What is Evidence?

[Audie]

I agree that the impact of Scripture can be said to be spiritually valid, but I do not understand why we need the qualification spiritually, because that implies that it is not valid other than in the spiritual world. My sense is that the whole humankind is evolving and a scripture that helps a large part of humankind to evolve should be considered valid, both spiritually as well as generally.

Actually... are in no agreement at all.

My impression is of someone just saying things
sans content of any sort.

 

[danieldemol]

Our knowledge of physical phenomena is constantly evolving. Whereas the scripture gets fixed at the time at a particular time. Therefore, it is not fair to assess the truth of the Scripture which was written at, let us say, 2000 BCE, by examining its correctness with respect to our knowledge of the physical phenomena today.

My interest in Scripture is only to develop mutual understanding between different religions. Therefore, it is best that we look at the phenomena on which different scriptures have something to say and then work on it in the sense of Hegelian synthesis by interaction between scriptures. I think we can develop a better understanding of both the scriptures.

Well I would suggest that if your goal is mutual understanding as opposed to say truth value then good luck, because given the numerous sects each of which follow a particular scripture it looks impossible to develop mutual understanding within a scripture let alone trying to develop it across people with wildly divergent contradictory scriptures in my view.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Well I would suggest that if your goal is mutual understanding as opposed to say truth value then good luck, because given the numerous sects each of which follow a particular scripture it looks impossible to develop mutual understanding within a scripture let alone trying to develop it across people with wildly divergent contradictory scriptures in my view.

I entirely agree with you that given the number of conflicts within different sects of each religion. It is not possible to arrive at an understanding between the sects. However, I think agreement on major issues along with the disagreement on minor issues is entirely compatible. The different sects of protestant Christianity disagree on certain specific while they agree on the main theme. Similarly, there is no reason why we cannot develop an understanding on the main themes of religion between the different religions while maintaining differences on other points.

 

[PearlSeeker]

The statement of a Scripture has to be tested both on the criteria of science as well as its impact. It is possible to have a situation where something is accepted by known science but not accepted by Scripture and vice versa. They correct approaches is that the scripture should have long standing impact on humanity and also be consistent with known science. If it is contra science, then there is a need to revisit the scripture.

Yes, some statements were corrected by science but spiritual (metaphysical) teachings can't be tested (for now).

 

[Audie]

Yes, some statements were corrected by science but spiritual (metaphysical) teachings can't be tested (for now).

That's why "metaphysics" is so popular.

You can make any claim and never be wrong.

 

[Audie]

I entirely agree with you that given the number of conflicts within different sects of each religion. It is not possible to arrive at an understanding between the sects. However, I think agreement on major issues along with the disagreement on minor issues is entirely compatible. The different sects of protestant Christianity disagree on certain specific while they agree on the main theme. Similarly, there is no reason why we cannot develop an understanding on the main themes of religion between the different religions while maintaining differences on other points.

So you differs with Mormons only on some
minor points. Main theme, no prob.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Yes, some statements were corrected by science but spiritual (metaphysical) teachings can't be tested (for now).

Maybe science will catch on someday, but I doubt it. Having said that, I value scientific research to the point that I believe it is essential and beneficial for understanding the physical world. However, I doubt that modern science will ever be able to prove or disprove the existence of the metaphysical (deities, earthbound spirits, or anything else supernatural), which also means I doubt that scientific research will ever be able to rationally explain or debunk the supernatural phenomena that I strongly believe occur in the physical world. I say this because I believe that there are genuine supernatural phenomena in the physical world that defy both scientific and religious explanations. Of course, this is just my opinion on this subject, which is based on my experience.

Finally, I'm including these articles because I think they help convey what I believe about this particular subject.

Why Skeptics Can't Prove Ghosts Don't Exist

It's Not True That Science Won't Ever Be Able To Explain The Existence Of Ghosts... If Indeed They Do

 

[Valjean]

Yes, some statements were corrected by science but spiritual (metaphysical) teachings can't be tested (for now).

And, as Danieldemol and Bharat Jhunjhunwala pointed out, 'metaphysical' and religious opinions are all over the board. Clearly neither their sources nor conclusions are reliable.

​

 

[PearlSeeker]

Maybe science will catch on someday, but I doubt it. Having said that, I value scientific research to the point that I believe it is essential and beneficial for understanding the physical world. However, I doubt that modern science will ever be able to prove or disprove the existence of the metaphysical (deities, earthbound spirits, or anything else supernatural), which also means I doubt that scientific research will ever be able to rationally explain or debunk the supernatural phenomena that I strongly believe occur in the physical world. I say this because I believe that there are genuine supernatural phenomena in the physical world that defy both scientific and religious explanations. Of course, this is just my opinion on this subject, which is based on my experience.

Finally, I'm including these articles because I think they help convey what I believe about this particular subject.

Why Skeptics Can't Prove Ghosts Don't Exist

It's Not True That Science Won't Ever Be Able To Explain The Existence Of Ghosts... If Indeed They Do

You have a special ability (to see ghosts). Not many people on the planet have this. So far there is also no scientific evidence. Strong scepticism is understandable.

 

[shunyadragon]

"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid"

So, yes, the Bible is evidence of the existence of god, but on its own not very convincing.
Similarly, "Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone" is evidence that Harry Potter exists, but we know that he is an invention by J K Rowling.

As per the definition evidence is not one piece of information, it is a collection, group, body of facts that all together indicate that a proposition is true. The Bible is just one piece of evidence.

I believe this view is to broad and opens the door for subjective arguments, such as support for the validity of the testimony in the Bible if it is considered evidence in and of itself, The scriptures and other ancient writings are not in and of themselves evidence, but testimony of what the authors or compilers believed. If you are going to support the validity of the testimony in ancient scriptures you need 'independent' evidence to support or refute the claims.

The same in science. The proposal of a theory or hypothesis is not evidence. The evidence to support the theory or hypothesis must be independent of the proposal and support it to be falsified, and objective verifiable evidence.

In terms of religious claims of academic history we cannot always relay on the the objective verifiable evidence of science, but indirect contrasting and testimony from other sources and archaeology. As far as academic history supernatural and miraculous claims of the past and present lack verifiable evidence and are not independently verifiable,

Example: The New Testament historical Narratives for the life of Jesus, miraculous events, and religious claims are historical narratives of the authors and/or compilers not datable to the life of Jesus. Independent sources are sufficient evidence to accept the existence of Jesus as a historical figure living at the time the NT claims Jesus lived, and some of the events of his life, such as Jesus was condemned for treason by Roman Court under Pontius Pilate and crucified, The miraculous claims of the life of Jesus lack objective evidence and cannot be independently historically verified,

 

[soulsurvivor]

Do you get to decide for yourself what is evidence and what conclusion that evidence supports?

Or is there a standard that something must surpass to be considered evidence and a methodology to showing how the evidence necessarily supports the conclusion being claimed by it.

For example, is the Bible evidence of the existence of God?
Is the Bible evidence because I say it is evidence? Or is the Bible evidence because surpasses a standard of evidence necessary to be considered evidence.

And, if we except the latter, is it evidence of God's existence because I say it is or because I have methodically show that it necessarily leads to that conclusion?

Bonus question: If you think there is a standard that must be surpassed for something to be considered evidence, what is it and does the Bible meet that?

Someone once said (I am not sure who or in what context): “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.”

I think in most cases this is true. Many believers think just the existence of a book is proof that the words in it are the truth. On the other hand, a non-believer would not believe even if he met someone who claimed to be a God and performed multiple miracles to prove it - he would just accuse the person of being a magician and of performing tricks.

For example, in 1995, many idols of Hindu gods (particularly idols of Ganesha) started drinking (or absorbing) milk that was offered to them by devotees: Ganesha drinking milk miracle - Wikipedia . At that time there were literally millions who witnessed this phenomenon which occurred world-wide from Delhi to London to HongKong to Sunnyvale with some say hundreds of idols, even those at some people's homes. Many TV networks made videos of this happening.

However, in the end everyone including the Indian government (which was a secular one at that time) debunked the phenomenon. Scientists came up with various theories like capillary effect or osmosis to explain the phenomenon. In time, the official videos posted by major networks like CNN and BBC mysteriously disappeared, only the ones made by believers remained (http://www.milkmiracle.org or search youtube). After a few days, the phenomenon stopped happening.

The question is that if the 'miracle' can be explained so easily by capillary action or surface tension, why has nobody been able to reproduce it since? Of course, even an amateur magician can probably rig some idol with tubes or something and reproduce it, but no serious investigator has been able reproduce with a store-bought Hindu idol (readers should try their own experiments, if they want).

So are the videos made or posted by believers, evidence? Is the fact that non-believers (and non-magicians) have not been able reproduce the phenomenon, evidence?

 

[shunyadragon]

Someone once said (I am not sure who or in what context): “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.”

I think in most cases this is true. Many believers think just the existence of a book is proof that the words in it are the truth. On the other hand, a non-believer would not believe even if he met someone who claimed to be a God and performed multiple miracles to prove it - he would just accuse the person of being a magician and of performing tricks.

For example, in 1995, many idols of Hindu gods (particularly idols of Ganesha) started drinking (or absorbing) milk that was offered to them by devotees: Ganesha drinking milk miracle - Wikipedia . At that time there were literally millions who witnessed this phenomenon which occurred world-wide from Delhi to London to HongKong to Sunnyvale with some say hundreds of idols, even those at some people's homes. Many TV networks made videos of this happening.

However, in the end everyone including the Indian government (which was a secular one at that time) debunked the phenomenon. Scientists came up with various theories like capillary effect or osmosis to explain the phenomenon. In time, the official videos posted by major networks like CNN and BBC mysteriously disappeared, only the ones made by believers remained (http://www.milkmiracle.org or search youtube). After a few days, the phenomenon stopped happening.

The question is that if the 'miracle' can be explained so easily by capillary action or surface tension, why has nobody been able to reproduce it since? Of course, even an amateur magician can probably rig some idol with tubes or something and reproduce it, but no serious investigator has been able reproduce with a store-bought Hindu idol (readers should try their own experiments, if they want).

So are the videos made or posted by believers, evidence? Is the fact that non-believers (and non-magicians) have not been able reproduce the phenomenon, evidence?

I am familiar with this claim of the miraculous, and over time in the past such miracles were claimed. The article alluded to the claim that yes, the porosity of the stature absorbed milk. The less porous statures failed to "drink" the milk.

No, the videos posted by 'beleivers is not "objective evidence."

This miraculous claim ws reasonably debunked. Like other claims the "desire" to belief in the miraculous tends to feed the beliefs in the miraculous without looking for a more reasonable objective conclusion, Find yourself a porous ceramic statue and it will drink milk.

 

[shunyadragon]

Maybe science will catch on someday, but I doubt it. Having said that, I value scientific research to the point that I believe it is essential and beneficial for understanding the physical world. However, I doubt that modern science will ever be able to prove or disprove the existence of the metaphysical (deities, earthbound spirits, or anything else supernatural), which also means I doubt that scientific research will ever be able to rationally explain or debunk the supernatural phenomena that I strongly believe occur in the physical world. I say this because I believe that there are genuine supernatural phenomena in the physical world that defy both scientific and religious explanations. Of course, this is just my opinion on this subject, which is based on my experience.

Finally, I'm including these articles because I think they help convey what I believe about this particular subject.

Why Skeptics Can't Prove Ghosts Don't Exist

It's Not True That Science Won't Ever Be Able To Explain The Existence Of Ghosts... If Indeed They Do

Note: "To strongly believe" is not sufficient criteria as far as "evidence" of the supernatural or miraculous. In the subjective worlds beyond the physical it remains that we should accept the limitations of science that our "beliefs" cannot ne objectively confirmed.

Appealing to "arguing from ignorance" inspires endless articles on the supernatural as you cited above with no meaningful consequense.

Appeal to Ignorance

This fallacy occurs when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it. This fallacy wrongly shifts the burden of proof away from the one making the claim.

 

[shunyadragon]

I entirely agree with you that given the number of conflicts within different sects of each religion. It is not possible to arrive at an understanding between the sects. However, I think agreement on major issues along with the disagreement on minor issues is entirely compatible. The different sects of protestant Christianity disagree on certain specific while they agree on the main theme. Similarly, there is no reason why we cannot develop an understanding on the main themes of religion between the different religions while maintaining differences on other points.

Even though I believe in an over all theme of an evolving spiritual nature of humanity through the religions and belief systems of the history of humanity. I believe there is a very very real problem of living in the past ancient belief systems. There are many very different conflicting beliefs that cannot be easily resolved as long as one does clings to one of the many ancient cultural belief systems, and attempts to view others through the "eye of tolerance," The reality is that the tribal fundamental nature of ancient belief systems are not tolerant of other belief systems and the conflict and violence that results is very very real.

A major issue of the problem is related to the attempts to justify the belief in ancient tribal beliefs by circular self justified logic without considering tha actual "evidence" of the problematic nature of ancient belief systems. This problem often results in the rejection of science based on the priority of ancient beliefs over science.

 

[Jimmy]

It’s what the masses believe because science tells them so. When it comes to evolution, unfortunately they’re believing wrong imo.

 

[soulsurvivor]

Find yourself a porous ceramic statue and it will drink milk.

I don't have tried. It does not work. Please provide evidence of your success. (I will trust any video you provide)

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't have tried. It does not work. Please provide evidence of your success. (I will trust any video you provide)

If you would believe a video presented as evidence you are easy, gullible and I have a video of the
Brooklyn Bridge to sell you and you can go and drive on it any time you want to pay the New York tolls.

I of course do not have a video. Videos are NOT evidence of the claim since the porosity of the ceramic statue is sufficient explanation for th appearance of that statue deinking milk. I am a scientist, and evidence needs to independent of the hypothesis for a claim. There are other ways to do this as in the claims of stature bleeding or exuding substances like olive oil. Small holes can drilled not easily detectable. As stated before I can get any ceramic statue to drink milk under physical circumstances without appealing to the miraculous.

There thousands of videos of UFOs, but the evidence is weak in terms of videos. There is some documented evidence by witnesses corroborated by radar and electronic monitoring This is the type of evidence that is needed,

 

[firedragon]

And, as Danieldemol and Bharat Jhunjhunwala pointed out, 'metaphysical' and religious opinions are all over the board. Clearly neither their sources nor conclusions are reliable.

​

Can you prove your claim by taking every single one of their so called "sources" and providing evidence to your claim that they are all unreliable, and that all of their conclusions are also unreliable?

 

[Audie]

It’s what the masses believe because science tells them so. When it comes to evolution, unfortunately they’re believing wrong imo.

Your opinion, yes.
And how did you form that opinion?

 

[Audie]

Can you prove your claim by taking every single one of their so called "sources" and providing evidence to your claim that they are all unreliable, and that all of their conclusions are also unreliable?

Its self evident