What is Evidence?

[firedragon]

Its self evident

It's evident because it's evident?

 

[Audie]

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

Google "porous" and find a porous
item. A whetstone from the hardware
store would do. Drip water onto it and see
it disappear.

 

[shunyadragon]

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?

Yes, as in many threads in the past I have provided numerous archaeological and academic references that demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that the Pentateuch is NOT reliable history compiled after 600 BCE without provenance of any known related text or historical accounts that confirm the accounts of Exodus and Joshua, Also the problems of the mythology of Creation accounts, Noah's Ark and the ancient geocentric mythology in the Pentateuch. I can easily begin citing the many academic references again if you are game.

Can you provide any evidence that the text of the Pentateuch existed before 600 BCE?

Let's begin with a basic summery reference with a supporting academic Bibliography.

Composition of the Torah - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The composition of the Torah (or Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible— Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) was a process that involved multiple authors over an extended period of time.[1] While Jewish tradition holds that all five books were originally written by Moses sometime in the 2nd millennium BCE, leading scholars have rejected Mosaic authorship since the 17th century.[2]

The precise process by which the Torah was composed, the number of authors involved, and the date of each author remain hotly contested among scholars.[3] Some scholars, such as Rolf Rendtorff, espouse a fragmentary hypothesis, in which the Pentateuch is seen as a compilation of short, independent narratives, which were gradually brought together into larger units in two editorial phases: the Deuteronomic and the Priestly phases.[4][5][6] By contrast, scholars such as John Van Seters advocate a supplementary hypothesis, which posits that the Torah is the result of two major additions—Yahwist and Priestly—to an existing corpus of work.[7] Other scholars, such as Richard Elliott Friedman or Joel S. Baden, support a revised version of the documentary hypothesis, holding that the Torah was composed by using four different sources—Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly and Deuteronomist—that were combined into one in the Persian period.[8][9][10]

Scholars frequently use these newer hypotheses in combination with each other, making it difficult to classify contemporary theories as strictly one or another.[11] The general trend in recent scholarship is to recognize the final form of the Torah as a literary and ideological unity, based on earlier sources, was likely completed during the Persian period (539-333 BCE)

Read on for more...

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

You have a special ability (to see ghosts).

I've been able to visually see, mentally visualize, audibly hear, verbally communicate with, and feel the presence of earthbound human spirits since I was 6 years old. I've seen other entities as well. I'm also an empath and an HSP and can see people's auras in vivid colors. This is what I experience every day.

Not many people on the planet have this.

My close friend and mentor is also a spirit medium. She taught me to control my abilities instead of them controlling me.

I also keep track of some well-known spirit mediums who I believe are authentic.

So far there is also no scientific evidence. Strong scepticism is understandable.

I believe in supernatural phenomena for reasons that I've often discussed on this forum (such as these previous posts here and here, which include more content to read). Suffice it to say, I've experienced enough of this phenomenon since I was 6 years old, so I have absolutely no doubt that it is real. That's nearly 45 years (my 51st birthday is next week). This represents the vast majority of my life. Many of my personal encounters with it have also been verified by multiple eyewitnesses. Furthermore, two therapists and three psychologists have evaluated me in an effort to determine if there is a natural explanation for what I've been experiencing since I was a child, but there is none. I've also had two cranial CT scans and a psychiatric evaluation in a further effort to find a natural explanation for what I'm experiencing, but yet again, there is none. As a result of all of this, I'm confident that what I'm experiencing is real, and that modern science has yet to conclusively explain it. So these are the primary reasons why I believe there are genuine supernatural phenomena in the physical world that neither modern science, religious dogma, nor religious texts like the Bible or the Quran can rationally explain or logically debunk.

 

[Audie]

I've been able to visually see, mentally visualize, audibly hear, verbally communicate with, and feel the presence of earthbound human spirits since I was 6 years old. I've seen other entities as well. I'm also an empath and an HSP and can see people's auras in vivid colors. This is what I experience every day.



My close friend and mentor is also a spirit medium. She taught me to control my abilities instead of them controlling me.

I also keep track of some well-known spirit mediums who I believe are authentic.



I believe in supernatural phenomena for reasons that I've often discussed on this forum (such as these previous posts here and here, which include more content to read). Suffice it to say, I've experienced enough of this phenomenon since I was 6 years old, so I have absolutely no doubt that it is real. That's nearly 45 years (my 51st birthday is next week). This represents the vast majority of my life. Many of my personal encounters with it have also been verified by multiple eyewitnesses. Furthermore, two therapists and three psychologists have evaluated me in an effort to determine if there is a natural explanation for what I've been experiencing since I was a child, but there is none. I've also had two cranial CT scans and a psychiatric evaluation in a further effort to find a natural explanation for what I'm experiencing, but yet again, there is none. As a result of all of this, I'm confident that what I'm experiencing is real, and that modern science has yet to conclusively explain it. So these are the primary reasons why I believe there are genuine supernatural phenomena in the physical world that neither modern science, religious dogma, nor religious texts like the Bible or the Quran can rationally explain or logically debunk.

I encountered a lady who was very
certain that her landlord was trying
to evict her, because he attacked
her with what she called " bursts " of
odor. It started at her flat but when she
would not move, he began subjecting her
to them everywhere she went.

 

[Audie]

Ad hominem is logically fallacious.

Your tautology was worse.

Too clever by one half is also kind of dim, it
I will give you benefit of the doubt, that you're
merely argumentative and will go for make believe
when w/o anything else.

Noted that you didn't ask "why".

 

[Mock Turtle]

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

And you having sufficient knowledge of the relevant sciences - given that your opinion could reasonably be placed as to its perceived worth?

 

[shunyadragon]

I've been able to visually see, mentally visualize, audibly hear, verbally communicate with, and feel the presence of earthbound human spirits since I was 6 years old. I've seen other entities as well. I'm also an empath and an HSP and can see people's auras in vivid colors. This is what I experience every day.



My close friend and mentor is also a spirit medium. She taught me to control my abilities instead of them controlling me.

I also keep track of some well-known spirit mediums who I believe are authentic.



I believe in supernatural phenomena for reasons that I've often discussed on this forum (such as these previous posts here and here, which include more content to read). Suffice it to say, I've experienced enough of this phenomenon since I was 6 years old, so I have absolutely no doubt that it is real. That's nearly 45 years (my 51st birthday is next week). This represents the vast majority of my life. Many of my personal encounters with it have also been verified by multiple eyewitnesses. Furthermore, two therapists and three psychologists have evaluated me in an effort to determine if there is a natural explanation for what I've been experiencing since I was a child, but there is none. I've also had two cranial CT scans and a psychiatric evaluation in a further effort to find a natural explanation for what I'm experiencing, but yet again, there is none. As a result of all of this, I'm confident that what I'm experiencing is real, and that modern science has yet to conclusively explain it. So these are the primary reasons why I believe there are genuine supernatural phenomena in the physical world that neither modern science, religious dogma, nor religious texts like the Bible or the Quran can rationally explain or logically debunk.

Considering the subject of the thread is evidence. you hypothesis would that the supernatural phenomena you experienced are real. Yes the bold above you cite could not debunk your claims, but the problem remains these are your subjective experiences of the mind only, with no independent external objective evidence to justify your claims. Zip, negatory, nada, no way, . . .

What independent objective evidence can you provide to justify your claims?

 

[soulsurvivor]

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.

You are even worse than those people who say that the existence of some words in a book that proves their claims. You are saying there is some imaginary book (or occurrence of a phenomenon) in your head that proves your claim. If you can actually reproduce the phenomenon, creating a video would be easy, but I am sure you have not even attempted it and taken your imagination as evidence!

 

[shunyadragon]

You are even worse than those people who say that the existence of some words in a book that proves their claims. You are saying there is some imaginary book (or occurrence of a phenomenon) in your head that proves your claim. If you can actually reproduce the phenomenon, creating a video would be easy, but I am sure you have not even attempted it and taken your imagination as evidence!

I claimed no such thing. You failed to respond to my post. The issue in this thread is evidence and my post addressed this issue.

 

[Audie]

And you having sufficient knowledge of the relevant sciences - given that your opinion could reasonably be placed as to its perceived worth?

Just another humble seeker who claims to know more than every scientist on earth.

 

[firedragon]

Too clever by one half is also kind of dim, it
I will give you benefit of the doubt, that you're
merely argumentative and will go for make believe
when w/o anything else.

Noted that you didn't ask "why".

Ciao.

 

[O'Darby]

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?

Whether the Bible is evidence depends on the question being asked. If the question is "Does God exist?", I would say that the Bible is at most a very weak species of evidence. Theistic belief obviously does not have to be Jewish or Christian belief. I could be a devout theist while believing the Bible and the tenets of Judaism and Christianity were complete nonsense. Only if I had reached a theistic belief pointing in the direction of Judaism or Christianity might I view the Bible as evidence: "Ah, a providential God who incarnates for the salvation of humanity meshes nicely with the direction my theism is pointing, so I'll take the Bible seriously." To simply attempt to decide whether the Bible (and therefore Christianity) is ontologically True strikes me as a very weak and badly flawed epistemology.

I believe the existence of God is rationally approached via a series of questions. Things such as the nature of consciousness, the nature of the universe, the survival of death, theism vs. deism and atheism, and finally (assuming one reaches theistic convictions) which species of theism best meshes with one's experiences, observations, studies and intuition. Only at the final stage, it seems to me, might the Bible rise to the level of evidence.

On metaphysical questions such as the existence of God. we each decide for ourself what constitutes evidence and what weight should be attached to it. There is certainly rationality and logic, versus irrationality and illogic, but there is no "standard" for what constitutes evidence in regard to the existence of God. If an apparition of Jesus appears in my bedroom while I'm awake and thinking clearly, that's probably going to be near-compelling evidence to me but quite possibly delusional nonsense to someone else.

 

[Jimmy]

And you having sufficient knowledge of the relevant sciences - given that your opinion could reasonably be placed as to its perceived worth?

I do

 

[Jimmy]

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

I just know how we got truly here is all.

 

[Watchmen]

California Evidence Code section 140 defines “evidence” as “testimony, writings, material objects, or other things presented to the senses that are offered to prove the existence or nonexistence of a fact.”

 

[soulsurvivor]

I claimed no such thing. You failed to respond to my post.

There is nothing to respond to. You call yourself a scientist and all you do is talk. Scientists test observed phenomena and run experiments to prove or disprove theories. They don't just proclaim results without trying anything. Show me how you can make any kind of idol absorb milk (btw the videos show metal, wood, clay idols doing it).. If you can't reproduce what hundreds of ordinary housewives did on camera, then nobody can (except of course magicians)

 

[Audie]

There is nothing to respond to. You call yourself a scientist and all you do is talk. Scientists test observed phenomena and run experiments to prove or disprove theories. They don't just proclaim results without trying anything. Show me how you can make any kind of idol absorb milk (btw the videos show metal, wood, clay idols doing it).. If you can't reproduce what hundreds of ordinary housewives did on camera, then nobody can (except of course magicians)

You want a vid, here's porosity and
permeability.https://youtu.be/JjEmxgr0TR8?si=8RcFttZ-HRLbcpGA

 

[paarsurrey]

What is Evidence?

Evidence, to me, is to find reasonable arguments/ways as to how a non-evident thing is to be made evident reasonably, please, right?
Things that are "Evident" need no evidence, right, please?

Regards
______________
11

 

[Valjean]

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

But science backs up its claims with tested evidence, available to everyone to examine. Religious claims do not. Religions don' even try to disprove their claims or doctrines.

Scientific research ends with a single, universal belief. Religion, which doesn't research, comes up with thousands of conflicting doctrines.