Religious Evidence, Scientific Evidence?

[paarsurrey]

Please put aside for a moment the question of whether the sciences and the religions have different kinds of truths. Does it seem to you that the sciences and the religions have different kinds of evidence for their claims?

If so, what are those different kinds of evidence?

Is one kind of evidence superior to the other? If so, why or in what way(s)? If not, why not?

Do the sciences and the religions have different ways of confirming evidence for their claims?

If so, what are those different ways?

Is the way of one superior to the other? If so, why or in what way(s)? If not, why not?

G-d is the Creator of Universe so in religion the evidence is given from his Word.
Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

G-d is the Creator of Universe so in religion the evidence is given from his Word.
Regards

What is "his Word"? If you want to claim that a source is the word of God you have a heavy burden of proof.

Perhaps you should study a bit more on evidence, it appears that you do not quite get it yet.

 

[paarsurrey]

What is "his Word"? If you want to claim that a source is the word of God you have a heavy burden of proof.

Perhaps you should study a bit more on evidence, it appears that you do not quite get it yet.

Quran is the Word of G-d. I believe G-d created the Universe/s and everything in it. He knows in and out of everything.
Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

Quran is the Word of G-d. I believe G-d created the Universe/s and everything in it. He knows in and out of everything.
Regards

The Quran? Why? Your belief is not worth anything in a debate. You need to demonstrate why it is the word of God.

 

[Audie]

Quran is the Word of G-d. I believe G-d created the Universe/s and everything in it. He knows in and out of everything.
Regards

More truthfully you might say "I THINK the quran is the word of (a) god"

and

" I BELIEVE that a 'god' knows...."

 

[Audie]

The Quran? Why? Your belief is not worth anything in a debate. You need to demonstrate why it is the word of God.

Statements of facts not in evidence are not must in court, either.

 

[Yokefellow]

If so, what are those different kinds of evidence?

Here is a tiny sample of some of the evidence I've discovered in the Bible.

The Christian Bible teaches (among other things) Particle Physics and Cell Biology in great detail.

For example, the High Priest's Breastplate is what we call the Standard Model...

[GALLERY=media, 8533][/GALLERY]

The Godhead is what we call Atoms...

[GALLERY=media, 8534][/GALLERY]

And the Tabernacle in the Wilderness was a scale model of a Eukaryotic Cell...

[GALLERY=media, 8535][/GALLERY]

[GALLERY=media, 8536][/GALLERY]

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is a tiny sample of some of the evidence I've discovered in the Bible.

The Christian Bible teaches (among other things) Particle Physics and Cell Biology in great detail.

For example, the High Priest's Breastplate is what we call the Standard Model...

[GALLERY=media, 8533][/GALLERY]

The Godhead is what we call Atoms...

[GALLERY=media, 8534][/GALLERY]

And the Tabernacle in the Wilderness was a scale model of a Eukaryotic Cell...

[GALLERY=media, 8535][/GALLERY]

[GALLERY=media, 8536][/GALLERY]

Sorry but this is merely reinterpreting after the fact. It is not evidence for your beliefs.

Try again.

 

[A Son of God]

Undoubtedly. Most of the non-religious would hardly accept written material from the past as being anything like reliable evidence. It can hardly be tested to its veracity in most cases - as to being unbiased and verified by independent material. The opposite is the case with science, since if something cannot be verified it generally remains in the realms of theory - which is where most religions truly belong.



Mostly it is written material for religions, with some circumstantial evidence too, but not necessarily verifying any claims. Science has all sorts of evidence to verify any claims - from rival theories that might be tested, to the tests that come be conducted, and the evidence we often see with our own eyes. If an alarm bell rings then we usually look rather closely to make sure we have the right conclusions to verify our assumptions.



No contest. next.



They should have the same basis, but undoubtedly the two do seem to vary as to how they present evidence and as to what is accepted as appropriate evidence. The religious, for many, seem to rely on rather insubstantial evidence much of the time.



Factual as opposed to not?



Superior, as in science is based in reality? Perhaps that is the one major difference.

Science relies on hard, objective evidence and facts, including the sciences of archaeology and history. Religion not only relies on subjective emotion, its main focus is on totally unverifiable hearsay which is the basis for all supernatural events and revelation. Science adapts to new information, religion, being the infallible "word of God", does not. Science confirms it's theories with observation and experiment. Religion confirms its dogma to be set in stone according to God (read clerics).

I have a BS degree and I can tell you that science does not always rely on "hard" evidence. No we call math equations theories and scientific ideas theories for a reason. They only appear in the present with our current intellect to be truth. In other words they are yet not proven to be false. This does not make them hard fact. For instance, carbon dating is a theory that is very controversial. How can you ever verify the date of the creation of something. All things created were made from something already in existence. Some believe with good reason that the current carbon dating system is exponentially wrong as things get older and it seems to be obvious that this would be the case. Yet, when something is carbon dated we claim it is evidence of the age of that object. Religion is generally based on a feeling that one has that God is moving them in a certain belief. We have yet to understand these feelings? We still cannot understand many "powers" some people have that others do not when it comes to discernment. We have always treated the mind and thoughts as fantasy and not fact. This is why our minds are only used a s,all percent because we continuously question if what we know is known or not known. Our minds continuously work to rethink what we think is fact. Many become stagnant in learning with this condition. If we learned things and really knew them to be fact, we could use way more of our brains.

 

[A Son of God]

I'm going to use Rumi to respond since he put it much better than I could:

There are two kinds of intelligence: one acquired,
as a child in school memorizes facts and concepts
from books and from what the teacher says,
collecting information from the traditional sciences
as well as from the new sciences.

With such intelligence you rise in the world.
You get ranked ahead or behind others
in regard to your competence in retaining
information. You stroll with this intelligence
in and out of fields of knowledge, getting always more
marks on your preserving tablets.

There is another kind of tablet,
one already completed and preserved inside you.
A spring overflowing its springbox. A freshness
in the center of the chest. This other intelligence
does not turn yellow or stagnate. It's fluid,
and it doesn't move from outside to inside
through the conduits of plumbing-learning.

This second knowing is a fountainhead
from within you, moving out.

everything he said is BS.

 

[A Son of God]

Science relies on hard, objective evidence and facts, including the sciences of archaeology and history. Religion not only relies on subjective emotion, its main focus is on totally unverifiable hearsay which is the basis for all supernatural events and revelation. Science adapts to new information, religion, being the infallible "word of God", does not. Science confirms it's theories with observation and experiment. Religion confirms its dogma to be set in stone according to God (read clerics).

First of all science is usually not "hard" evidence. This is the very reason we call every idea of math and science a "theory". It is merely the existence of an idea yet not proven wrong. Second, nothing we know religious or scientific is based on anything that was not written down previously and we study it and believe it. Was George Washington the first president of the United States? Most people believe it and it is written as such. Yet did you see true "evidence" that it was so? I don't think you can "prove" it scientifically any more than I can prove that Jesus existed. We believe what we want to believe. We believe usually what most people surrounding us believe to be fact. Is any of it really fact? Are there any "hard" truths? By scientific laws no there is not. There only exists theories in which we place our faith.

 

[Jose Fly]

Is any of it really fact? Are there any "hard" truths? By scientific laws no there is not. There only exists theories in which we place our faith.

Ah, stereotypical fundamentalist black/white thinking......you either have fact/truth or theories taken on faith, with nothing in between.

Fascinating.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have a BS degree and I can tell you that science does not always rely on "hard" evidence. No we call math equations theories and scientific ideas theories for a reason. They only appear in the present with our current intellect to be truth. In other words they are yet not proven to be false. This does not make them hard fact. For instance, carbon dating is a theory that is very controversial. How can you ever verify the date of the creation of something. All things created were made from something already in existence. Some believe with good reason that the current carbon dating system is exponentially wrong as things get older and it seems to be obvious that this would be the case. Yet, when something is carbon dated we claim it is evidence of the age of that object. Religion is generally based on a feeling that one has that God is moving them in a certain belief. We have yet to understand these feelings? We still cannot understand many "powers" some people have that others do not when it comes to discernment. We have always treated the mind and thoughts as fantasy and not fact. This is why our minds are only used a s,all percent because we continuously question if what we know is known or not known. Our minds continuously work to rethink what we think is fact. Many become stagnant in learning with this condition. If we learned things and really knew them to be fact, we could use way more of our brains.

why do you make false claims that immediately cause people to doubt that you have earned a BS. Carbon dating is not at all controversial. I have only seen ignorant science deniers make that claim and never have I heard that from a serious scientist.

 

[Jose Fly]

why do you make false claims that immediately cause people to doubt that you have earned a BS. Carbon dating is not at all controversial. I have only seen ignorant science deniers make that claim and never have I heard that from a serious scientist.

I'm always amused at how creationists will go on and on about how carbon dating is unreliable and flawed.......until it's used to date a Biblical artifact. Then suddenly it's "See? See! This proves the Bible!!!"

 

[Subduction Zone]

First of all science is usually not "hard" evidence. This is the very reason we call every idea of math and science a "theory". It is merely the existence of an idea yet not proven wrong. Second, nothing we know religious or scientific is based on anything that was not written down previously and we study it and believe it. Was George Washington the first president of the United States? Most people believe it and it is written as such. Yet did you see true "evidence" that it was so? I don't think you can "prove" it scientifically any more than I can prove that Jesus existed. We believe what we want to believe. We believe usually what most people surrounding us believe to be fact. Is any of it really fact? Are there any "hard" truths? By scientific laws no there is not. There only exists theories in which we place our faith.

so you don't even know what a theory is.

 

[Audie]

why do you make false claims that immediately cause people to doubt that you have earned a BS. Carbon dating is not at all controversial. I have only seen ignorant science deniers make that claim and never have I heard that from a serious scientist.

He most certainly was not an English major.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I have a BS degree and I can tell you that science does not always rely on "hard" evidence. No we call math equations theories and scientific ideas theories for a reason. They only appear in the present with our current intellect to be truth. In other words they are yet not proven to be false. This does not make them hard fact. For instance, carbon dating is a theory that is very controversial. How can you ever verify the date of the creation of something. All things created were made from something already in existence. Some believe with good reason that the current carbon dating system is exponentially wrong as things get older and it seems to be obvious that this would be the case. Yet, when something is carbon dated we claim it is evidence of the age of that object. Religion is generally based on a feeling that one has that God is moving them in a certain belief. We have yet to understand these feelings? We still cannot understand many "powers" some people have that others do not when it comes to discernment. We have always treated the mind and thoughts as fantasy and not fact. This is why our minds are only used a s,all percent because we continuously question if what we know is known or not known. Our minds continuously work to rethink what we think is fact. Many become stagnant in learning with this condition. If we learned things and really knew them to be fact, we could use way more of our brains.

Glad to see you are using that brain of yours. Some of us equally intelligent (?) tend to use it differently. I don't tend to treat the mind and thoughts as fantasy, and hence my search for psychological understanding and my bias towards science tends to inform me more than any religious beliefs or suppositions from the religious.

 

[Sir Doom]

Please put aside for a moment the question of whether the sciences and the religions have different kinds of truths. Does it seem to you that the sciences and the religions have different kinds of evidence for their claims?

No. They both read books written by dead people and believe them.

If so, what are those different kinds of evidence?

Different books.

Is one kind of evidence superior to the other? If so, why or in what way(s)? If not, why not?

Yes, one is far more entertaining.

Do the sciences and the religions have different ways of confirming evidence for their claims?

If so, what are those different ways?

Is the way of one superior to the other? If so, why or in what way(s)? If not, why not?

Obviously. One uses repetition. The other uses... umm, never mind they are the same.

 

[Hawkins]

Please put aside for a moment the question of whether the sciences and the religions have different kinds of truths. Does it seem to you that the sciences and the religions have different kinds of evidence for their claims?

If so, what are those different kinds of evidence?

Is one kind of evidence superior to the other? If so, why or in what way(s)? If not, why not?

Do the sciences and the religions have different ways of confirming evidence for their claims?

If so, what are those different ways?

Is the way of one superior to the other? If so, why or in what way(s)? If not, why not?

To humans, evidence can be a delusion.

======
Atheistic thinking is heavily based on the term evidence. They are educated or rather indoctrinated to think that evidence should be the way in confirming a truth. However this is not true in reality. Evidence, other than science, comes scarcely that humans (in majority) don't actually rely on evidence to approach a truth. They rely on faith instead to get to a truth. This is where the flaw of atheistic thinking is, due mainly to the indoctrination of secular education.

Science can be evidenced simply because science is always about a phenomenon which can repeat (infinitive number of times) for humans to do their speculations/observations unlimited number of times. This kind of repeatable truth (i.e., scientific truth) is a very narrow and limited set of truth. Our secular education however mistakenly treats it as the norm of what a truth is. That's why we (atheists that is) keep asking for evidence in backing a up claim in order for it to be considered a truth.

In reality, we can't even back one out of the million meals we ever had with evidence. It is because "what we ate" is not something which can be repeatable as a science is. 7 billion humans (not to count those already died) can't even back up one of his past meals with evidence. That's how insignificant evidence is. We don't practically approach a fact of this kind (not repeatable) with evidence. We approach it with faith instead. You simply tell us what you ate such that we can believe with faith to know what you ate. What we actually examine is your credibility and reliability instead of evidence. If you are a friend I can trust, I swallow it right away without a second thought. This flash of a second in getting to a truth is the efficiency of what faith is, in terms of approaching a truth (i.e., what you said about what you ate)!

Do we have an alternative way to get to know what you ate? Unfortunately we don't. Science/evidence etc. won't tell what you ate, say, on Jul 11, 2012. Someone wrote down what you ate that day and for others to believe with faith, that remains the only way we could possibly know what you ate.

 

[Audie]

To humans, evidence can be a delusion.

======
Atheistic thinking is heavily based on the term evidence. They are educated or rather indoctrinated to think that evidence should be the way in confirming a truth. However this is not true in reality. Evidence, other than science, comes scarcely that humans (in majority) don't actually rely on evidence to approach a truth. They rely on faith instead to get to a truth. This is where the flaw of atheistic thinking is, due mainly to the indoctrination of secular education.

Science can be evidenced simply because science is always about a phenomenon which can repeat (infinitive number of times) for humans to do their speculations/observations unlimited number of times. This kind of repeatable truth (i.e., scientific truth) is a very narrow and limited set of truth. Our secular education however mistakenly treats it as the norm of what a truth is. That's why we (atheists that is) keep asking for evidence in backing a up claim in order for it to be considered a truth.

In reality, we can't even back one out of the million meals we ever had with evidence. It is because "what we ate" is not something which can be repeatable as a science is. 7 billion humans (not to count those already died) can't even back up one of his past meals with evidence. That's how insignificant evidence is. We don't practically approach a fact of this kind (not repeatable) with evidence. We approach it with faith instead. You simply tell us what you ate such that we can believe with faith to know what you ate. What we actually examine is your credibility and reliability instead of evidence. If you are a friend I can trust, I swallow it right away without a second thought. This flash of a second in getting to a truth is the efficiency of what faith is, in terms of approaching a truth (i.e., what you said about what you ate)!

Do we have an alternative way to get to know what you ate? Unfortunately we don't. Science/evidence etc. won't tell what you ate, say, on Jul 11, 2012. Someone wrote down what you ate that day and for others to believe with faith, that remains the only way we could possibly know what you ate.

Atheistic thinking is heavily based on the term evidence. They are educated or rather indoctrinated to think that evidence should be the way in confirming a truth.

I like your next line

However this is not true in reality

"This" being "the above, which, yes, is not true
"in reality" or anywhere else except in your thinking.

They rely on faith instead to get to a truth. This is where the flaw of atheistic thinking is,

Nah. You are just saying things. You dont know.
And you are simply observing a very very tiresome
old religionist habit of equivocation with the word "faith".

Attempting, I guess, to extrapolate how others think
based on how you think. Wont work.

How does an atheist think? Speaking for myself,
I started out as an atheist, and that has never changed.

I dont spend my time with praying, chanting, fasting,self-flagellating, going on pilgrimages, reading religious tomes,
attending church not do I think that is a productive
way to spend time.

I suppose you could work in the word "evidence" if
you must-nothing has ever come about to cause me
to think any of that is worthwhile or meaningful.

What on earth does that have to do with "faith"?

I cannot just decide, like, Oh now I have faith, I believe
in "god", Batboy, or that Elvis lives. Perhaps you too
would need "evidence" for those.

I expect if a person fasted and prayed long enough for
a sign of Elvis, they'd get it.

I cant just decide to believe, I cannot deliberately set
out to deceive myself.

The flaw is in the thinking of those who can.