circumstantial evidence to Gods existence

[sayak83]

I respect a lot of what you post, which shouldn't need to be said. But I'd like you to tell me how these three quoted segments below are evidence for anything other than an argument from ignorance...







"We don't know a bunch of things...therefore Brahma" is exactly the same as saying "We don't know a bunch of things...therefore Yahweh, or Bigfoot, or Ancient Aliens, etc."

What, in your view, is the difference in terms of structure of the argument, between what I proposed and a theory of quantum gravity (like say string theory) that proposed to unify the laws of quantum field theory and General Relativity.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I respect a lot of what you post, which shouldn't need to be said. But I'd like you to tell me how these three quoted segments below are evidence for anything other than an argument from ignorance...







"We don't know a bunch of things...therefore Brahma" is exactly the same as saying "We don't know a bunch of things...therefore Yahweh, or Bigfoot, or Ancient Aliens, etc."

Good luck. I pointed that exact thing in his other thread, but he couldn't see it.

 

[alan3261]

Say or believe whatever you want, but the bottom line is that no one knows one way or another if a higher power exists. There are so many possibilities and different scenarios of a higher power or not, that we shouldn't just guess at it. For example, if there is a higher power, is it possible that he created us and then decided to not be involved with us? Is it possible another god created him? Is it possible he is no longer with us? Is it possible he just created a single cell organism and this just evolved? Did something else than a god as some believe create everything? My gosh, there are so many possibilities that we have no right to talk as fact anything about a higher power or not. Why are we afraid to just admit that WE JUST DON'T KNOW?!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Hi,

As many times the strongest argument for theism is:

Don't expect to measure God as it is immeasurable.

On another post, a fellow debater suggested I'l discuss God's existence while being open to accept circumstantial evidence as a valid proof for a God.



So I find this advice very useful and would love to hear about a different kind of evidence.

I apologize in advance, as i assume it will be hard for me to understand at times, so i will probably "nag" with questions.

Cheers

When a gambler in a casino plays 4 royal flushes in a row, we know he's cheating beyond reasonable doubt, but what evidence are we using to deduce this intelligent agency? The only tangible explanation is the materialist one; the random card shuffler at the casino..

i.e.- the power of explanation and probability, are forms of evidence which may trump any directly tangible evidence, and of course are used to come to very important conclusions in criminal cases all the time

 

[jonathan180iq]

What, in your view, is the difference in terms of structure of the argument, between what I proposed and a theory of quantum gravity (like say string theory) that proposed to unify the laws of quantum field theory and General Relativity.

One can substantiate itself with studies and data - the other is subjective reasoning based on religious presupposition... Surely you see that?

Now, again, can you tell me how your three main points are anything but arguments from ignorance?
(If you can clarify the ignorance aspect, please do so. As it's written, it's just an emotional plea for accepting an ideology because we don't currently have all the answers in other areas.)

 

[Milton Platt]

Hi,

As many times the strongest argument for theism is:

Don't expect to measure God as it is immeasurable.

On another post, a fellow debater suggested I'l discuss God's existence while being open to accept circumstantial evidence as a valid proof for a God.



So I find this advice very useful and would love to hear about a different kind of evidence.

I apologize in advance, as i assume it will be hard for me to understand at times, so i will probably "nag" with questions.

Cheers

You don't have to be able to fully measure something in every concievable way to confirm it's existence.
In regard to any supposed god or gods, it is only necessary to be able to measure the effects they have on the natural world, because it can be assumed that if a god is interferring with and superceding natural laws, the effects will be obvious and measurable in scope. If we can find no measurable effect from a supernatural god, then at the very least, we can assume that if the god does exist, it has no impact on the natural world, which for all practical purposes makes it irrelevant. Which means it can be ignored.

 

[Milton Platt]

When a gambler in a casino plays 4 royal flushes in a row, we know he's cheating beyond reasonable doubt, but what evidence are we using to deduce this intelligent agency? The only tangible explanation is the materialist one; the random card shuffler at the casino..

i.e.- the power of explanation and probability, are forms of evidence which may trump any directly tangible evidence, and of course are used to come to very important conclusions in criminal cases all the time

It is easy to calculate the probability of a hand in a card game. We do not have the necessary information to calculate the probability of a god existing.

 

[sayak83]

One can substantiate itself with studies and data - the other is subjective reasoning based on religious presupposition... Surely you see that?

Now, again, can you tell me how your three main points are anything but arguments from ignorance?
(If you can clarify the ignorance aspect, please do so. As it's written, it's just an emotional plea for accepting an ideology because we don't currently have all the answers in other areas.)

The first three points described features that the current theories of reality fail to explain. They are in the same vein as if a quantum gravity theory lists the points that GR an QM fail to explain about observations of reality (like Planck scale interaction, dark matter etc.) They provide the motivation for investigating something over and above current physical theories, nothing more.

In the next steps linked below the properties and predictions of the proposed theoretical entity Brahman that can potentially explain these features are listed, just like a string theorist will list the properties and predictions (non-existent in that case) of string theory that is put forward to explain the as yet unexplained features of the universe.

Every scientific paper I have ever seen follows this two step procedure. It explains what is known in the field till today, then lists what is yet unexplained by the current theory and then proposes the new mechanism/method/data that the scientific author believes help explain partly and fully these as yet unexplained parts. Then it lists the properties of this new entity/theory and what predictions (to be tested in future) can be made from them to establish its validity.

 

[Dave Smith]

Sure, I enjoy speculation with an open mind too and entertaining possibilities.

Sometimes though, certain parameters become defined enough so it becomes a matter of choosing what you actively know vs. what you would like to think, in regards to matters involving viability and possibility.

Circumstantial evidence is good enough to send someone to prison (or not). In the law, in the face of no direct evidence, indirect or circumstantial evidence may be used to infer facts and if this circumstantial evidence is weighty enough then a jury may decide to convict based on it. So why do you deny the theist the same right to make a decision based on the same type of evidence that you allow your law to consider valid?

 

[Thumper]

Circumstantial evidence is good enough to send someone to prison (or not). In the law, in the face of no direct evidence, indirect or circumstantial evidence may be used to infer facts and if this circumstantial evidence is weighty enough then a jury may decide to convict based on it. So why do you deny the theist the same right to make a decision based on the same type of evidence that you allow your law to consider valid?

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” ~ Carl Sagan

 

[Cephus]

What, in your view, is the difference in terms of structure of the argument, between what I proposed and a theory of quantum gravity (like say string theory) that proposed to unify the laws of quantum field theory and General Relativity.

Other than that those are possible solutions, not accepted as absolute fact, and religion is seen as absolute fact, without having any evidence that it actually is? At least scientific theories are backed up by mathematical models. What is religion backed up by?

 

[Nakosis]

Hi,

As many times the strongest argument for theism is:

Don't expect to measure God as it is immeasurable.

On another post, a fellow debater suggested I'l discuss God's existence while being open to accept circumstantial evidence as a valid proof for a God.



So I find this advice very useful and would love to hear about a different kind of evidence.

I apologize in advance, as i assume it will be hard for me to understand at times, so i will probably "nag" with questions.

Cheers

Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. It's something tangible that can still be examined. It may not tell you for example who murdered someone but would be able to tell you who was at the location where the murdered happened.

It still needs validation/verification as to it authenticity like any other evidence. It's just that it doesn't lead to a specific conclusion. Generally you need a lot of other circumstantial evidence to support the conclusion that is being inferred. Basically limiting other possible explanations.

You may understand all this already. This is really for my benefit to set the ground rules for any discussion that may follow.

 

[sayak83]

Other than that those are possible solutions, not accepted as absolute fact, and religion is seen as absolute fact, without having any evidence that it actually is? At least scientific theories are backed up by mathematical models. What is religion backed up by?

Could you explain where in my post have I claimed Brahman to be an absolute fact? I do not see anywhere other than math where one can talk about absolutely true statements (which are not facts). Everything else is based on greater and lesser confidence levels depending on what one publicly or privately observes and experiences.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Investigating by means of reasons - good and evil in the Vedic religion, profit and loss in the field of trade and agriculture, and prudent and imprudent policy in political administration, as well as their relative strengths and weaknesses - the study of critical inquiry (anviksiki) confers benefit on people, keeps their minds steady in adversity and prosperity, and produces adeptness of understanding, speech and action.- Arthashastra


By cognition, a cognizer (jnani) grasps an object/objective/purpose/meaning (artha) in his conscious mind. This then creates either a desire for that object (artha) or an aversion from it. Then he makes an effort to either obtain it or to avoid it. Success is then the coming together of that activity with its reward (actually obtaining or avoiding the object (artha)) and the contentment one feels due to this. Such success can only be produced if the original cognition of the object and its qualities were veridical (as opposed to a mirage of water say). And veridical cognition can only be guaranteed if the cognition was obtained by an accredited method of knowing (pramana). Nyaya then, is the study of identifying when such accredited methods of knowing occurs and a systematic study of what is cognized through them..

Nyaya is the examination of things with the help of methods of knowing (pramana). It is an inference supported by observation and authority.This is called a critical proof (anviksa). A critical proof is the proof of things desired, supported by observation and authority. The discipline of critical inquiry is the one which pertains to it, and is also called the science of nyaya or writings on nyaya.
- Nyayasutra
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Hi,

As many times the strongest argument for theism is:

Don't expect to measure God as it is immeasurable.

On another post, a fellow debater suggested I'l discuss God's existence while being open to accept circumstantial evidence as a valid proof for a God.



So I find this advice very useful and would love to hear about a different kind of evidence.

I apologize in advance, as i assume it will be hard for me to understand at times, so i will probably "nag" with questions.

Cheers

I think circumstances evidence is admissible in certain circumstances! It depends upon the burden of proof and upon the need to come to a conclusion.

All conclusions are probability assessments. Burden of proof may be 'beyond a shadow of a doubt,' beyond a reasonable doubt,' or merely a 'preponderance of the evidence.'

Circumstantial evidence has little import when the burden of proof requires the the removal of doubt, either shadow or reasonable. As in these cases, doubt is the default, logical, and reasonable conclusion. When it comes to preponderance of evidence, a conclusion must be made (civil cases) in favor of one or the other party. Circumstantial evidence may be all there is. Whichever position is deemed most likely (51% probability) can be based on circumstantial evidence.

Notice that circumstantial evidence never addresses doubt!

 

[jonathan180iq]

They provide the motivation for investigating something over and above current physical theories, nothing more.

I agree wholeheartedly.

In the next steps linked below the properties and predictions of the proposed theoretical entity Brahman that can potentially explain these features are listed, just like a string theorist will list the properties and predictions (non-existent in that case) of string theory that is put forward to explain the as yet unexplained features of the universe.

This is where we differ. While I don't have a problem with the greater reasoning you're using for explaining your use of this position, I think you're giving undue privilege to your understanding of a pet deity/concept.

I would accept it, for example, so as long as we recognized that your Brahma variable could just as easily be explained by any manner of moving goal-posts, which is the ultimate folly of most deitic arguments. Gods are never clearly defined because that would open them up to rejection when tests for that definition ultimately failed. Since gods are a complete fabrication, the pious are never really sure which parts about their claims are accurate or not - so they can't logically set parameters for their testing.

This is why the idea of Pantheism, for example, can never be completely shelved. If God is the Universe and the Universe is God, then any and all things discovered in the Universe ultimately become part of God... It's a win-win for that ideology. The Brahman is very similar, from a logical standpoint. If it's all reality, then anything is part of the Brahman, right? All unanswered questions can be answered if you just incorporate them into the very nature of the thing you're trying to prove.

The second part of those scientific papers that you read would lead you to developing tests to study the previous conclusion, right? This is where all test for deity eventually die. They never make it past the point of Abstract and Discussion.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Sorry my friend. I Know some theist who are far brighter than you and me both.

Not everyone is good (i.e. "smart") at everything. I, personally, know a near-genius who can't navigate his own city. A brilliant violinist who makes the most awful choices in food, because she can't cook to save her life. Anyone could easily be a genius and yet make the wrong philosophical or spiritual choices, or have their life's path lead them to less-than-reputable endeavors.

High intelligence is no hallmark of iron-clad decision making, to be sure.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It is easy to calculate the probability of a hand in a card game. We do not have the necessary information to calculate the probability of a god existing.

yes, 4 royal flushes in a row is about 1 in (the number of stars in the universe), we can nail that figure down,

We do not have the necessary information to calculate the probability of the gambler cheating, we only know, that unless we can utterly rule it out, intelligent agency is less improbable than the staggering odds against chance.

we just can't be this sure that no intelligent creator could possibly have been involved, to assume chance is more likely

 

[Thumper]

yes, 4 royal flushes in a row is about 1 in (the number of stars in the universe), we can nail that figure down,

We do not have the necessary information to calculate the probability of the gambler cheating, we only know, that unless we can utterly rule it out, intelligent agency is less improbable than the staggering odds against chance.

we just can't be this sure that no intelligent creator could possibly have been involved, to assume chance is more likely

You still don't understand probability. Your statement "less improbable" is without foundation - it is simply your opinionated guess.

 

[Dave Smith]

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” ~ Carl Sagan

"No they don't" Dave Smith 2017 All any claim requires is the willingness to accept it. if you believe that something comes from nothing and life starts from lifelessness despite all physical evidence to the contrary then all that was required to validate that hypothesis was your willingness to accept it. Have you ever seen something, anything, just a grain of sand, come from nothing (let alone a whole universe) Have you ever seen a rock or a mix of chemicals come to life, just a single cell would do - No! but you are willing to believe that it could and did happen, why, because you refuse to believe that it could happen any other way and that is the only other option. "Two miracles and time - Allow me two miracles and time which brings all things to fruition and I'll give you the answers to the universe and everything" - Athiests everywhere

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You still don't understand probability. Your statement "less improbable" is without foundation - it is simply your opinionated guess.

So if you work in the fraud dept at this casino, and this guy sits down at 4 tables and plays a royal flush at each one, you tell your boss it's probably just luck?!