Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Anecdotes are not testimony.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Chance vs Intelligent design
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, I am not the one that believes in woo woo. You do not like that term, but it is rather accurate.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Your acceptance of the paranormal. That is faith based, it is not evidence based.
<sigh>
I'm sensing some type of irrational attachment to materialism.
It is evidence based.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
LOL, the feeling is mutual. You should really try to learn what qualifies as reliable evidence and why.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Really? Then why can't you provide any proper evidence?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, that is mere projection on your part.
Who would be the judge if it is 'proper'.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is a good question. Proper evidence is repeatable. It has the same results independent of who looks at it. For example you claimed to have heard convincing "Ghost recordings", Sorry I forgot the term that believers in woo woo used. Do you want to discuss why those recordings probably fail as evidence?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Well... you pointed out two things...
1. testimony
2. it hasn't been proven wrong
So how is what I said not a logical extension of what you said?
Is there a point 3 "there's independently verifiable evidence"? Because that would be the only thing allowing to make accepting it reasonable.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Not "who". But "what". And the answer is "rational reason".
What is and isn't proper evidence, is not a matter of opinion.
3. it hasn't been proven right
Hence we form a best judgment over the whole body of cases and argumentation. For example, one case may be unknown but a large body of cases gives us more to form a position on.
I agree.
Yes it becomes so.
Again we're talking 'evidence' and not 'proof'. Two different words.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
???
Do you consider that a reason to believe it?
No? Then why mention it?
And that "judgement" sounds like it would be "there's no reason to believe it", since there is no evidence and all you have are "testimony". AKA, anecdotes and claims.
Sounds like the basis for an argument from popularity.
"if enough people make the claim and believe it, it's likely correct"
So really, we are right back where we started.........
You should believe in alien abduction.
1. many sincere and honest people claim and believe it
2. it hasn't been disproven
3. it has been proven right
How is it different?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
???
Why mention this? Did anyone say otherwise?
So, do you have proper evidence or not?
Or is "testimony" (aka beliefs, anecdotes and claims) all you have?
My post said:
3. it hasn't been proven right
And now you're changing 'hasn't' to 'has'? Hopefully that was just a typo on your part or I'm really lost by your argument.
So, if there is no proof or disproof, we employ reasoning skills and subjectively judge likeliness by considering all strong and weak evidence and all argumentation. That's why I think OJ Simpson likely committed murder and why I think ghosts likely exist.
And, BTW, I do think alien abductions are likely too but that's another discussion.
You need to provide your definition of 'proper evidence' that is not subjective. I even think the honest testimony of a quality person is 'proper evidence' for consideration.
I am using the term 'evidence' as in the Wikipedia definition of 'Evidence':
Evidence for a proposition is what supports this proposition. It is usually understood as an indication that the supported proposition is true.
In that case George claiming to have seen a ghost is evidence for the existence of ghosts (not proof).
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Proper evidence needs to be objective rather than subjective. That means that anyone that is reasoning rationally will agree with others reasoning rationally.
I particularly like scientific evidence and it does seem to apply here since we are discussing the physical world.