Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[SkepticThinker]

I am thinking--I do not recall Freud or Jung talk about morals. The psychiatrists I have known also do not talk about morals. Most of the psychiatrists just give pills to their patients after they say, "OK, time's up, see you next week."

Psychiatrists aren't there to push morality on you. That's not their job.

 

[leroy]

Let's distinguish between what is evidence (discussed in this section) and what can we conclude from any piece of evidence (coming up next).

I will define the former, because that is what you are asking: what is evidence. Evidence is anything evident to the senses. Evidence is the noun form of the adjective evident.

And it's not limited to the external senses (sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch - also called objective evidence because it is available to all, although more can be said about the use of the word objective in this context). We also receive sensory input from within the body such as a leg cramp (somatic or outer body), heartburn (visceral or inner body), or thirst (chemistry) - also called subjective evidence.

By this reckoning, all of conscious content is evidence, including feelings, thoughts, memories, and desires. We can call this latter group evidence from the brain, distinct from external evidence, somatic evidence, visceral evidence, and chemical evidence.

And I'd like to comment on the phrase "valid evidence," which I consider a category error. Evidence can't be valid or invalid. What can be valid or invalid is the reasoning leading to whatever inferences have been drawn from that evidence.

Also, terms like scientific evidence don't make sense to me. What does that mean - what a scientist sees through a telescope? What is it when I look through that telescope? Lay evidence? It's all just evidence

The standard for evaluating what evidence is evidence of is the rules of critical thought or valid reasoning combined with memory (knowledge acquired through prior experience). Your premise is the evidence. If the reasoning connecting it to your conclusion is valid, i.e., fallacy free, that conclusion is sound, i.e., correct, and testing it will produce the desired result: successfully anticipating future outcomes.

Hopefully, you can now see why this isn't a well-formed idea. We don't determine if something is evidence. We experience evidence and determine what it is evidence of. We begin with a bare apprehension. First, we realize that we are looking at a human face (for example). Then comes the cognitive and affective content. Realizing that it is a face is the first cognitive conclusion arrived at. We understand that another person is in eyeshot. This might be followed with recognition ("I've seen this face before"), then memories such as "This is my friend Bill" and "We're meeting for lunch."

Then the affective content - how you feel about this. Maybe you're happy to see him and anticipating a nice lunch, or maybe you're annoyed because he's 30 minutes late, another cognitive conclusion derived from the memory of your agreed upon meeting time and the evidence your watch provides, which also has to be interpreted from bare apprehension (lights on my wrist) to conclusion (they mean it's 12:30 PM).

You asked about a metric for validating this process. Your metric is the relative success of your conclusions to lead to desired outcomes, which confirms the soundness of one's conclusions. If it rains 7 times out of 10 when the weatherman says that there is a 70% chance of rain. that confirms that his methods of going from whatever evidence he is using (weather measurements) to prognosis is valid. That's your metric.

I agree with something’s and disagree with other things, but my main concern is that your explanation is not very useful (or perhaps I was unable to grasp it)

The purpose of defining evidence and providing an objective standard is so that people can respond to statements such as “there is no evidence for God” or “there is no evidence for evolution” or “there is no evidence for Aliens” etc. without depending on the subjective opinion of your debate adversary.

For example if I claim “There is no evidence for aliens” you would obviously like a clear notion and an objective standard on what I would accept as evidence, before responding…. You would naturally whant to avoid this type of conversation

1 me: there is no evidence for Aliens

2 you: well the fact that there are other planets is evidence for aliens

3 me: no that is not evidence

4 you: Yes it is evidence

5 me: no

The purpose of an objective standard is so that you can present evidence for aliens , without depending on my approval (or agree on that there is no evidence)

Some context for you to understand the origin of this conversation:

The standard that I suggested before was : evidence is: anything that makes a proposition more likely to be true that without that thing……………..for example if the discovery of “X” makes the existence of “A” more likely than before X was discovered, then X is evidence for A.

So by this standard for example, the existence of other planets is evidence for Aliens, because given the existence of other planets the existence of aliens is more likely than if there were no other planets in the universe.

However, my standard and my definition of evidence was rejected and mucked by many in this forum…………this is why I simply replied with “ok then what standard do you suggest” (this gave origin to this conversation and to my request for other people to define evidence and provide an standard)

To put it in different words, this conversation originated because my standard was rejected.

So if you accept the standard I´ll have no problem in presenting evidence for God, if you don’t accept my standard then provide your own, such that it would be easy to determine objectively if anything counts as evidence

Yes, but the evidence is too weak to support belief in ghosts. It does, however, support the belief that people think they've seen ghosts.

Agree, this is consistent with the standard of evidence that propose, there is evidence for ghosts, but not enough to justify belief…………….the evidence for Ghosts is not strong enough to trump the evidence against, which is why belief is not justified

If you don't mind a little help with English - not your first language as I understand it - the word you want is childlike, not childish. The first is the word you use when you approve or are indifferent, as with "childlike innocence." Childish is generally used for behaviors one doesn't approve of, as with a "childish tantrum."

thanks

And here's another habit that you might want to reconsider: the use of non-standard abbreviations. I had to backtrack to figure out that this was Pascal's Wager. Yesterday, I saw you use DM, and it was the same. I had to go back a few posts to determine that you meant dak matter. Generally, my attitude is that if the person can't be bothered to write out a couple of words for the sake of clarity over taking a shortcut, I lose interest and scroll on. Take that for what it's worth. Maybe none of that matters to you.

Well if you want to participate in a conversation between other 2 users you are expected to backtrack anyway so that you can understand the topic and the context of that conversation......................

I think you are making a big issue, out of something small……….you also have writing habits that I dislike but I´ll rather to accept them and accommodate to them, rather than trying to change you to accommodate to my own personal preferences.

Generally, my attitude is that if the person can't be bothered to write out a couple of words for the sake of clarity over taking a shortcut

Yes and generally speaking you are correct, but in this particular case the abbreviations where already normalized and tacitly accepted in that conversation …. Besides If I were to bet, I´ll bet that I was not even the first one to use those abbreviations

​

 

[leroy]

Given that you expressed entropy as a percentage, it's absolutely certain that you don't understand it.

I said, after an infinite amount of time, the entropy of the universe would be 100% (or close to 100%) what is wrong with that? I am not expressing entropy as a percentage, I simply used 100% as synonymous of “total entropy”.why is this a big of a deal?

This cherry picking for minor inaccuracies show how desperate you are in showing that I am wrong

 

[leroy]

No.


So, we can add 'context' to the list of things you don't understand (kind of explains your flawed analogy too). At least you've given me enough to find the actual context (one has to wonder why you didn't do that...), here it is:

Well that has a very different solution……….explain exactly what did you mean when you made that comment……….and how is it different from what I interpreted?


"The main problem you run into with evidence for God is that god could have done anything"

I totally, 100%, stand by that explanation. That's exactly why you cannot have evidence for a God.

Ok and how is that explanation different from what I interpreted?

My interpretation of what you said is that the “explanation” has to be *specific* ...........if God can explain everything then no single explanation could count as evidence for God……………… how did I miss? How did I misunderstand your words?

 

[Pogo]

Well that has a very different solution……….explain exactly what did you mean when you made that comment……….and how is it different from what I interpreted?

R; The main problem you run into with evidence for God is that god could have done anything"

"I totally, 100%, stand by that explanation. That's exactly why you cannot have evidence for a God.

Ok and how is that explanation different from what I interpreted?

My interpretation of what you said is that the “explanation” has to be *specific* ...........if God can explain everything then no single explanation could count as evidence for God……………… how did I miss? How did I misunderstand your words?

How to you go from "anything" to mean "has to be specific"?

The whole point of anything is it includes everything no matter how specific, thus there is nothing that can be used for differentiation, IE it is not falsifiable.

 

[leroy]

How to you go from "anything" to mean "has to be specific"?

The whole point of anything is it includes everything no matter how specific, thus there is nothing that can be used for differentiation, IE it is not falsifiable.

thus there is nothing that can be used for differentiation, IE it is not falsifiable.

See @ratiocinator pogo understood the same thing than me……….. are you willing to consider that maybe you weren’t clear?


the argument seems to be that ...Given that God could explain everything (A, B, C…..and Z) it doesn’t matter if we observe “A” this observation cannot be considered evidence or support for God, because God could have also done B or C or Z……………… it seems to me (and apparently to pogo) that this was your argument……………………… how did we miss? What is your actual argument?

The way I understand it is that, the explanation has to be “specific” ….“A” could only be evidence for God, if and only if God predicts “A” and nothing else except for A…………..it seemed to me that this is your argument

But as you claimed before in a very explicit way, I misunderstood your words and took them out of context……………so please explain what is your argument really is…………………or you can stop the hypocrisy and admit that this is exactly what your original argument was, but given that you realized that I refuted the argument, you are now pretending that your argument was something else

 

[ratiocinator]

Ok and how is that explanation different from what I interpreted?

My interpretation of what you said is that the “explanation” has to be *specific* ...........if God can explain everything then no single explanation could count as evidence for God……………… how did I miss? How did I misunderstand your words?

This really isn't rocket science.

I was talking about evidence (because that is what you had asked about), I explained how evidence needs to involve specific predictions (that can be tested), or exact retrodictions. With God, both are impossible because it could have done anything in the past and could do anything in the future.

We can't apply that to logical deductions (like the KCA is attempts to do) because they aren't about evidence at all.

Things like 'fine-tuning' aren't really about evidence either. They are more along the lines of "this fact is difficult to explain, I can't think of anything else, and other people don't seem to know, so it must be magic God".

Other things like the "why does anything exist at all?" question, is just taking something that's clearly an unknown and then trying to insert your preferred species of God into the unknown.

These things are all silly for far more obvious reasons than failing the test of being evidence.

You've been throwing this out of context, isolated phrase back at me since as if I'd said it was the main problem with God, full stop. You couldn't even be honest enough to quote the full sentence when you gave it as 'context', let alone reference the actual post or quote the entire case I was making.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Thank you for going back and addressing that post. All is forgiven. Please keep it up in the future.

The purpose of an objective standard is so that you can present evidence for aliens , without depending on my approval

Our objective standard for evaluating evidence is the rules of inferences (valid reasoning). Apply them without fallacy to premises/evidence and deduce sound conclusions. It's not a subjective process. The conclusions are sound or they're not, and those are factual judgments.

I gave you my argument for expecting aliens including unicellular aliens to exist in a subsequent and recent post. Did you find the argument compelling?

Agree, this is consistent with the standard of evidence that propose, there is evidence for ghosts, but not enough to justify belief…………….the evidence for Ghosts is not strong enough to trump the evidence against, which is why belief is not justified

Good. You indicated that you understood my treatment of evidence of, although you didn't indicate that you understood my definition of evidence or the distinction between what evidence s and what it is evidence of.

Well if you want to participate in a conversation between other 2 users you are expected to backtrack anyway so that you can understand the topic and the context of that conversation...I think you are making a big issue, out of something small. Yes and generally speaking you are correct, but in this particular case the abbreviations where already normalized and tacitly accepted in that conversation …. Besides If I were to bet, I´ll bet that I was not even the first one to use those abbreviation.

Not being first doesn't matter. Not being understood should.

I'm pointing out a truism:

[1] Using nonstandard abbreviations is for your convenience and not your readers'. I never do that. It's lazy and for some readers, lacking meaning.
[2] It will annoy some readers, who will have to decide between trying to figure out what you mean and just scrolling on.

If neither of those things matter to you - and perhaps they don't - you needn't change a thing.

you also have writing habits that I dislike but I´ll rather to accept them and accommodate to them, rather than trying to change you to accommodate to my own personal preferences.

Thanks, but I'm willing to discuss them with you. If I can make a change for the better after hearing your criticism, I'll thank you and make it. If I don't agree that those habits should change, I'll tell you why I disagree.

 

[leroy]

This really isn't rocket science.

I was talking about evidence (because that is what you had asked about), I explained how evidence needs to involve specific predictions (that can be tested), or exact retrodictions. With God, both are impossible because it could have done anything in the past and could do anything in the future.

You've been throwing this out of context, isolated phrase back at me since as if I'd said it was the main problem with God, full stop. You couldn't even be honest enough to quote the full sentence when you gave it as 'context', let alone reference the actual post or quote the entire case I was making.

Ok and that is exactly what I understood and I explained why it fails, in no moment did I lost the context................so the accusation of quoting out of context is not valid

honest enough to quote the full sentence

The first times I quoted the whole paragraph…….. Later I simply quote the relevant words, given that the context was already clear............So your accusation of me being dishonest is invalid and an apology is expected

specific predictions (that can be tested), or exact retrodictions. With God, both are impossible because it could have done anything in the past and could do anything in the future.

You failed for the reasons explained before, you don´t need “specific predictions”……………the archer (like god) could have done anything (ether miss or hit the target)………………..but if the arrow hits the target you would accept that as evidence for “intent”…………….. no specific prediction is needed.

Please explain which of these 2 points you reject

1 the arrow hitting the target would be evidence for intent (atleast in some hypothetical scenario)

2 there is no specific prediction in this example (the archer with intent could have intentionally hit or missed the target) the archer coudl have done anything

God and the archer are analogues in that they both "could have done anything" (no speciic prediction)………………..any other disanalogy is irrelevant and would be dismissed as a strawman

We can't apply that to logical deductions (like the KCA is attempts to do) because they aren't about evidence at all.

no idea on what are you talking about

Things like 'fine-tuning' aren't really about evidence either. They are more along the lines of "this fact is difficult to explain, I can't think of anything else, and other people don't seem to know, so it must be magic God".

The Fine Tuning argument is more like,,,,,,,,, we see a phenomena that we can´t explain…….. we look at our pool of options (possible explanations) and we pick the best candidate

Among the pool of possible explanations we have

1 Design

2 cosmic evolution

3 anthoropic principle

4 multiverse

5 it happened by chance

6 the universe is not really FT

etc

I claim design, because I claim it is the best alternative…………….feel free to disagree, pick your alternative and show that it is better than design

So this is not a “We don’t know” therefore God did it argument as you wrongly claim……………..but it is ‘irrelevant for you…………..we both know that you will repeat that mistake over and over again

Other things like the "why does anything exist at all?" question, is just taking something that's clearly an unknown and then trying to insert your preferred species of God into the unknown.

same as with the FT arguemnt .............. God is claimed to be the best alternative......................You may or may not agree………. But it is not a “we don’t know therefore God” argument

These things are all silly for far more obvious reasons than failing the test of being evidence.

Since I still don’t know what your test is , then I would never now if it is evidence or not.

But a clarification would be appreciated----------

I claim for example that Design is the best alternative for the FT of the universe (the best explanation among the explanations that have been proposed)

What are you actually arguing?

1 No design it is not the best explanation for the FT of the universe; there are better alternatives in the list (therefore not evidnece)

2 irrelevant, even if design is the best explanation among the other alternatives in the list………it would still not count as evidence

 

[Pogo]

See @ratiocinator pogo understood the same thing than me……….. are you willing to consider that maybe you weren’t clear?


the argument seems to be that ...Given that God could explain everything (A, B, C…..and Z) it doesn’t matter if we observe “A” this observation cannot be considered evidence or support for God, because God could have also done B or C or Z……………… it seems to me (and apparently to pogo) that this was your argument……………………… how did we miss? What is your actual argument?

The way I understand it is that, the explanation has to be “specific” ….“A” could only be evidence for God, if and only if God predicts “A” and nothing else except for A…………..it seemed to me that this is your argument

But as you claimed before in a very explicit way, I misunderstood your words and took them out of context……………so please explain what is your argument really is…………………or you can stop the hypocrisy and admit that this is exactly what your original argument was, but given that you realized that I refuted the argument, you are now pretending that your argument was something else

No, you misinterpret in a desperate attempt to find some definition that will make your idea work, there isn't one, just quit.
A god that can do anything means nothing and everything he does are equivalent in evidentiary value, worthless.

 

[ratiocinator]

You failed for the reasons explained before, you don´t need “specific predictions”……………the archer (like god) could have done anything (ether miss or hit the target)………………..but if the arrow hits the target you would accept that as evidence for “intent”…………….. no specific prediction is needed.

Please explain which of these 2 points you reject

1 the arrow hitting the target would be evidence for intent (atleast in some hypothetical scenario)

2 there is no specific prediction in this example (the archer with intent could have intentionally hit or missed the target) the archer coudl have done anything

God and the archer are analogues in that they both "could have done anything" (no speciic prediction)………………..any other disanalogy is irrelevant and would be dismissed as a strawman

The result is not how we infer intent. I've explained this so many times, I really can't bother any more. If you can't see that by now, you never will.

no idea on what are you talking about

Deductive arguments are not about direct evidence for something, they are an attempt to deduce it from some already known facts.

The Fine Tuning argument is more like,,,,,,,,, we see a phenomena that we can´t explain…….. we look at our pool of options (possible explanations) and we pick the best candidate

Among the pool of possible explanations we have

1 Design

2 cosmic evolution

3 anthoropic principle

4 multiverse

5 it happened by chance

6 the universe is not really FT

etc

I claim design, because I claim it is the best alternative…………….feel free to disagree, pick your alternative and show that it is better than design

The most rational and logical option, if you have no evidence for any of them, is not to pick the one you like and call it 'best', it's to remain undecided, and admit that we just don't know. Why is it that so many theists seem terrified of not knowing, and somehow think that everybody is under some sort of obligation to choose some specific option?

The other problem with these lists of options is things we haven't thought of at all. In the 19th century, if you thought about what light was, you would probably list 1 a wave or 2 a particle. Who would have thought the answer was "something else that can behave like either"?

What are you actually arguing?

1 No design it is not the best explanation for the FT of the universe; there are better alternatives in the list (therefore not evidnece)

2 irrelevant, even if design is the best explanation among the other alternatives in the list………it would still not count as evidence

Without evidence, there are no objective criteria for 'best'. The logical option is: we know.

 

[leroy]

No, you misinterpret in a desperate attempt to find some definition that will make your idea work, there isn't one, just quit.
A god that can do anything means nothing and everything he does are equivalent in evidentiary value, worthless.

, you misinterpre

No, I understood exactly what you describe

 

[shunyadragon]

I claim for example that Design is the best alternative for the FT of the universe (the best explanation among the explanations that have been proposed)

What are you actually arguing?

1 No design it is not the best explanation for the FT of the universe; there are better alternatives in the list (therefore not evidnece)

2 irrelevant, even if design is the best explanation among the other alternatives in the list………it would still not count as evidence

My objection to Design is first it assumes a Designer, ie God, and there is no evidence of a Designer or God. Concerning the ultimate nature of our physical existence the only objective evidence we have is in support of theories and hypothesis for Natural Laws and processes is the only viable explanation for cause we have.

Some hay ask "What causes Natural Laws and processes? Most. of course believe God is the Cause and Creator, but from the Natural perspective 'Turtles all the way down.'

Second, the arguments for the appearance of Design based on probability claiming randomness in cause and effect outcomes fails entirely, because it s not supported by the evidence, and it is a terrible misuse of science and math. By the overwhelming evidence the cause and effect outcomes in nature is simply Natural Laws and processes, and not random. The variability in the outcomes of cause and effect events in Mature is fractal objectively described by Chaos Theory. Our Physical Existence is Naturally Deterministic, not rigidly deterministic like a clock

 

[gnostic]

In science “falsify” means prove beyond reasonable doubt that something is wrong or fails……….otherwise nothing in science would really be falsifiable.

leroy.

Falsification is about the concept or model being “falsifiable”, as in being “testable” or “refutable”.

And to actually test a concept or model (“model” like in a hypothesis or in a scientific theory), the tests would require predictions from the model, and then being able to test the predictions with observations.

Observations are acquired from 2 different methodologies:

1. through controlled environments (eg laboratory) and through controlling the variables - this observational tests is called EXPERIMENT;
2. acquiring specimens in environments that scientists have no control over, which are often done outside of laboratory environments; the observations of these specimens are called EVIDENCE.

Actually the test results from experiments can also be called “evidence”.

These observations from experiments & evidence should provide important information - known as DATA among scientists & engineers, such as -

• the physical properties of the evidence, eg characteristics of matter that can be measured & calculated, such as dimensions of matter (size, volume, etc), mass, density, etc, or if the evidence are EM waves, then wavelengths, frequencies, range, energy, etc, these are observations that can be measured;
• its physical composition, eg if the evidence is matter, then it should have chemical or molecular composition & structure.

Data can be considered as observations, and as evidence.

Data would be the things that you would include with the hypothesis or theory, when submitting for publication, and that scientists doing the peer review, would be evaluating & analysing the data.

These are the things that make any concept or any model, actually “falsifiable”, to actually do the test on the concepts or models.

If you cannot test the concepts or models, then that would make concepts or models, “unfalsifiable”.

If God is essential for creation (eg Creationism, Intelligent Design) or for miracles, then how would ones (eg scientists) observe, measure or test God?

The answer would be, you can’t observe, measure or test God.

In order for Creationism or Intelligent Design to be “falsifiable”, then God or Designer himself would have to be the “evidence”, for observations and tests to take place…and that cannot happen. That’s what makes Creationism & Intelligent Design, “unfalsifiable”, you cannot test God or the Intelligent Designer, as such entity cannot be observed, measured or tested.

You have no idea what Falsifiability means.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

In my understanding the objective can do it in one sense, but it is only knowable as subjective.
In the end I am a cognitive relativist for knowing the objective, yet I believe in it.

But for certain aspects of the objective you and I are not one. We are same, similar and/or different for same/similar/different senses of understanding.

I am lost, and I cannot fully understand what you are saying. My simple argument is that we look at the world according to our desires and depending upon those desires, we decide what is truth and what is untruth. So, they are relative and there is no absolute truth. Please.

Write in simple language that I can understand.

Thank you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am lost, and I cannot fully understand what you are saying. My simple argument is that we look at the world according to our desires and depending upon those desires, we decide what is truth and what is untruth. So, they are relative and there is no absolute truth. Please.

Write in simple language that I can understand.

Thank you.

Yeah, that is a part of the world, but the limit is a part of the world is in effect obejctive.

 

[leroy]

The result is not how we infer intent. I've explained this so many times, I really can't bother any more. If you can't see that by now, you never will.

Strawman, I am not aiming to make an argument for design………….I am just refuting the particular objection of ………….“because God can explain every possible observation, no particular observation could ever count as evidence for God”

Given that you haven’t address my argument for why I think you argument fails (the archer example and the red greed balls example) ………….I will assume that you grant my objection

Deductive arguments are not about direct evidence for something, they are an attempt to deduce it from some already known facts.


The most rational and logical option, if you have no evidence for any of them, is not to pick the one you like and call it 'best', it's to remain undecided, and admit that we just don't know. Why is it that so many theists seem terrified of not knowing, and somehow think that everybody is under some sort of obligation to choose some specific option?

The other problem with these lists of options is things we haven't thought of at all. In the 19th century, if you thought about what light was, you would probably list 1 a wave or 2 a particle. Who would have thought the answer was "something else that can behave like either"?


Without evidence, there are no objective criteria for 'best'. The logical option is: we know.

Ok but even if you are correct the issue is that you are misrepresenting theist apologetics…………………….nobody except for very very very naïve theist claims “we don’t know therefore God did it”

You are not different from YEC who claim that: “evolution is wrong because I was not born from a chimpanzee “

So first admit your mistake and then we can move to different topics

The most rational and logical option, if you have no evidence for any of them,

well i disagree.......
I think that there is evidence for all the alternatives in the list (about the fine tuning argument )…………..I just think that design has the best evidence.

You may or may not agree with me………… but even if you disagree it is still a fact that I am not saying “I don’t know therefore god did it”

The other problem with these lists of options is things we haven't thought of at all. In the 19th century, if you thought about what light was, you would probably list 1 a wave or 2 a particle. Who would have thought the answer was "something else that can behave like either"?

Well we have to make our best guess based on what we have today…………..what alternative do you suggest? Be skeptic about everything until we get absolute knowledge about everything?

somehow think that everybody is under some sort of obligation to choose some specific option?

All I am saying is that if you affirm that there are better explanations than design for say the fine tuning argument , you should explain, develop and show that these alternatives are better.

If you don’t make such an affirmation then, no, you don’t have to provide an alternative

 

[leroy]

leroy.

Falsification is about the concept or model being “falsifiable”, as in being “testable” or “refutable”.

And to actually test a concept or model (“model” like in a hypothesis or in a scientific theory), the tests would require predictions from the model, and then being able to test the predictions with observations.

Observations are acquired from 2 different methodologies:

1. through controlled environments (eg laboratory) and through controlling the variables - this observational tests is called EXPERIMENT;
2. acquiring specimens in environments that scientists have no control over, which are often done outside of laboratory environments; the observations of these specimens are called EVIDENCE.

Actually the test results from experiments can also be called “evidence”.

These observations from experiments & evidence should provide important information - known as DATA among scientists & engineers, such as -

• the physical properties of the evidence, eg characteristics of matter that can be measured & calculated, such as dimensions of matter (size, volume, etc), mass, density, etc, or if the evidence are EM waves, then wavelengths, frequencies, range, energy, etc, these are observations that can be measured;
• its physical composition, eg if the evidence is matter, then it should have chemical or molecular composition & structure.

Data can be considered as observations, and as evidence.

Data would be the things that you would include with the hypothesis or theory, when submitting for publication, and that scientists doing the peer review, would be evaluating & analysing the data.

These are the things that make any concept or any model, actually “falsifiable”, to actually do the test on the concepts or models.

If you cannot test the concepts or models, then that would make concepts or models, “unfalsifiable”.

If God is essential for creation (eg Creationism, Intelligent Design) or for miracles, then how would ones (eg scientists) observe, measure or test God?

The answer would be, you can’t observe, measure or test God.

In order for Creationism or Intelligent Design to be “falsifiable”, then God or Designer himself would have to be the “evidence”, for observations and tests to take place…and that cannot happen. That’s what makes Creationism & Intelligent Design, “unfalsifiable”, you cannot test God or the Intelligent Designer, as such entity cannot be observed, measured or tested.

You have no idea what Falsifiability means.

Ok, but why are you changing the topic?

I said that:

Falsifiable: means that something can be tested and could potencially be proven wrong beyod reasonable doubt

You disagreed with the “beyond reasonable doubt thing”

Me and some other user (quote below) have corrected you………………so do you accept our feedback? Do you admit that you are wrong? so that we can move to a different topic?

You have no idea what

Under what basis do you make that claim?.....can you quote any comment made by me where i SHOW that i dont understand what Falsifiability means. ? NO

you cannot test God or the Intelligent Designer, as such entity cannot be observed, measured or tested.

But you can test the arguments for the existence of God…….why isn’t that good enough?………….


But granted

The claim “God exists” is not falsifiable”

But the claim “God is the best explanation for say the origin of the universe” *IS* falsifiable, all you need is a better explanation

this is the quote where user @It Aint Necessarily So corrected your mistake

That's the phrase (beyond reasonable doubt) I use to describe settled science. When the creationist says that evolutionary theory has never been proven, it is appropriate to explain why prove is the wrong word, and then add that the theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt. I often also add that rejecting it unreasonable doubt, since the rejection is faith-based, which an alternative path to beliefs that bypassed reason and evidence.

 

[leroy]

Thank you for going back and addressing that post. All is forgiven. Please keep it up in the future.

Our objective standard for evaluating evidence is the rules of inferences (valid reasoning). Apply them without fallacy to premises/evidence and deduce sound conclusions. It's not a subjective process. The conclusions are sound or they're not, and those are factual judgments.

Well I tend not to overcomplicate stuff, I´ll I simply define/understand evidence as anything that supports a proposition/claim/hypothesis/theory etc. ………. Obviously using valid reasoning would be a valid bonus, but it is not indispensable

If X supports Y then X would be evidence for Y

--
But anyway…..by your standards………….why do arguments like the fine tuning argument fail as evidence for God? What “invalid reasoning” or “logical fallacy” do you think is being made?

This question assumes that you reject the fine tuning argument as evidence for God…………if the assumption is wrong, then the question doesn’t apply

I gave you my argument for expecting aliens including unicellular aliens to exist in a subsequent and recent post. Did you find the argument compelling?

I found the reasoning valid……….. but not all the premises are granted---------------for example (paraphrasing) you said that very likely life came in to being naturally..............I dont grant that premise

.but even if that premise is granted, there is no reason to think that those natural mechanisms and conditions are expected in other planets………….many things have only happened once (like the specific pattern in your fingerprints)

I grant that there is evidence for (and against) intelligent aliens ……..I just don’t think that the balance is on one side…………I would stay within the 50% /50% rage................I just think that the evidence doesn’t support your conclusion of Aliens very likely exist”

Good. You indicated that you understood my treatment of evidence of, although you didn't indicate that you understood my definition of evidence or the distinction between what evidence s and what it is evidence of.

"evidence of"
Would simply be the thing that s being supported……..did I understood conrrectly

For example testimonies of people having seen ghost is evidence for ghost and also evidence for hallucinations…………why? because testimonies support both hypothesis

Not being first doesn't matter. Not being understood should.

I'm pointing out a truism:

[1] Using nonstandard abbreviations is for your convenience and not your readers'. I never do that. It's lazy and for some readers, lacking meaning.
[2] It will annoy some readers, who will have to decide between trying to figure out what you mean and just scrolling on.

I said, what I had to say-……..in general you are correct, but in this specific case …….these abbreviations where already accepted in the conversation

If neither of those things matter to you - and perhaps they don't - you needn't change a thing.

Thanks, but I'm willing to discuss them with you. If I can make a change for the better after hearing your criticism, I'll thank you and make it. If I don't agree that those habits should change, I'll tell you why I disagree.

I don’t have the intent of changing your writing style and preferences……….. but I like “to the point” replies and usually one topic at the time…………..willy you seem to be ok and happy with dealing with secondary details ,

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Well I tend not to overcomplicate stuff, I´ll I simply define/understand evidence as anything that supports a proposition/claim/hypothesis/theory etc.

It looks like you're still conflating what should be called evidence and what is it evidence of, which is oversimplification, not overcomplicating. It might behoove you to take a moment and think about that distinction, and then modify your use of language accordingly. If you have reason to disagree with either of the following -and by now you should have expressed that if you do, since I've explained this twice now already -please address that now:

evidence - whatever becomes evident to the senses; something is there, but what, and what does it imply?
evidence of - what that which is evident signifies

Obviously using valid reasoning would be a valid bonus, but it is not indispensable

Yes, it is indispensable, but only if you want useful (sound, correct) conclusions. I refer you to arithmetic again. The addends to be summed are the premises, analogous to evidence. What do they imply? A correct sum. How do we determine that? Using the valid rules of arithmetic (rules of inference). If we vary from that, we get an incorrect result. Misadding even one individual sub-sum (7+5=11) plays the role of logical fallacy, and the erroneous sum that results is a non sequitur. It didn't derive from what preceded it.

What we are doing when examining evidence is analogous. If all of the steps between the start and finish are valid - no "misadding" - the conclusion will be correct. To do this, one must learn those rules and adhere t them faithfully.

If X supports Y then X would be evidence for Y

Agreed. But to determine whether X is evidence of Y, one must apply valid reason to X and derive (deduce) Y.

But anyway…..by your standards………….why do arguments like the fine tuning argument fail as evidence for God? What “invalid reasoning” or “logical fallacy” do you think is being made? This question assumes that you reject the fine tuning argument as evidence for God…………if the assumption is wrong, then the question doesn’t apply

The fine tuning argument does support an intelligent designer, but it is also consistent with naturalistic explanations for why our universe is the way we find it, and naturalistic explanations are preferred because they are more parsimonious. They only require that nature exist. Supernaturalistic explanations require both that nature exist and a supernatural realm with a supernatural intelligent designer, something for which we have no evidence.

You can go on making this even less parsimonious if you like and add extra conditions, like a super-supernatural realm with an even more powerful intelligent designer that created the one you believe in, but you can see why that is not helpful and not desirable even though we cannot say that it is impossible. And just as you won't trouble yourself with that third level of possible reality, because why should you, I don't trouble myself with the second layer for the same reason. If there is more to reality that either of us know or believe, it can wait until we have a reason to seriously consider it before so doing.

Incidentally, fine tuning is consistent with a deity, but not an omnipotent one - the kind you believe in that creates the laws of physics and all of spacetime and its contents. Why? Because you're describing a deity constrained by a higher reality, one which it must discover and incorporate into its creation so that it can build a universe that works like this one.

Fine tuning is also consistent with a multiverse hypothesis wherein some substance is generating countless numbers of universes like CO2 bubbles in champagne, but with different physical laws and constants, with only those able to continue to expand for billions of years like ours doing so, the rest being failures to launch. Naturally, we awaken to discover ourselves in one of those universes and eventually discover how unlikely it is, but only when considered in isolation, as with a lottery. Whoever wins was unlikely to win when considered in isolation, but when we consider the pool of bettors, the chances that some will win becomes nearly certain.

For example testimonies of people having seen ghost is evidence for ghost and also evidence for hallucinations…………why? because testimonies support both hypothesis

Agreed. And we can order those as well. Hallucination is more likely (more parsimonious), because it doesn't require that ghosts exist. But reason prevents us from guessing, or should. We would all benefit by learning that we can disregard an idea without calling it incorrect until a reason to reconsider it arises.

you said that very likely life came in to being naturally..............I dont grant that premise

The argument is the same: parsimony. We have nature and life, but there is no other evidence for a deity. Here's where your reasoning is fallacious. Nature is evidence for both hypotheses, and though tey can be oredered using the parsimony principle, neither can be ruled in or out at this time, and so we can go no further that to say it's one of those. You've gone further anyway, and just picked one by faith - an intuition, hunch, or guess. Your conclusion is thus non sequitur. It doesn't follow from what preceded it. Had you not taken that last leap of faith, you'd be where I am, which does follow from the evidence.

even if that premise is granted, there is no reason to think that those natural mechanisms and conditions are expected in other planets………….many things have only happened once (like the specific pattern in your fingerprints)

We expect the same laws of physics and chemistry everywhere in the universe, and the same elements.

Regarding your fingerprint analogy, my specific fingerprints are unique, but fingerprints are not. We do not require that the life that arises be identical like an identical fingerprint, just in the same category.

It's a very interesting topic regarding what is necessary for life to form. We can't say for certain, but it seems that liquid water persisting for very long periods of time and containing assorted simple ingredients may be enough, which is why there is interest in looking at the oceans under the icy crusts of Europa and Enceladus. We're still learning.

Maybe that moon or planet needs to be associated with a single star. Maybe binary systems cause irregular orbits that periodically boil that water or causes it to freeze extinguishing whatever life or progress toward life was there. Surface life seems to need the protection that a magnetic field provides, meaning that it needs to have a moving metal core, but life under icy crusts might not. Like I said, we're still learning.

I grant that there is evidence for (and against) intelligent aliens ……..I just don’t think that the balance is on one side…………I would stay within the 50% /50% rage................I just think that the evidence doesn’t support your conclusion of Aliens very likely exist”

By aliens, I mean any life not arising on earth, including single-celled life.

Why wouldn't the existence of life on exoplanets or their moons be expected if it could arise on earth? Physical processes that can occur do occur whenever the circumstances allow. It's not like some of the cups of pure water in a single freezer will freeze and others won't. They'll all freeze together - at the same moment if they're the same volume of pure H2O subjected to the same freezing temperature beginning at the same time, and if the freezer fails and warms up, they all melt together.

********

It's my opinion that one cannot reason properly if he's using that faculty to try to defend a false or unfalsifiable belief - process which always warps objectivity. That hurt the ID people and caused them to see what they wanted to see but was not there - irreducible complexity. That same observer bias harms clinical trials that depend on subjective assessments by the patient and impartial more objective but still somewhat subjective assessments by the clinician. For that reason, the trial is double blinded, meaning that neither the clinician nor the patient know whether the therapy being tested was administered or placebo.

If you're looking for evidence for a god that you've already decided exists, you'll turn the evidence you find into evidence to support your belief as the ID people did, who saw irreducible complexity repeatedly when none was there. The proper evaluation of any evidence requires a dispassionate, impartial evaluation of that evidence, using valid reasoning only to reach conclusions - just like the arithmetic problem. Vary from that narrow path at all and you're off the reservation. That's difficult to do when you've got a false or unfalsifiable belief directing that process.