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

[TagliatelliMonster]

You must live in dreamland!

Nope.

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.

Give an example.

In the Bible it was always required that two or three witnesses give evidence (separately) in order to determine the truth of an event.

1. that is yet another claim which is unverifiable. It could also say 1000 witnesses were required and it wouldn't make a bit of difference, because there is no way to go back and see if that was actually the case, and if such amount of witnesses actually existed. It's just piling on of claims that are not in evidence.

2. it doesn't matter if it's 1, 4, 10 or a million. It doesn't change the nature of what "testimony" is. It's a bunch of claims. Claims that require corroboration one way or the other. The claims themselves have no value in terms of evidence. You need some type of corroboration for that. And the wilder the claims, the more solid the independent corroboration is going to have to be.

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'.

I'm reminded of that guy who made the news a while back... I forgot the name. He was set free after having spend the bulk of his life in prison on false murder charger. He was "recognized" by 4 independent eye witnesses. A single DNA sample set him free.

I'm sure you'll find his case on the "innocence project" website.

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.

I've already addressed this. You seemed to have ignored it.

People can be sincere and honest, and still be wrong.

YOU yourself, likely think exactly that of claimed alien abductees.
These people are really certain of their case. They even pass lie detector tests.

But we don't believe them, right? We don't think that they have ACTUALLY been abducted by aliens, right?

I don't doubt their sincerity. I don't doubt their honesty. I don't even doubt that they have experienced something strange.

I just very much doubt what they believe that experience was.

I'ld bet on a bizarre dream or even a full blown hallucination.
To believe the alien story, I'ld require evidence independent of their anecdote.

More then likely, so do you, am I right?
You don't just take their word for it, do you?

Why not? Isn't their anecdote "evidence" for their belief?

 

[firedragon]

No, the different philosophical schools within Western philosophy.

Irrelevant to my discussion with that person. If you wish to discuss other philosophies and what not, you are welcome but separately. That's irrevant.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Nope.



Give an example.



1. that is yet another claim which is unverifiable. It could also say 1000 witnesses were required and it wouldn't make a bit of difference, because there is no way to go back and see if that was actually the case, and if such amount of witnesses actually existed. It's just piling on of claims that are not in evidence.

2. it doesn't matter if it's 1, 4, 10 or a million. It doesn't change the nature of what "testimony" is. It's a bunch of claims. Claims that require corroboration one way or the other. The claims themselves have no value in terms of evidence. You need some type of corroboration for that. And the wilder the claims, the more solid the independent corroboration is going to have to be.



I'm reminded of that guy who made the news a while back... I forgot the name. He was set free after having spend the bulk of his life in prison on false murder charger. He was "recognized" by 4 independent eye witnesses. A single DNA sample set him free.

I'm sure you'll find his case on the "innocence project" website.


I've already addressed this. You seemed to have ignored it.

People can be sincere and honest, and still be wrong.

YOU yourself, likely think exactly that of claimed alien abductees.
These people are really certain of their case. They even pass lie detector tests.

But we don't believe them, right? We don't think that they have ACTUALLY been abducted by aliens, right?

I don't doubt their sincerity. I don't doubt their honesty. I don't even doubt that they have experienced something strange.

I just very much doubt what they believe that experience was.

I'ld bet on a bizarre dream or even a full blown hallucination.
To believe the alien story, I'ld require evidence independent of their anecdote.

More then likely, so do you, am I right?
You don't just take their word for it, do you?

Why not? Isn't their anecdote "evidence" for their belief?

There are many occurences in life that are personally unverifiable. What provides justification for our belief is the weight of evidence, not a 'proof'.

I believe that the Normans invaded Britain in 1066, and defeated Harold at the battle of Hastings. I cannot verify this, but there is ample evidence to suggest that the invasion, and battle, took place. I would say that the weight of evidence for this event justifies my belief.

Now, let me turn this around. What 'facts' have you uncovered?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Irrelevant to my discussion with that person. If you wish to discuss other philosophies and what not, you are welcome but separately. That's irrevant.

Yeah, there is only one science, but that is not true.

 

[firedragon]

Yeah, there is only one science, but that is not true.

Irrelevant.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Irrelevant.

Yeah, you can site all the correct books, because the other one are wrong according to your universal, objective, rational and what not in effect in part subjective and cultural standards. That is also so for me, I just admit it.

 

[firedragon]

Yeah, you can site all the correct books, because the other one are wrong according to your universal, objective, rational and what not in effect in part subjective and cultural standards. That is also so for me, I just admit it.

irrelevant

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There are many occurences in life that are personally unverifiable. What provides justification for our belief is the weight of evidence, not a 'proof'.

You are essentially repeating the claim.
I asked for examples.

I believe that the Normans invaded Britain in 1066, and defeated Harold at the battle of Hastings. I cannot verify this

False. You can verify this. There are many corroborating independent pieces of evidence for this battle. Including evidence that does NOT rely on "testimony" but rather on artefacts.

, but there is ample evidence to suggest that the invasion, and battle, took place

Yes. And not of the kind that requires a biased testimony to be "just believed".

I would say that the weight of evidence for this event justifies my belief.

I would agree.
I would also say that evidence of that kind does not exist for any religious claims of supernatural things.
Or for alien abduction.

Now, let me turn this around. What 'facts' have you uncovered?

About what?

 

[Redemptionsong]

False. You can verify this. There are many corroborating independent pieces of evidence for this battle. Including evidence that does NOT rely on "testimony" but rather on artefacts.

I rely on the evidence supplied by historians, and other scholars, to reach my belief that the battle of Hastings took place in 1066. But it remains a belief and not a proof. Logic states clearly that proof is only arrived at by deduction, not inference.

Just as l believe there is good evidence for the battle of Hastings, l believe there is good evidence for the Bible being the Word of God.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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?

So all those starving kids across the globe praying and praying to God all day long but end up dying of starvation. Why aren't their prayers answered? But yours was answered "immediately."
What is it that you prayed for?

I know people who say they prayed to Allah and had their prayers answered. So, Allah is real too, according to your standards?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I rely on the evidence supplied by historians, and other scholars, to reach my belief that the battle of Hastings took place in 1066. But it remains a belief and not a proof. Logic states clearly that proof is only arrived at by deduction, not inference.

Just as l believe there is good evidence for the battle of Hastings, l believe there is good evidence for the Bible being the Word of God.

What evidence have you used to determine that the Bible is the word of God?

This is evidence we have that indicates that the Battle of Hastings took place:

Research on Battle Abbey and Battlefield | English Heritage
https://historicengland.org.uk/content/docs/listing/battlefields/hastings/
British Library

Notice how the evidence for the Battle of Hastings isn't just a bunch of "eyewitness testimony" that isn't actually eyewitness testimony. Historians don't just take "eyewitness testimony" at face value. Rather, they investigate further in search of .... evidence!

 

[Redemptionsong]

So all those starving kids across the globe praying and praying to God all day long but end up dying of starvation. Why aren't their prayers answered? But yours was answered "immediately."
What is it that you prayed for?

I know people who say they prayed to Allah and had their prayers answered. So, Allah is real too, according to your standards?

Let's not drag a third party into this debate! Tell me about your experience, and l will tell you about mine. We actually have no way of knowing what goes through someone else's mind.

Have you ever sought Jesus Christ in faith?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Let's not drag a third party into this debate! Tell me about your experience, and l will tell you about mine. We actually have no way of knowing what goes through someone else's mind.

Have you ever sought Jesus Christ in faith?

I'd prefer you address the content of my post which was a response to yours.

 

[Redemptionsong]

What evidence have you used to determine that the Bible is the word of God?

This is evidence we have that indicates that the Battle of Hastings took place:

Research on Battle Abbey and Battlefield | English Heritage
https://historicengland.org.uk/content/docs/listing/battlefields/hastings/
British Library

Notice how the evidence for the Battle of Hastings isn't just a bunch of "eyewitness testimony" that isn't actually eyewitness testimony. Historians don't just take "eyewitness testimony" at face value. Rather, they investigate further in search of .... evidence!

There is ample historical evidence to support the Bible narrative. In fact, we would have a very poor understanding of the history of lsrael (and many of its ancient neighbours) were it not for the Bible.

The case for the Bible as prophecy lies in the depth and consistency of the message. But only people who have studied the scriptures carefully would know these things. We have the Jews to thank for being the guardians of the oracles of God. IMO.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is ample historical evidence to support the Bible narrative. In fact, we would have a very poor understanding of the history of lsrael (and many of its ancient neighbours) were it not for the Bible.

The case for the Bible as prophecy lies in the depth and consistency of the message. But only people who have studied the scriptures carefully would know these things. We have the Jews to thank for being the guardians of the oracles of God. IMO.

Just curious if you ever actually address the content of posts ....

You were on about prayers being answered. I responded to that. You changed the subject.

You were on about eyewitness testimony. I responded to that. You changed the subject.

There is evidence that certain people and places in the Bible actually lived\existed, sure. But there is zero evidence of any of the extraordinary (i.e. supernatural) claims contained therein.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Just curious if you ever actually address the content of posts ....

You were on about prayers being answered. I responded to that. You changed the subject.

You were on about eyewitness testimony. I responded to that. You changed the subject.

There is evidence that certain people and places in the Bible actually lived\existed, sure. But there is zero evidence of any of the extraordinary (i.e. supernatural) claims contained therein.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is just the lack of evidence.
On the other hand the evidence, that some people are religious, is right here in this thread and that there are religious people are a part of how the world works.
Now you just have to how evidence that the world is natural. Good luck with that.
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

 

[SkepticThinker]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is just the lack of evidence.
On the other hand the evidence, that some people are religious, is right here in this thread and that there are religious people are a part of how the world works.
Now you just have to how evidence that the world is natural. Good luck with that.
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

Sorry, are we just completely ignoring the content of peoples' posts now?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sorry, are we just completely ignoring the content of peoples' posts now?

No, I am going meta on you. There is no evidence for religion. Correct, but that is all. What you do with that is on you and without evidence, because it is a subjective choice you make. That is one of the limits of evidence.

Here are more:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, I am going meta on you. There is no evidence for religion. Correct, but that is all. What you do with that is on you and without evidence, because it is a subjective choice you make. That is one of the limits of evidence.

Here are more:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

Yeah, that's not what I'm talking about here. We were discussing specific claims made by a poster.
I already know how science works, but thanks.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yeah, that's not what I'm talking about here. We were discussing specific claims made by a poster.
I already know how science works, but thanks.

So you know this:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia