cause-and-effect: "cause" require evidence too

[Redemptionsong]

Since none of this addresses my comment, much less tries to refute it, can we assume that you have no counterargument to it? Tri-omni gods don't warn. They threaten or act.

The reason God witholds his judgement of the world is to give time for people to hear the Gospel and believe. A warning demonstrates God's longsuffering nature.

 

[Redemptionsong]

It's hearsay. Even eyewitness testimony is relatively weak evidence of anything except that the testifier said those things, maybe believes them, and that they may have occurred. With hearsay, it's even worse. We don't even know that the eyewitnesses referred to actually said those things. And with everybody involved being dead and there being no cross-examination possibility including the source of the hearsay, none of it admissible in a court of law.

When the apostles all say the same thing, and then spent their lives spreading the same message, it amounts to much more than 'hearsay'. Why would men sacrifice their lives spreading a lie? The scenario you portray collapses like a pack of cards. To accept your version would be to dismiss everything we read about as history!

There is, however, a further submission of evidence for Christ, which is not dependent on documentary evidence alone. This is baptism in the Holy Spirit, and evidence of its activity within the Church.

I was healed through the prayers of a believer, so to me the power and compassion of Christ is very real. Thousands of others will testify to similar works carried out in the name of Jesus Christ. Do you call such testimonies 'lies' and 'hearsay'?

 

[gnostic]

It's not about "thinking" gnostic, it's basic philosophy of science when practicing or approaching science. It's the most basic.

Get a little bit of education in science rather than passing nonsensical comments. A tad in the basics of philosophy of science would do. Five minutes at least.

You talk of “philosophy of science”, as if there are “one philosophy” to science, whereas there have being a number of decades, over the centuries, over two millennia. Starting with the ancient Greek philosophers with Natural Philosophy.

While there were some ancient forms of ancient astronomy, medicine, engineering and mathematics, that predated the Greek Natural Philosophy, in ancient Babylonia, Egypt and India, it was Ionian Greek philosopher, Thales (650- 548 BCE) who approach to nature that can be explained through observations of natural properties and natural causes, and not rely on the supernatural causes found in religious teachings and mythological explanations.

The problems with religions and myths are often mired in superstitions.

Of course, ancient Natural Philosophy didn’t fully escape from these primitive superstitions, because the superstitions of astrology persisted in astronomy well into the 17th century CE.

Natural Philosophy approach nature with observations of the natural phenomena, was still in infancy stage, meaning things like empirical evidence and scientific method (as used by Aristotle), a couple centuries after Thales, and the uses of mathematical to solve problems of understanding nature, were all still rudimentary. Nevertheless, it was still a step in the right direction.

Many other philosophies were developed by the Greeks, not all of them relating to the study of nature.

Arab, Syrian and Persian philosophers during the Golden Age of Islam (c 800 - 1258) rediscovered ancient Greek texts, adapted many of the Greek natural philosophy and mathematics, made some improvements and even some invented new things. Moorish Spain became like capital of this new age.

But even among the these great Muslim philosophers, empiricism and scientific method were still rudimentary...as were the Italian Renaissance.

Like the Golden Age of Islam, the Italian Renaissance, did great things, and it spread through the rest of Western Europe. Some new philosophies developed out of it, including humanism.

More strict empiricism were developed by Francis Bacon (1561 - 1626) and René Descartes (1596 - 1650) during the Scientific Revolution, and David Hume (1711 - 1776) during the Age of Enlightenment.

By the 19th century, Natural Sciences would give ways to sciences in Natural Sciences that exist today. Scientific Method as we know it today, came from all past that became before.

Natural Philosophy or Naturalism, was divided into two main main branches in the 20th century, as -

• Metaphysical Naturalism
• Methodology Naturalism

These two types of Naturalism, tell us to focus only on studying nature, by observing natural phenomena and its natural processes, not on the untestable supernatural, where lies superstitious beliefs on spirits and deities.

The “God did it” or the Intelligent Design’s the “Designer did it”, aren’t explanations, and God or Designer aren’t testable.

Methodology Naturalism tell us to focus on testing the explanations to natural phenomena, hence .

Many other philosophies developed from the early 20th century, that was rationalistic-focused than empirical-focused, like the various forms of analytic philosophies.

There are many forms of philosophy of science, not just one.

So my questions to you:

Which “philosophy of science” are you talking about?

Why do you prefer one over the other?

And as philosophy of science have had a long and complex history, what do you mean by “basic” philosophy of science?​

And btw, firedragon, if you seriously want to learn science, then you should study science and “do science”, and not focus so much as focusing on the “philosophy of science”, because philosophy is mostly talk.

Real science is about trying to explain the phenomena, based on observations of the phenomena, finding out WHAT it is and HOW it work, which is known as the FORMULATION OF THE HYPOTHESIS. Once you have the hypothesis, you would TEST the hypothesis with observations of empirical evidence and experiments.

The “formulation of the hypothesis” and the “testing” are the two main processes of SCIENTIFIC METHOD. That’s how you “do science”.

You are not doing science if you only focused on the philosophy. You will get no work done, if mucking around with philosophies.

 

[firedragon]

You talk of “philosophy of science”, as if there are “one philosophy” to science,

Nope. Just the basic fundamental.

 

[gnostic]

Nope. Just the basic fundamental.

Yeah, but what do you mean by "basic"?

I ask, because just about every philosophies in the world - past and present, scientific or non-scientific - philosophers believe they have the "basic fundamental".

And different schools of thought often conflict with each other on what they assumed to be "fundamental".

 

[firedragon]

Yeah, but what do you mean by "basic"?

I ask, because just about every philosophies in the world - past and present, scientific or non-scientific - philosophers believe they have the "basic fundamental".

And different schools of thought often conflict with each other on what they assumed to be "fundamental".

Normal philosophy of science. All other philosophies and philosophers are irrelevant.

Just the fundamental. Methodological naturalism. Yet, if there are "different schools of thought" who claims that you can test God in a lab I would like to see the data. That will be an interesting read.

Thanks.

 

[gnostic]

Normal philosophy of science. All other philosophies and philosophers are irrelevant.

Just the fundamental. Methodological naturalism. Yet, if there are "different schools of thought" who claims that you can test God in a lab I would like to see the data. That will be an interesting read.

As I mentioned before the scientific naturalism, like Methodological Naturalism only attempt to explain and test natural phenomena, NOT SUPERNATURAL phenomena.

God is one of those supernatural phenomena, is one of those cannot be detected, measured or tested.

Natural Sciences, like physics, chemistry, Earth's sciences, astronomy & life sciences, follow the requirements of Methodological Naturalism and the specifications of Scientific Method. So none of these sciences do "supernatural ".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What has this to do with other religions?

This is an issue solely based on God's dealings with Israel. The Tanakh provides the history of lsrael, and this includes the Messianic prophecies. So, this is an issue about the credentials of Jesus as the Christ, or 'anointed one' of God.

The testimonies supplied by witnesses to the life of Jesus (gathered in NT) can tell us whether or not he fulfils the prophecies.

So the Norse religion is correct as explained, so are all other religions as the are all explained by honest and trustworthy humans. By your standard all religions are correct.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Normal philosophy of science. All other philosophies and philosophers are irrelevant.

Just the fundamental. Methodological naturalism. Yet, if there are "different schools of thought" who claims that you can test God in a lab I would like to see the data. That will be an interesting read.

Thanks.

Evidence please.

 

[firedragon]

As I mentioned before the scientific naturalism, like Methodological Naturalism only attempt to explain and test natural phenomena, NOT SUPERNATURAL phenomena.

Thats the whole point of it gnostic.

God is one of those supernatural phenomena, is one of those cannot be detected, measured or tested.

Natural Sciences, like physics, chemistry, Earth's sciences, astronomy & life sciences, follow the requirements of Methodological Naturalism and the specifications of Scientific Method. So none of these sciences do "supernatural ".

Verry good.

 

[firedragon]

Evidence please.

Evidence that other philosophies like philosophy of Buddhism, or lets say the philosophy of paradhukitha dhukkitha bhagana, etc etc are irrelevant to what I was talking about? What could be evidence to that? Could you please explain?

 

[Redemptionsong]

So the Norse religion is correct as explained, so are all other religions as the are all explained by honest and trustworthy humans. By your standard all religions are correct.

Elijah gave the prophets of Baal an opportunity to prove the reality of their gods' power and existence. Here's a nice little extract from the encounter from 1 Kings 8:
'And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.'

When the prophets of Baal called upon their gods to respond with fire, nothing happened. Elijah mocked them, and said, 'Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked'!

Yet, despite all the self flagellation and begging, their gods proved impotent in bringing down fire on the offering.

What makes you think your gods are any different?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Elijah gave the prophets of Baal an opportunity to prove the reality of their gods' power and existence. Here's a nice little extract from the encounter from 1 Kings 8:
'And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.'

When the prophets of Baal called upon their gods to respond with fire, nothing happened. Elijah mocked them, and said, 'Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked'!

Yet, despite all the self flagellation and begging, their gods proved impotent in bringing down fire on the offering.

What makes you think your gods are any different?

Because we are honest and trustworthy and that can't be doubted!!!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Evidence that other philosophies like philosophy of Buddhism, or lets say the philosophy of paradhukitha dhukkitha bhagana, etc etc are irrelevant to what I was talking about? What could be evidence to that? Could you please explain?

No, the different philosophical schools within Western philosophy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The difference is that *if* my world view is correct it makes sense to assume that our senses are reliable (after they were created by an intelligent designer)

Our senses are the result of millions of years of evolution.
Having unreliable senses would not really have a positive effect on survivability.

So I would expect for our senses to be me "reliable enough" to avoid death and injury in rather stupid ways.
I would also expect them to not be perfect. Just "good enough".

And that's exactly what I see in the world. In all species. Senses that are just good enough for decent survival chances, and at the same time not perfect so they can play tricks on us or otherwise fail.

A "designer" is completely obsolete to explain the good enough reliability of senses.

But if your world view is correct, then you are just the result of natural selection and random mutations, … under that view your senses are expected to be “good” for survaival

And they are.

, but there is no reason that to assume that they are also good for getting knowledge

Knowledge helps survival.
Learning helps survival.

If we wouldn't be able to learn things (=get knowledge) we wouldn't remember that "fire = hot" and "jumping from great heights = bad" and "crockodile = dangerous" and "those mushrooms = do not eat" etc.

And we would die.

……….specially deep philosophical and scientific knowledge that has no survival value

Knowledge is knowledge. Learning is learning.
There is no difference in learning that 2+2 = 4 or that fire is hot and dangerous, in terms of the learning aspect of it.


You are grasping.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Testimony is evidence,

Testimony are claims in need of evidence.

For example, here's my "testimony": I was abducted by aliens last night. They were about 1m40 and resembled the Rosswell greys. They took me on their ship and I saw earth from outer space. I was on some type of table and lights seemed to be scanning me. It didn't hurt. In fact, I felt very relaxed and the atmosphere was really nice. After a while a bright light appeared and suddenly I found myself on earth in my room again. I guess they were done and just beamed me down again, Start Trek style.


Would you say that this "testimony" is:
- a claim of alien abduction, which requires evidence to be believable?
- evidence for alien abduction which justifies belief in alien abduction.



I say it is a claim in need of evidence. You, apparently, think it is evidence for alien abduction?

and is regularly relied upon in courts of law

And every day we see and hear of examples of how easily that goes wrong.
Also, many times such testimonies need to be corroborated with non-testimonial evidence.
Also, a SINGLE piece of actual evidence, will INSTANTLY overturn 100 testimonies saying otherwise.

Go look at the "innocence project": All Cases - Innocence Project
Literally almost everyone in those cases was wrongfully convicted based on "testimony".
Testimony as evidence is unreliable.
And again, essentially "testimony" are claims. Claims aren't evidence.

Why should the testimony of numerous witnesses to events in the life of Jesus be any different?

Indeed, why would they be any different............................................

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The testimonies were written down, or recorded, by reliable and honest followers of Christ?

Honest - perhaps.
Why would they be reliable?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When the apostles all say the same thing,

Alien abductees, bigfoot spotters, etc also all say the "same thing".

Quotes, because they don't really.
And the same goes for the apostles. They do NOT all say the same thing.

Why would men sacrifice their lives spreading a lie?

To "lie" is to intentionally and knowingly spread false information.
If you believe the false information to be accurate, then you aren't spreading "lies". Then you're just wrong.

Having said that, all throughout history people have sacrificed their lives for their beliefs. Both accurate AND false beliefs.

Why do muslim terrorists sacrifice their lives? Do suicide bombers provide evidence for the accuracy of their flavor of Islam? Or does it merely mean that they believed it so much (regardless of the beliefs being accurate or not) that they were willing to die for it?

These are two different issues.
When people are willing to die / suffer for their beliefs, it only means that they really believe and are passionate about it. It doesn't mean the beliefs are accurate.

There is, however, a further submission of evidence for Christ, which is not dependent on documentary evidence alone. This is baptism in the Holy Spirit, and evidence of its activity within the Church.

This is just another aspect of your religious belief. Not evidence.

I was healed through the prayers of a believer, so to me the power and compassion of Christ is very real. Thousands of others will testify to similar works carried out in the name of Jesus Christ. Do you call such testimonies 'lies' and 'hearsay'?

I call them misguided.

Just like you would view it when someone claims to having been "healed" by a god or other supernatural thing that you do NOT believe to be real.

I'm sure you can spot the cognitive errors you are making with respect to your own religion, when other people do the exact same thing with beliefs you do NOT agree with. But you can't see it when you do it.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Because we are honest and trustworthy and that can't be doubted!!!

I look for consistency in an honest narrative, and I find it in the Bible. What makes the honesty and consistency of the Bible extraordinary is that it is not the work of a single prophet, but of numerous prophets writing in diverse locations, centuries apart.

Additionally, the power of my God is experiential. As already pointed out, I was healed immediately following prayer. This, to me, was the supernatural power of God.

What evidence do you have that your gods are real?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Testimony are claims in need of evidence.

For example, here's my "testimony": I was abducted by aliens last night. They were about 1m40 and resembled the Rosswell greys. They took me on their ship and I saw earth from outer space. I was on some type of table and lights seemed to be scanning me. It didn't hurt. In fact, I felt very relaxed and the atmosphere was really nice. After a while a bright light appeared and suddenly I found myself on earth in my room again. I guess they were done and just beamed me down again, Start Trek style.


Would you say that this "testimony" is:
- a claim of alien abduction, which requires evidence to be believable?
- evidence for alien abduction which justifies belief in alien abduction.



I say it is a claim in need of evidence. You, apparently, think it is evidence for alien abduction?



And every day we see and hear of examples of how easily that goes wrong.
Also, many times such testimonies need to be corroborated with non-testimonial evidence.
Also, a SINGLE piece of actual evidence, will INSTANTLY overturn 100 testimonies saying otherwise.

Go look at the "innocence project": All Cases - Innocence Project
Literally almost everyone in those cases was wrongfully convicted based on "testimony".
Testimony as evidence is unreliable.
And again, essentially "testimony" are claims. Claims aren't evidence.




Indeed, why would they be any different............................................

You must live in dreamland!

All too often in life, we have to rely on the testimony of others to decide upon the truth. Rarely can we be present to ascertain the truth for ourselves. In the Bible, God requires that two or three witnesses give evidence (separately) in order to determine the truth of an event.

Deuteronomy 17:6. 'At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death'.

In case a lie should be looked upon as unimportant, God also says this in the Ten Commandments: 'Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour'.

That should be clear enough evidence that testimony is important, and a valid way of discerning truth.