What is Evidence?

[Audie]

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.

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.

I set out food for my kitchen God statue but
I don't expect any of it to get eaten.

I've burned lots of ghost money and a couple of
Chanel bags to carry it in.

But there's a limit to the sanity of taking things
too literally.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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.

Yes. Beliefs in metaphysical claims can have beneficial psychological impact. No need to tell me. I know it personally.... But you still can't test if this claims themselves are reality or just wishful thinking. Do you know what I mean?

 

[firedragon]

What was my claim?

Your claim below.

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.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

Nor is it evidence for the correctness of its position. All that any such book is evidence of is that somebody wrote the words down. It's net even evidence that the writers believed what they wrote. As is commonly stated, the Bible is the claim, not the evidence in support of it.

Your claim below. [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.]

That would be quite a burden indeed gathering up those diverse opinions to show you what you already know if for no other reason than that such opinions are all over the place here on RF.

And he would need to care whether you believed him or not to go through that much bother in the hope that you would agree with him thereafter.

Three things are required for there to be a burden of "proof":

1. One has made an existential claim.
2. One wants to be believed.
3. He is interacting with a critical thinker able to recognize a compelling argument and willing to be swayed by one.

My rule is that I don't accept such challenges from people that represent that they don't know what is common knowledge, as when somebody asks, "What evidence is there for evolution?" or "What evidence is there that Trump broke the law?" I would answer a ten-year old, because such a person might not have been exposed to what an adult who has been to school in the first example or watches the news with the second has seen, but on these threads, when you see such questions, you know you're dealing with a faith-based confirmation bias and there is no possibility of breaking through (condition 3 above not met).

And I just saw your response to a comment I made on another thread, which was rudely dismissive and content-free. So, there's that, too. I don't mind responding to your posts, but I'm not writing to you even though I'm responding to your post, because I am accustomed to such posting etiquette from you. These words you're reading now are not intended for you. I don't expect a civil, meaningful reply, and wouldn't write them if nobody else could read them but you.

 

[blü 2]

Uuuuum….. she appears too

Reborn?

 

[Jimmy]

Reborn?

Well of course. Along with 4.4 billion other people around 1980. But don’t take my word for it.

 

[Jimmy]

Reborn?

Well of course. Along with 4.4 billion other people around 1980. But don’t take my word for.

Reborn?

you must be asking for other people because I know I’ve told you this over and over again before unless you’re just toying with me

 

[blü 2]

Well of course. Along with 4.4 billion other people around 1980. But don’t take my word for it.

So are you saying this guy's mother is immortal and simply bears him over and over and over and over? I mean, that must get pretty dreary, no?

And where is she when her offspring, the guy who makes reality possible, is dead?

 

[Jimmy]

So are you saying this guy's mother is immortal and simply bears him over and over and over and over? I mean, that must get pretty dreary, no?

And where is she when her offspring, the guy who makes reality possible, is dead?

All of existence rises and falls with his birth and death in an endless cycle. But you already know this is what I believe as I’ve told you over and over again. I don’t know maybe you got a bad memory.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

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.

Personally, I don't consider the Bible a reliable source to learn about the afterlife. I don't believe its multiple depictions of the afterlife are accurate. I've witnessed far too much evidence in my own life to believe that what the Bible claims about life after death is accurate. In fact, I think it's very misleading.

 

[YoursTrue]

Personally, I don't consider the Bible a reliable source to learn about the afterlife. I don't believe its multiple depictions of the afterlife are accurate. I've witnessed far too much evidence in my own life to believe that what the Bible claims about life after death is accurate. In fact, I think it's very misleading.

One depiction Jesus gave was clearly an illustration, not like a photograph or should I say recording of actual persons in heaven or being "hot down below..." but actually an illustration of his teachings and those of the ones persecuting him and how they would "change places" in the future.

 

[blü 2]

All of existence rises and falls with his birth and death in an endless cycle. But you already know this is what I believe as I’ve told you over and over again. I don’t know maybe you got a bad memory.

You're not addressing the question, which is why I keep asking it.

You say he's reborn. That requires a mother.

Where is his mother after he dies?

 

[Jimmy]

You're not addressing the question, which is why I keep asking it.

You say he's reborn. That requires a mother.

Where is his mother after he dies?

See post 289. That explains everything. So when this man dies all of existence ends and when he is reborn around 1980 as a young boy, that’s when existence begins again and on and on it goes.. I told you he was born a young boy a few posts ago. Do you understand now?

 

[blü 2]

See post 289. That explains everything. So when this man dies all of existence ends and when he is reborn around 1980 as a young boy, that’s when existence begins again and on and on it goes.. I told you he was born a young boy a few posts ago. Do you understand now?

I understand that you're consistently ducking the question about where his mother (necessary for the reborn element) is after our hero dies.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

Actually no videos and picture in and of themselves are simply NOT accepted as evidence in academic science. They may be used to illustrate documented evidence, but absolutely not evidence.

The scientific research on statues drinking milk is published in scientific journals. The proponents have not published any research supporting it.

1. Jayaraman, T. "Obscurantism vs Science – behind the milk drinking miracle". imsc.res.in. The Institute of Mathematical Sciences. Retrieved 20 April 2018.
2. ^ Allen Richardson, E. (13 November 2018). Hindu Gods in an American Landscape: Changing Perceptions of Indian Sacred Images in the Global Age. ISBN 9780786499441.

They described and demonstrated rather simple observed explanations, and I gave easy examples of how it could be done,

 

[shunyadragon]

See post 289. That explains everything. So when this man dies all of existence ends and when he is reborn around 1980 as a young boy, that’s when existence begins again and on and on it goes.. I told you he was born a young boy a few posts ago. Do you understand now?

I understand as stated before a subjective religious argument like reincarnation, or maybe a Messianic expectation, without any evidence

As far as any remote relationship to a discussion on evidence. No I do not understand it,

 

[soulsurvivor]

Actually no videos and picture in and of themselves are simply NOT accepted as evidence in academic science. They may be used to illustrate documented evidence, but absolutely not evidence.

The scientific research on statues drinking milk is published in scientific journals. The proponents have not published any research supporting it.

1. Jayaraman, T. "Obscurantism vs Science – behind the milk drinking miracle". imsc.res.in. The Institute of Mathematical Sciences. Retrieved 20 April 2018.
2. ^ Allen Richardson, E. (13 November 2018). Hindu Gods in an American Landscape: Changing Perceptions of Indian Sacred Images in the Global Age. ISBN 9780786499441.

They described and demonstrated rather simple observed explanations, and I gave easy examples of how it could be done,

I am aware of the this 'paper' by Jayaraman . It is just a webpage, it is NOT a published paper. Sometime back, I sent him an email asking him if he had himself conducted an experiment to reproduce the phenomenon and if he had an any documentation of the experiment - what size of idol he used, material it was made of, photos or videos of the experiment. He never replied. He has apparently never conducted any such experiment himself. A photo or video may not be acceptable evidence in 'academic science', but the existence of it, at least demonstrates that an attempt to conduct an experiment was made. Without any such corroboration, the so-called 'scientist' is just blowing hot air.

I suggest you at least make an attempt to conduct an experiment if you call yourself a scientist . Get an idol or a doll or block of wood - get a spoon, put some milk in it and follow what the hundreds of believers successfully did on video in 1995. The object you can experiment with can be made of metal, wood, stone, marble, plaster - whatever you like. Just act like an actual scientist instead of just talking or desperately searching for other people saying similar stuff that supports your unsubstantiated hypothesis.

 

[Audie]

I am aware of the this 'paper' by Jayaraman . It is just a webpage, it is NOT a published paper. Sometime back, I sent him an email asking him if he had himself conducted an experiment to reproduce the phenomenon and if he had an any documentation of the experiment - what size of idol he used, material it was made of, photos or videos of the experiment. He never replied. He has apparently never conducted any such experiment himself. A photo or video may not be acceptable evidence in 'academic science', but the existence of it, at least demonstrates that an attempt to conduct an experiment was made. Without any such corroboration, the so-called 'scientist' is just blowing hot air.

I suggest you at least make an attempt to conduct an experiment if you call yourself a scientist . Get an idol or a doll or block of wood - get a spoon, put some milk in it and follow what the hundreds of believers successfully did on video in 1995. The object you can experiment with can be made of metal, wood, stone, marble, plaster - whatever you like. Just act like an actual scientist instead of just talking or desperately searching for other people saying similar stuff that supports your unsubstantiated hypothesis.

A lot of randos say they are scientists.

Those who actually are distinguish themselves soon enough.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am aware of the this 'paper' by Jayaraman . It is just a webpage, it is NOT a published paper. Sometime back, I sent him an email asking him if he had himself conducted an experiment to reproduce the phenomenon and if he had an any documentation of the experiment - what size of idol he used, material it was made of, photos or videos of the experiment. He never replied. He has apparently never conducted any such experiment himself. A photo or video may not be acceptable evidence in 'academic science', but the existence of it, at least demonstrates that an attempt to conduct an experiment was made. Without any such corroboration, the so-called 'scientist' is just blowing hot air.

I suggest you at least make an attempt to conduct an experiment if you call yourself a scientist . Get an idol or a doll or block of wood - get a spoon, put some milk in it and follow what the hundreds of believers successfully did on video in 1995. The object you can experiment with can be made of metal, wood, stone, marble, plaster - whatever you like. Just act like an actual scientist instead of just talking or desperately searching for other people saying similar stuff that supports your unsubstantiated hypothesis.

The reference was published in a scientific journal as referred. It is relatively easy for porous weathered would and ceramic to absorb liquids. and very easy to drill a deep hole to increase the effect.

The problem remains it is a supernatural claim not based on objective evidence for something that i really easy to reproduce. This claim lacks any significance as to what a supernatural event would be, and similar claims are far to common in various religions in recent history.

When I stain old wood decks the problem of old porous wood to absorb liquids is very apparent, Old ceramic materials have the dame problem.

Again, again and again . . . videos and photos are NOT accepted as evidence for obvious reasons as previously described,

 

[shunyadragon]

I am aware of the this 'paper' by Jayaraman . It is just a webpage, it is NOT a published paper. Sometime back, I sent him an email asking him if he had himself conducted an experiment to reproduce the phenomenon and if he had an any documentation of the experiment - what size of idol he used, material it was made of, photos or videos of the experiment. He never replied. He has apparently never conducted any such experiment himself. A photo or video may not be acceptable evidence in 'academic science', but the existence of it, at least demonstrates that an attempt to conduct an experiment was made. Without any such corroboration, the so-called 'scientist' is just blowing hot air.

I suggest you at least make an attempt to conduct an experiment if you call yourself a scientist . Get an idol or a doll or block of wood - get a spoon, put some milk in it and follow what the hundreds of believers successfully did on video in 1995. The object you can experiment with can be made of metal, wood, stone, marble, plaster - whatever you like. Just act like an actual scientist instead of just talking or desperately searching for other people saying similar stuff that supports your unsubstantiated hypothesis.

The reference was published in a scientific journal as referred. It is relatively easy for porous weathered would and ceramic to absorb liquids. and very easy to drill a deep hole to increase the effect. The reference described a simple demonstration of the event and how it occurred naturally.

The problem remains it is a supernatural claim not based on objective evidence for something that i really easy to reproduce. This claim lacks any significance as to what a supernatural event would be, and similar claims are far to common in various religions in recent history.

When I stain old wood decks the problem of old porous wood to absorb liquids is very apparent, Old weathered ceramic materials have the dame problem.

Again, again and again . . . videos and photos are NOT accepted as evidence for obvious reasons as previously described,