There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[Madsaac]

It has shown itself to be the best way to learn about the material world. But to assume that the material world is all of reality, is an opinion (or belief) in itself.

Besides, science has shown us also, that the material world is seldom what it appears to us to be. It deceives us as to it’s true (always elusive) nature; almost the definition then, of an illusion.

Yes but it's more than the material world, I'm including all the social studies, physiological studies and so on. All these wonderful 'scientific' studies that make the world a better place.

Yes this is my opinion and yes there are things that deceive us but science is still the best way to know reality, I'll take evidence over none most times.

And like I said before, if you don't, its simply a personal belief...isn't it?

What about this example, lots of people believe migration is bad, however there have been numerous studies and evidence to prove otherwise.

 

[Madsaac]

That, the bold one, is also merely an opinion or a belief.

Yes it is, buts it more true then false

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes it is, buts it more true then false

That is still your subjective version of true and false. I have another subjective one.

 

[Madsaac]

That is still your subjective version of true and false. I have another subjective one.

Okay fair enough but methodological naturalism is evidence based so in effect it has to be more correct?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Okay fair enough but doesn't methodological naturalism is evidence based so in effect it has to be more correct?

No! There is no way to tell what is more correct, if you can't know what objective reality is in itself. That is the problem of all versions of knowledge for the ideas of real, true, objective and what not.

 

[Madsaac]

No! There is no way to tell what is more correct, if you can't know what objective reality is in itself. That is the problem of all versions of knowledge for the ideas of real, true, objective and what not.

Then answer this please.

Would you prefer to make a decision with evidence or without?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes but it's more than the material world, I'm including all the social studies, physiological studies and so on. All these wonderful 'scientific' studies that make the world a better place.

Yes this is my opinion and yes there are things that deceive us but science is still the best way to know reality, I'll take evidence over none most times.

And like I said before, if you don't, its simply a personal belief...isn't it?

What about this example, lots of people believe migration is bad, however there have been numerous studies and evidence to prove otherwise.

Do the social sciences really qualify as science at all? I’m not convinced, and nor was Karl Popper, but that might be a discussion for another thread. But until someone develops a formula which can predict human behaviour with a fraction of the accuracy with which Newton’s Laws of motion predict the behaviour of objects, I’ll hold to the view that the humanities operate very differently than the natural sciences. Not that they can’t learn from each other, of course.

 

[Madsaac]

Do the social sciences really qualify as science at all? I’m not convinced, and nor was Karl Popper, but that might be a discussion for another thread. But until someone develops a formula which can predict human behaviour with a fraction of the accuracy with which Newton’s Laws of motion predict the behaviour of objects, I’ll hold to the view that the humanities operate very differently than the natural sciences. Not that they can’t learn from each other, of course.

Yes they may operate differently but the goal of the studies, scientific and humanities are the same, which is to gather as much information/evidence to support an idea.

And whatever spin you want to put on it, this is essential for a thriving community

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then answer this please.

Would you prefer to make a decision with evidence or without?

Well, I would prefer to use what you call evidence where relevant and don't claim it, where it doesn't work.

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

undsci.berkeley.edu

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes they may operate differently but the goal of the studies, scientific and humanities are the same, which is to gather as much information/evidence to support an idea.

And whatever spin you want to put on it, this is essential for a thriving community

No, not in Denmark for at least 2 different understandings of what science is.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes they may operate differently but the goal of the studies, scientific and humanities are the same, which is to gather as much information/evidence to support an idea.

And whatever spin you want to put on it, this is essential for a thriving community

There's never been so much information available to so many. Thriving communities, on the other hand, seem a little scarce right now. So perhaps more is needed for a thriving community, than the gathering of evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There's never been so much information available to so many. Thriving communities, on the other hand, seem a little scarce right now. So perhaps more is needed for a thriving community, than the gathering of evidence.

Well, there is a sort of belief found with some people in that more evidence means a better human world and if we had all the evidence possible we would have the best world.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Well, there is a sort of belief found with some people in that more evidence means a better human world and if we had all the evidence possible we would have the best world.

My guess is, we'd still be human, with all that that entails. As for how we become better humans, I doubt science alone has the answers there.

 

[Madsaac]

There's never been so much information available to so many. Thriving communities, on the other hand, seem a little scarce right now. So perhaps more is needed for a thriving community, than the gathering of evidence.

Yes and when that information is used wisely, it makes for a better community

My guess is, we'd still be human, with all that that entails. As for how we become better humans, I doubt science alone has the answers there.

No of course it doesn't, but I'll say it again, it's the best we have.

And broadly speaking, the proof is western civilisation and all of it's amazing achievements................that I assume you and our Danish friend enjoy as well.

 

[Audie]

Yes but it's more than the material world, I'm including all the social studies, physiological studies and so on. All these wonderful 'scientific' studies that make the world a better place.

Yes this is my opinion and yes there are things that deceive us but science is still the best way to know reality, I'll take evidence over none most times.

And like I said before, if you don't, its simply a personal belief...isn't it?

What about this example, lots of people believe migration is bad, however there have been numerous studies and evidence to prove otherwise.

There's an immaterial world?

Your belief is that "Studies" show that all aspects of all migration are all good with no bad?


Here in Hong Kong there's very tight restrictions on
immigration / residency.

 

[an anarchist]

You both in effect take methodological naturalism as a fact, but it is not.

I didn't say that.

I agree that perception is fallible and can be called into question.

What I said was -

But you do have plenty of evidence. You just have a philosophical reason to doubt perception. But the evidence for a real world is all around you.

There is evidence for the physical world around us that we all experience together and simultaneously.

There is no evidence for God.

My understanding is that you are arguing that we can't be sure that our physical world is real. You provide this in the context of me saying there is no evidence for God.

I agree with "philosophical doubt", but there is a lot of valid doubt when it comes to the God concept because there is no evidence for God. There is plenty of evidence for the "real" i.e. empirical world.

Am I understanding your argument correctly?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I didn't say that.

I agree that perception is fallible and can be called into question.

What I said was -

There is evidence for the physical world around us that we all experience together and simultaneously.

There is no evidence for God.

My understanding is that you are arguing that we can't be sure that our physical world is real. You provide this in the context of me saying there is no evidence for God.

I agree with "philosophical doubt", but there is a lot of valid doubt when it comes to the God concept because there is no evidence for God. There is plenty of evidence for the "real" i.e. empirical world.

Am I understanding your argument correctly?

Okay, here is a test. Describe what God looks like and scribe what physical looks like?

Empirical means the 5 external senses so using them describe physical.

 

[an anarchist]

scribe what physical looks like?

Physical is an adjective i.e. descriptor word. I am assuming you know this though, so I do not understand why you are asking me to describe an adjective.

Here is a test. Describe "red" . Please reference all five senses when describing it.

Silly, right?

Describe what God looks like

It depends on the fairy tale.

Okay, here is a test.

I'm assuming I passed. Now can you address the following reply?

I didn't say that.

I agree that perception is fallible and can be called into question.

What I said was -

There is evidence for the physical world around us that we all experience together and simultaneously.

There is no evidence for God.

My understanding is that you are arguing that we can't be sure that our physical world is real. You provide this in the context of me saying there is no evidence for God.

I agree with "philosophical doubt", but there is a lot of valid doubt when it comes to the God concept because there is no evidence for God. There is plenty of evidence for the "real" i.e. empirical world.

Am I understanding your argument correctly?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Physical is an adjective i.e. descriptor word. I am assuming you know this though, so I do not understand why you are asking me to describe an adjective.

Here is a test. Describe "red" . Please reference all five senses when describing it.

Silly, right?

It depends on the fairy tale.

I'm assuming I passed. Now can you address the following reply?

Okay, so you can point to red, because you can see it. Now do the same for physical and tell me how it relates to any of the 5 senses.

 

[an anarchist]

Okay, so you can point to red, because you can see it. Now do the same for physical and tell me how it relates to any of the 5 senses.

You aren't addressing my replies. I'm not gonna do riddles with you. I don't mind a little flair to dialogue but I do expect the points in the replies you are quoting to be addressed.
You are welcome to re-reply to post #6816 if you want to continue this conversation.