties it has, so we know what we're talking about.
Maybe Joe Shmoe over there thinks a ghost is something different than what Mary Shmary over here thinks a ghost is.

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

They are claims.

Like, if I claim "I have a dog named Suzie." That's the claim.
The evidence I would present to demonstrate that would be to present my dog to you. Or if didn't have her handy, I could show you some photos and videos of her, maybe show you her dog bowl and her toys. I could also demonstrate that she answers to the name "Suzie."
Stuff like that.

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

Why would I admit something that isn't true and I don't believe?

I certainly don't think evidence is "anything that supports your own personal worldview" and I'm not sure why you think so because we just went over how your personal experience is not good evidence for anyone but yourself. Then I went on about how evidence should be something that is verifiable to anyone, anywhere. So, not sure how you got the above from anything I've said.

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

I've explained it every which way from Sunday. I don't know how else to explain it.

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

Okay, that's a start. What qualities should we be looking for?
How can a dead person appear to us?

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

You are very confused. I don't know how else to explain to you that the claim is not the evidence. The evidence is meant to back up the claim.

 

[leroy]

No, that is not what it means. It means that any other person can repeat it and observe the ghost.

That is nonsense, then thing that is suppose to be repeatable is the alleged evidence, not the hypothesis……………….but Ok then by that standard genetic similarities between chimps and humans are not evidence for common ancestry…………………..because nobody can repeat the ancestor

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, that is not what it means. It means that any other person can repeat it and observe the ghost.

That's it!

 

[ppp]

now what?.................. in a debate the proper thing to do is explain and show why your interlocutor is wrong ……………….. but in this forum it is ok to simply say, “you are wrong because you say so “

But you gave no explanation or demonstration that you were correct. You just made a bald assertion and left it lying there wide eyed and gasping on the floor. I will happily put as much effort in as you. C'mon, @leroy. Reciprocity!

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is nonsense, then thing that is suppose to be repeatable is the alleged evidence, not the hypothesis……………….but Ok then by that standard genetic similarities between chimps and humans are not evidence for common ancestry…………………..because nobody can repeat the ancestor

No.

By this standard, genetic similarities between chimps and humans ARE evidence for common ancestry, because anyone can take the same information, compare the genomes of both chimps and humans and show why they are related. This is demonstrable, verifiable, repeatable, testable evidence for the claim that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. I can test it and get the same results. You can test it and get the same results Joe Shmoe can test it and get the same results. We have multiple lines of evidence across multiple fields of science that demonstrate the relatedness between chimps and humans.

To summarize:

THE CLAIM: Humans and chimps share a common ancestor
THE EVIDENCE: Comparison of the genomes, anatomy, fossil record, brain structure, ERVs, etc.

 

[leroy]

You are very confused. I don't know how else to explain to you that the claim is not the evidence. The evidence is meant to back up the claim.

You don’t have to explain/justify that claims are not evidence………………..I will take your word for it, I will accept whatever defection you give for evidence……………just be consistent and don’t change it over and over again.

Lets make a summery

Fist: you said that evidence is: something testable, repeatable, falsifiable etc.

Then you added: that supports a hypothesis

Then you added: not a claim.



Would you add something else?...............or is that your final definition ?.............

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

Did not respond to my post and mixing objective and subjective misses basic definitions in English and the philosophy of evidence.

See post #4584

 

[leroy]

But you gave no explanation or demonstration that you were correct. You just made a bald assertion and left it lying there wide eyed and gasping on the floor. I will happily put as much effort in as you. C'mon, @leroy. Reciprocity!

Well do you disagree? I don’t think I have made any controversial claim.

The existence of ghost is more likely to be true given the existence of testimonies, than if such testimonies didn’t excited………………….

Testimonies are expected/predicted if ghost exist………..therefore testimonies support (at least a tiny bit-) the claim that ghosts exist

 

[shunyadragon]

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


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



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



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

The criteria does not change. Your explanation is incomplete. Objective Verifiable physical evidence is required. Testimony of individuals seeing ghosts is not independently verifiable; tested or falsified.

I provided a more complete definition and explanation and you have not responded,

 

[leroy]

No.

By this standard, genetic similarities between chimps and humans ARE evidence for common ancestry, because anyone can take the same information, compare the genomes of both chimps and humans and show why they are related. This is demonstrable, verifiable, repeatable, testable evidence for the claim that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. I can test it and get the same results. You can test it and get the same results Joe Shmoe c

The same is true with testimonies, you can ask the witnesses about the ghost, I can ask them, Joe can ask them………….etc. we can all verify and see if the witness is reporting the same experience

 

[ppp]

Testimonies are expected/predicted if ghost exist………..therefore testimonies support (at least a tiny bit-) the claim that ghosts exist

Testimonies are expected/predicted if ghost do not exist………..therefore testimonies refute (at least a tiny bit-) the claim that ghosts exist