What is Evidence?

[1213]

And the quran indicates that things went as told in the quran, because it is something that we would have, if things went as told.

Can you give one example?

And the bagavhad ghita indicates that things went as told in the bagavhad ghita, because it is something that we would have, if things went as told.

Please give one example.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I think we have lot of evidence for it:
1) moderns continents
2) marine fossils on high mountain areas
3) Orogenic mountains
4) vast sediment formations
5) Oil, gas and coal fields
6) Stories about it all over the world.

None of these things is evidence of a worldwide flood.

Take orogenic mountains. They are adequately explained by ordinary Plate Tectonics. We even observe it happening, millimeter by millimeter.

 

[Trailblazer]

What we are left with is hoping that the superior being will communicate with us and give us information. And that's what we see, with a succession of prophets and messengers claiming to have been given true information. The problem that arises from your quote (above) is that, even granting honest reporting by the messenger and even granting the existence and source of the message (a lot to grant anyway) there's no way to know if the superior being is telling the truth or withholding part of the truth.

With the assumption (belief) that the Messengers are speaking for God, why wouldn't they tell the truth, as God wants us to know it? Granted, they do not reveal everything that God knows, but that is because we don't need to know everything that God knows, and what we do need to know is revealed progressively, in stages, as we need it and are able to understand it.

Then we can add another layer of doubt, in that your statement that "God chooses not to be verifiable" is itself not verifiable.

That is a statement based upon logic. If God exists and if God wanted to be verifiable, and if God is omnipotent, God could make Himself verifiable.

So where does that leave us? In my view, all religious claims are by their very nature subject to so much doubt, that maybe we should consider them a waste of time.

I think we should doubt religious claims unless we have scrutinized them thoroughly and to our satisfaction.

I once came up with an idea that we should all just "go on strike" (no more prayers, no more worship, and so on) until God agrees to speak to us more plainly. No way it's going to happen of course, but why not?

What on earth would God do if humans stopped praying and worshiping Him? God might develop an inferiority complex.

 

[Heyo]

I think we have lot of evidence for it:
1) moderns continents
2) marine fossils on high mountain areas
3) Orogenic mountains
4) vast sediment formations
5) Oil, gas and coal fields
6) Stories about it all over the world.

None of these things is evidence of a worldwide flood.

Take orogenic mountains. They are adequately explained by ordinary Plate Tectonics. We even observe it happening, millimeter by millimeter.

@IndigoChild5559 is right here, @1213,

It isn't evidence for your hypothesis if the same fact can also be explained by the current theory.
What would be evidence, is if your hypothesis would make a prediction that is different from what the current theory(s) predict, and it came true.
Modern geology can make pretty precise predictions where and at which depth it would be useful to drill for oil and gas. If flood geology could make even better predictions, then you'd have evidence.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@IndigoChild5559 is right here, @1213,

It isn't evidence for your hypothesis if the same fact can also be explained by the current theory.

Are you confusing me with 1213? I haven't offered any hypothesis. I simply noted that his lines of evidence don't actually prove a global flood. That is not a theory or hypothesis. That's an analysis of his remark.

What would be evidence, is if your hypothesis would make a prediction that is different from what the current theory(s) predict, and it came true.

What theory are you talking about? Are you talking about 1213's religious belief that there was a global flood, and that the items in his list prove it?

Modern geology can make pretty precise predictions where and at which depth it would be useful to drill for oil and gas. If flood geology could make even better predictions, then you'd have evidence.

There is an entire thread in general religious debates, called "The so-called global flood -- evidence against."

The so-called global flood--evidence against

I realize that this topic has been addressed here and there in many threads. I'd like to collect all the points into one clearly labeled thread. Let's list all the arguments and evidence against the flood. They can include, for example, geological evidence, or internal problems with the...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[Alien826]

With the assumption (belief) that the Messengers are speaking for God, why wouldn't they tell the truth, as God wants us to know it? Granted, they do not reveal everything that God knows, but that is because we don't need to know everything that God knows, and what we do need to know is revealed progressively, in stages, as we need it and are able to understand it.

They might indeed faithfully repeat what they have been told, which is as near is they can get to "truth". But if God doesn't want us to know things then we have no way of knowing what is factual or what has been edited for our consumption. We also have a huge assumption that God is doing things for our benefit. We have no way of verifying that either.

That is a statement based upon logic. If God exists and if God wanted to be verifiable, and if God is omnipotent, God could make Himself verifiable.

Maybe. If God is by its nature beyond our understanding then there might be no way to make us understand without altering our basic nature. Or a hundred and one different explanations that we can consider to be feasible, and all simply guesses, lacking any certainty about the nature of God.

I think we should doubt religious claims unless we have scrutinized them thoroughly and to our satisfaction.

Yes, and very wise, but there's still only so far we can go in the circumstances.

What on earth would God do if humans stopped praying and worshiping Him? God might develop an inferiority complex.

It depends on whether God actually wants us to do that. And once again, we can't know that. Though I'm suggesting this flippantly, I actually feel it might be a good thing for humans to do. It would be the ultimate attempt to make sense of God. If he responded in some way, that would solve so many questions. If he didn't respond (my expected outcome), we could assume that either God wasn't interested in communicating with us, or didn't exist, which are pretty much equivalent, and we could stop wasting time on religion.

(To adherents of various "Eastern" religions, yes I know it doesn't apply to them).

 

[Heyo]

Are you confusing me with 1213?

No, but you are confusing me for confusing you with 1213.
The post was addressed at @1213, as you may conclude from the first line. I was just expanding on your answer to 1213.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No, but you are confusing me for confusing you with 1213.
The post was addressed at @1213, as you may conclude from the first line. I was just expanding on your answer to 1213.

Ah, okay. NP. I thought you were addressing me because you quoted me.

 

[Trailblazer]

They might indeed faithfully repeat what they have been told, which is as near is they can get to "truth". But if God doesn't want us to know things then we have no way of knowing what is factual or what has been edited for our consumption. We also have a huge assumption that God is doing things for our benefit. We have no way of verifying that either.

No, we have no way of verifying any of it. Religious beliefs are not verifiable.

Maybe. If God is by its nature beyond our understanding then there might be no way to make us understand without altering our basic nature. Or a hundred and one different explanations that we can consider to be feasible, and all simply guesses, lacking any certainty about the nature of God.

That is a good point. Since God by His nature is beyond our understanding. there might be no way for God to make Himself known in a verifiable sense.

Yes, and very wise, but there's still only so far we can go in the circumstances.

That is true. Scrutiny can only go so far.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can you give one example?

Please give one example.

I gave just as much examples as you did.

 

[1213]

It isn't evidence for your hypothesis if the same fact can also be explained by the current theory.

The current theory can be wrong.

What would be evidence, is if your hypothesis would make a prediction that is different from what the current theory(s) predict, and it came true.

One prediction is that everything levels up, which means, mountains don't actually rise, if measured from the center of planet earth.

Modern geology can make pretty precise predictions where and at which depth it would be useful to drill for oil and gas.

Would be nice to hear the explanation, how they come to that conclusion.

If flood geology could make even better predictions, then you'd have evidence.

I think it makes better predictions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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?

The problem is one of infinite regress. Let us say there is a standard of evidence. That means that you have to show meta-evidence that the standard for evidence is correct and meta-meta-evidence and so on for the meta-evidence. It is a part of Agrippa's Trilema as for the problem of justifications for justifications. Or in your version the correct standard for all standards. So what is your evidence that your standard is correct?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, we have no way of verifying any of it. Religious beliefs are not verifiable.

...

That the world is natural is not verifiable and thus a belief without evidence.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That the world is natural is not verifiable and thus a belief without evidence.

That is sophomoric drivel. Try jaywalking across a highway.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is sophomoric drivel. Try jaywalking across a highway.

Well, that is not all of the world. The problem is that you make the following assumption. If a part of your experinces are natural and objective, then all of the world is that. It doesn't follow.
We can agree in practice that a part of the world is natural and objective, but that is not all of the world.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, that is not all of the world. The problem is that you make the following assumption.

No, the problem is that your "nothing is verifiable" dismissal is as vapid as it is disingenuous.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, the problem is that your "nothing is verifiable" dismissal is as vapid as it is disingenuous.

Yeah, and the natural, physical, material properties of vapid and disingenuous are with evidence what?
You are yourself doing sophomoric drivel, because you reduce it to how you subjectviely feel.

 

[RestlessSoul]

No, the problem is that your "nothing is verifiable" dismissal is as vapid as it is disingenuous.

No, the problem is that you have never questioned the axioms your perceptions are built on, so that when asked “what is real?” you don’t understand the question.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No, the problem is that you have never questioned the axioms your perceptions are built on, ...

Baseless nonsense ...

 

[RestlessSoul]

Baseless nonsense ...

Reality is baseless nonsense? Didn’t take you for a Dadaist, but fair enough if that’s your take. Could you elucidate a little?