What is Evidence?

[Valjean]

A Wiki page where someone says they tested it is not evidence. Evidence is photos, videos, published papers. As a scientist, why don't you run the experiment yourself (very easily done, as you claim - hundreds of housewives have done it on video) and provide us the photos and video. This reluctance to experiment sounds like you are not a serious scientist at all or have no faith in your own abilities/beliefs.

It was photographed by hundreds of people all over the world. It wasn't rocket science. Anyone could do it in their kitchen -- and did.

It worked with porous statues, but not usually with solid ones. It worked with statues of gods, animals, and various humans, including politicians. It worked with fruit juice, water, wine, &al. It worked through the statue's mouth, ear, forehead, or back.
The excitement apparently died down when facts like these became known.

You are quite right. But videos are better than mere words. Anyway, I trust you not to fake it or alter it. Please perform the experiment - it will be so easy. You will be the only person in the world who has a video debunking this phenomenon.

See above.
See the videos I linked to. Google. There are plenty more.
Do you have a statue of Jesus or the virgin Mary at home? Try it.

 

[Jimmy]

Just to tidy up a detail, how does his mother, the one in charge of the "reborn" shtick, fit into this?
You have my promise.

He appears with the Earth and everything else at a very young age

 

[blü 2]

He appears with the Earth and everything else at a very young age

But since you tell us he's reborn, where's his mom? How does she exist when he doesn't?

 

[Brian2]

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

Of course, yes, for myself I get to decide that.

 

[soulsurvivor]

OK. A simple Google search brought up a long list of videos. I copied the first couple with explanations, rather than just news reports:

There were more, but I don't want to take the time.

These are just words. Neither of them actually reproduce the phenomenon to show that it can be done anytime, anywhere and on demand. Unless you saw such an experiment in those videos - in which case you should provide the time stamp.

 

[soulsurvivor]

Alas, I don't have any statues -- or milk. Maybe a terra-cotta flower pot would work. They're pretty porous.

Use a cloth doll, that would actually be easier.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

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

Silence is also evidence. So, I agree with you that many psychic things cannot be measured by physical instruments, but psychologists routinely make questionnaires with which they assess the temperament or the impact of any physical event. For example, if people are affected by Covid, a psychologist can very much assess how deeply his mind is affected. So, in this kind of thing, it is not correct to say that spiritual teachings cannot be tested. I think there is enough evidence from psychology to be able to test, even if partially, what happens in the physical world. For example, we can divide the patients in a hospital into two parts and give spiritual teaching to one part and not give to another part and see the results. In such a study, we will certainly be able to assess whether that spiritual teaching had an impact or not. So, it is not correct to say that spiritual teachings cannot be tested. Thank you.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

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.

While I agree with you that past beliefs are the root of conflicts, I think they can be resolved. What is required is that some persons who are evolved at a higher level and can connect with others’ beliefs, they can certainly arrive at a mutually consistent understanding. I am myself trying to do this by studying the history.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Evidence is whatever is evident to the senses.

What it signifies is a different matter (what it is evidence of). It begins as a bare apprehension: something is there. The mind quickly fills in what that apprehension implies from memory (prior experience), and how one feels about it (affective component).

One is free to use whatever rogue logic he chooses to connect that evidence to his conclusion, but if it isn't valid (fallacy-free) logic, the conclusion has no truth value.

Evidence has to be related to the objective. If we are looking for evidence of the death of a plant, we have to look for evidence of water. But when we discuss psychic events, then we don't look for physical evidence. For example, if one is studying the impact of music on the growth of a plant, then one does not look for evidence of water or not water because it is assumed that water exists. So, evidence has to be related to the objective function which we are trying to unravel.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

But unless your visions/revelations/experiences are consistent with those of others making such claims, they're suspect. Even if others have the same experiences, interpretations are likely to vary.
Truth doesn't contradict itself. It's consistent.

Millions of people have hallucinations, ecstatic experiences, and strong emotional or experiential convictions. They generally don't stand up to testing.

I am so happy to see your post. I would very much like you to tell in more detail what you have seen at the highest level, because the problem of the world right now, as I see it is that we all are working with smaller subsets of the reality and fighting with each other if we can experience the universal and communicate it to the subsets. Then we could perhaps beget faster evolution and better world to live in. Thank you very much for your communication.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

No more than do all the readings of
Scripture by those inspired of God to
the one True interpretation.

Which is disappointing.

I do not agree with you that truth does not contradict itself. The problem is like this, the infinite universal consciousness is a psychic cloud. Just as in cloud, there can be different colors and some may even be in inconsistent with each other, such as one cloud may have hailstones and another may have only vapor. The bigger problem is that different people tap into lower levels of psychic world. Let us think of these as small pyramids trying to reach to the unconscious psychic infinite. Some reach, let's say ten millimeters, others reach 20mm and yet others reach 30mm. They all have parts of the infinity in them, and therefore the parts can be self-contradictory. It is like different political parties when they are distinct from the country's consciousness, then they become distinct and fight with each other. But, when there is a national emergency or something, then they all merge with each other so that merging is not permanent and when the psychic subsets exist, they can be mutually contradictory. Thank you for this question.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

That's the link I gave in my first post. There is no documentation of any scientist reproducing the phenomenon anywhere in the world, No photographs, no videos, no peer-reviewed or published papers. Just like you, there is just a lot of talk.

If you are such a scientist and if it is so easy to reproduce (it was done hundreds of times in Sept 1995), you should be able to do it. You can't. That is the problem.

Instead of all this talking, why don't you actually run some actual experiments like a real scientist and show us some real results?

I agree with you that there is no evidence whatsoever of Ganesha drinking milk miracle. All this is pure nonsense. But that does not mean that everything that religion says is nonsense. I believe that the basic contribution of religion is to help people connect their conscious mind with the unconscious world, by focusing on the Kaaba, the cross or the images of Hindu Devdas. We connect with the unconscious history of these events, and that is what gives them value not scientific evidence. Secondly, we have enough scientific evidence of the existence of unconscious in the writings of Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud and Emile Durkheim. So, let us not consider evidence to only be natural evidence, psychic evidence is also as much evidence, although we need different type of instruments to measure it.

 

[Jimmy]

But since you tell us he's reborn, where's his mom? How does she exist when he doesn't?

Uuuuum….. she appears too

 

[Valjean]

Who in this Mother Earth said that?

Do you not realize that religious mythology and doctrine are not consistent? If they make conflicting claims, are they both right?

It's you who has the burden of proof because it was you who made a claim.

What was my claim?
I was responding to your claim. Pointing out errors. A critique is not usually a claim.

Absolutely not. What? It was a sermon. There was no maths there! Seriously bro, what in the world are you talking about?

The rules and methodology of thinking and assessing confidence levels or truth. There's an algebra underlying it that can be written symbolically: Boolean Algebra (Boolean Expression, Rules, Theorems and Examples)

Can you clearly point out what claim I made in which post? Don't make things up, quote my own words.

These are just words. Neither of them actually reproduce the phenomenon to show that it can be done anytime, anywhere and on demand. Unless you saw such an experiment in those videos - in which case you should provide the time stamp.

Anyone can reproduce the phenomenon, in his own kitchen! Everyone was doing it. People watched it on the six O:clock news.
They weren't skeptical of the phenomenon, just confused about it's mechanism and significance.
As I said, not rocket science.

 

[Valjean]

These are just words. Neither of them actually reproduce the phenomenon to show that it can be done anytime, anywhere and on demand. Unless you saw such an experiment in those videos - in which case you should provide the time stamp.

Anyone can reproduce the phenomenon, in his own kitchen! Everyone was doing it. People watched it on the six O:clock news.
They weren't skeptical of the phenomenon, just confused about it's mechanism and significance.
As I said, not rocket science.

 

[Valjean]

I am so happy to see your post. I would very much like you to tell in more detail what you have seen at the highest level, because the problem of the world right now, as I see it is that we all are working with smaller subsets of the reality and fighting with each other if we can experience the universal and communicate it to the subsets. Then we could perhaps beget faster evolution and better world to live in. Thank you very much for your communication.

Alas, I think it's a little late to alter human beings, given the larger issues threatening us.
It would be an interesting project, though....

 

[Valjean]

Of course, yes, for myself I get to decide that.

Sure -- for yourself. Not in any valid, objective sense.

 

[soulsurvivor]

Anyone can reproduce the phenomenon, in his own kitchen! Everyone was doing it. People watched it on the six O:clock news.
They weren't skeptical of the phenomenon, just confused about it's mechanism and significance.
As I said, not rocket science.

That's what I have been saying. If anyone can do it and it is so easy, you should able to do it too.

Just do it yourself and upload a video of performing it. It only happened for a few days in 1995 (or later in 2006), but you should be able to do it anytime. I will wait for your video since it is not 'rocket science'.

 

[George-ananda]

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?

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?

Evidence is everything for consideration in a judgment. There can be evidence for and against the same thing. Even questionable sources are still evidence for consideration.

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?

The Bible certainly counts as evidence for consideration. Let's not confuse the words 'evidence' and 'proof'. The Bible is not 'proof' of the correctness of its positions.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Evidence is everything for consideration in a judgment. There can be evidence for and against the same thing. Even questionable sources are still evidence for consideration.

The Bible certainly counts as evidence for consideration. Let's not confuse the words 'evidence' and 'proof'. The Bible is not 'proof' of the correctness of its positions.

I was hoping you'd chime in and share your personal perspective on this subject.