Evidence of God in the world?

[DogmaHunter]

I'd like to suggest that before we ask this question, we may want to contemplate whether or not there are some 'truths' that may not be immediately demonstrable.

I'm sure there are many things that are "true" that can't be demonstrated.
The thing is, the potential set of "truths" that can't be demonstrated are infinite in number, really only limitted by your own imaginations. It basically includes every single unfalsifiable / untestable claim you can come up with.

I'm sure some of those will be accurate. But how would you know?
How would you distinguish the truths from the falsehoods?

Seems to me like you'ld be forcibly left with no more then an arbitrary choice to make.
In that situation, it seems better to withold belief until there actually is a reason to believe....

If so, then we may want to make a list for three things: 1) those things that are demonstrable, 2) those things that we think are true about reality but are not easily demonstrable, and 3) those things that are not subject to direct demonstration.

So, 1 and 2 are demonstrable.
3 is unfalsifiable.

What now?

Of course, we'll have to define what we think we mean by "demonstration."

Supporting evidence.
The more you have, the more solid your claim.

 

[DogmaHunter]

NOTE: I'm just going by what you say. I'm not bothering with looking this stuff up because, honestly, claims like this really aren't original. They are a dime a dozen. It's always the same nonsense. So I'm not ruling out that I am responding to things that are brutally misrepresented and stuff. I'll just take it at face value and comment from there.

Also, I'm of the opinion that if such claims really were as well evidenced as you CLAIM they are, they'ld be front page news in respectable media outlets and science journals. But they aren't. And not for conspiratory reasons.

I repeat for example. A panel of atheist doctors in a hospital trial determined Alexandrina da Costas inedia was beyond science to explain.

The choice of words is already telling of how suggestive these examples are presented.
"beyond science to explain".

Translation: they had no explanation.
That's where the conversation should stop: acknowledgement of ignorance.

That there is no explanation, is only evidence of ignorance. No valid argument will be produced when the very first premise is "science can't explain it".

This is one of the first hints that nonsense is about to follow.

The only way the shroud mark chemistry and 3D image distortion has been reproduced is by body centric high energy coherent short burst radiation or dishcharge. Various physiochemical tests put it in first century. Hardly spouting off.

Ow, lol, this example is about the shroud???? LOL!

Come on man....
And you call yourself a scientist? For realz....
I also think it's funny, by the way, that you first say that science can't explain it, and then continue by giving what looks like a scientific explanation. Pretty hilarious.

Not that your "scientific explanation" is correct off course.

Anytime you start being interested in evidence, rather than reinforcing your current worldview let me know.

There goes another irony meter.................................................

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm sure there are many things that are "true" that can't be demonstrated.
The thing is, the potential set of "truths" that can't be demonstrated are infinite in number, really only limitted by your own imaginations. It basically includes every single unfalsifiable / untestable claim you can come up with.

Right. I won't disagree with that.

I'm sure some of those will be accurate. But how would you know?
How would you distinguish the truths from the falsehoods?

As you may have noticed, I differentiated between the demonstrability levels of different truths as part of a response which lead into Gaara's line of questioning about "why" I use a different epistemology for my religion than I do for the rest of life. So, my reason for initially asserting this differentiation was to remind him that some 'truths' may exist which we can't demonstrate on a purely empirical level. Needless to say, I'm in accord with many here who think that the Christian religion is one of these. But not only that, I also assert that we shouldn't expect it to bear out empirically, or at least not in ways that utterly accord with our science.

Seems to me like you'ld be forcibly left with no more then an arbitrary choice to make.
In that situation, it seems better to withold belief until there actually is a reason to believe....

This holds true for measures involving science, but where untestable Christian truth may exist, this hesitancy may be mediated by various factors that interfere with mere human rational decision and arbitration. Remember, I side a lot more with Blaise Pascal and Kierkegaard [and others like them] than I do with those like William Lane Craig (even though I do get something useful things to think about when I ponder what Craig has to say).

So, 1 and 2 are demonstrable.
3 is unfalsifiable.

What now?

What now? Well, I'd recommend that you realize the truth about your own hermeneutical situatedness in relation to your own arbitrary 'choice' about either engaging or disengaging the Christian faith on its own terms.

It might also help to test the claims and criticisms made by various atheists about how they think "Christianity fails." Yes, those claims and criticisms need to be tested too. No free rides here for either side.

Supporting evidence.
The more you have, the more solid your claim.

Again, this is true for science; but this will be a creature of a different epistemological nature in regard to those evaluations that are to be made about the truth of Christianity.

 

[FIRESTORM314]

How about you first prove that you can manage to actually make sense.

Hey Up the Cavalry has Arrived !
Love to stay but the lesson I gave proved one thing - You can't flog a dead horse.

That is the conclusion of my Scientific Experiment.

 

[Mountainmike]

So you refuse to look at evidence. And like all with strong atheist faith you then want to make unjustified assumptions and pronounce judgement on what you know nothing about.

Got it.

Then don't you DARE ever pretend science , evidence, or critical thinking has anything to do with your apriori faith In atheism. You disbelieve regardless of evidence, and will continue to do so, because you will never look at it, preferring your apriori prejudice. You lose another mark for absence of critical thinking.

I will be nice. I won't point out the list of falasies in critical thinking and actual falsehoods in what you assume and say.

Just FYI other than the usual sceptical flatearthers who seem to specialise in pseudoscience and misleading conclusions on wiki and use every falasy known to man to try to discredit anything that doesnt agree with them ( which is why it is pointless using wiki)
Actual science has moved on and accepts that the RC dateof the shroud was bunk because of uncharacteristic mediaeval repair cotton in the sampling area. Even the labs noted unrepresentative fibres at the time of testing but conveniently omitted to mention them as cautionary, a basic failing of proper process .
Many measurements eg aluminium show the unrepresentative nature.Several physiochemical dating tests ( including ray Rogers own lignin measurements now confirm first century. The RC date always was bunk because of other evidence. The only question was why they screwed up , not whether. The mark is evidence of high energy body centric radiation burst. Why?

The list of atheists who refuse to look at evidence is still 100 percent on this thread - a thread about - evidence!!!

The score on evidence now is
Christians 3 - atheists minus 3

NOTE: I'm just going by what you say. I'm not bothering with looking this stuff up because, honestly, claims like this really aren't original. They are a dime a dozen. It's always the same nonsense. So I'm not ruling out that I am responding to things that are brutally misrepresented and stuff. I'll just take it at face value and comment from there.

Also, I'm of the opinion that if such claims really were as well evidenced as you CLAIM they are, they'ld be front page news in respectable media outlets and science journals. But they aren't. And not for conspiratory reasons.




The choice of words is already telling of how suggestive these examples are presented.
"beyond science to explain".

Translation: they had no explanation.
That's where the conversation should stop: acknowledgement of ignorance.

That there is no explanation, is only evidence of ignorance. No valid argument will be produced when the very first premise is "science can't explain it".

This is one of the first hints that nonsense is about to follow.



Ow, lol, this example is about the shroud???? LOL!

Come on man....
And you call yourself a scientist? For realz....
I also think it's funny, by the way, that you first say that science can't explain it, and then continue by giving what looks like a scientific explanation. Pretty hilarious.

Not that your "scientific explanation" is correct off course.





There goes another irony meter.................................................

 

[DogmaHunter]

Right. I won't disagree with that.

As you may have noticed, I differentiated between the demonstrability levels of different truths as part of a response which lead into Gaara's line of questioning about "why" I use a different epistemology for my religion than I do for the rest of life. So, my reason for initially asserting this differentiation was to remind him that some 'truths' may exist which we can't demonstrate on a purely empirical level. Needless to say, I'm in accord with many here who think that the Christian religion is one of these. But not only that, I also assert that we shouldn't expect it to bear out empirically, or at least not in ways that utterly accord with our science.

It seems to me that while you are acknowledging the presence of that differentiation, you are not actually answering the question of why...

This holds true for measures involving science

I think it holds try for everything you can "believe".
The question is why you don't.

What now? Well, I'd recommend that you realize the truth about your own hermeneutical situatedness in relation to your own arbitrary 'choice' about either engaging or disengaging the Christian faith on its own terms.

You are the one that pushes the "christian faith" forward as something special.
My response is generic: i don't believe things without a justifiable reason.
If something can't be shown/supported to be true, I don't accept it as true, because I have no reason to. I'm not singling out christianity (or any other claim, for that matter).

But you do. Why?

It might also help to test the claims and criticisms made by various atheists about how they think "Christianity fails." Yes, those claims and criticisms need to be tested too. No free rides here for either side.

Just because an atheist says something, that doesn't mean that other atheists will agree or that it has anything to do with atheism.

Such things would also be about other claims. Like the claim that christianity is false.
Your position is that christianity is accurate - since you believe it.
I don't believe that (=accept that as true). I'ld like to know why you believe.
And by extension in the particular point being discussed in this exchange, why that above another unfalsifiable claim?

Again, this is true for science

I disagree again.
Again I'll say: this is true for all claims.

but this will be a creature of a different epistemological nature in regard to those evaluations that are to be made about the truth of Christianity.

See, again you speak about the "truth" of christianity.
What "truth"? How are the unfalsifiable claims of christianity more "true" then any other random unfalsifiable claim? How do you know?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hey Up the Cavalry has Arrived !
Love to stay but the lesson I gave proved one thing - You can't flog a dead horse.

I think it's hilarious, and telling, then of all the posts I responded to, where I dismantled and exposed how your "lesson" isn't a lesson at all and in fact only backfires on you, you chose this one to reply too.

That is the conclusion of my Scientific Experiment.

If that is how you think science works, then that sure explains a lot.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So you refuse to look at evidence.

Are you really going to claim that the shroud thingy is like totally new and not at all discussed to death already?

Come on, man...

And like all with strong atheist faith you then want to make unjustified assumptions and pronounce judgement on what you know nothing about.

There's nothing unjustified about anything I said.
You are welcome to point out what was unjustified and explain how it was such, if you disagree.

And like I always say, I am not the one you should try to convince.
I am not qualified to review things like this. I don't have the qualification, the credentials, the equipment, the know-how. The people that do have these, don't seem to be impressed with these wild claims. It would be front page news, if they were.

If you think you really have something, bring it to them. If you manage to convince them, I'll hear about it soon enough, on any respectable news channel.

Until then, your claims are, to me, not worth spending any time on.

Then don't you DARE ever pretend science , evidence, or critical thinking has anything to do with your apriori faith In atheism.

There's no such thing as "faith in atheism", nore has science anything to say about "atheism", or anything to do with it whatseover.

You must be confusing me with someone else.

You disbelieve regardless of evidence, and will continue to do so, because you will never look at it, preferring your apriori prejudice. You lose another mark for absence of critical thinking.

Uhu; uhu.

The fact is that you haven't given me anything original.
The fact is also that you are trying to skip steps.

If scientists in the field aren't impressed with your claims, why should I?

Even if you could get me to agree with you, what would you gain? What would your ideas gain? A larger number of "believers" and that's about it. It won't change anything. It doesn't matter if you can get people to "believe" your claims or not... it doesn't change whether or not it stands up to scientific scrutiny.

Just FYI other than the usual sceptical flatearthers who seem to specialise in pseudoscience and misleading conclusions on wiki and use every falasy known to man to try to discredit anything that doesnt agree with them ( which is why it is pointless using wiki)

Nice list of accusations. Now support them.

Actual science has moved on and accepts that the RC dateof the shroud was bunk because of uncharacteristic mediaeval repair cotton in the sampling area. Even the labs noted unrepresentative fibres at the time of testing but conveniently omitted to mention them as cautionary, a basic failing of proper process .
Many measurements eg aluminium show the unrepresentative nature.Several physiochemical dating tests ( including ray Rogers own lignin measurements now confirm first century. The RC date always was bunk because of other evidence. The only question was why they screwed up , not whether. The mark is evidence of high energy body centric radiation burst. Why?

Scientists prove Turin Shroud not genuine (again)

Scientists prove Turin Shroud not genuine (again)

Not accepting the findings of science, is not an argument against it.

The list of atheists who refuse to look at evidence is still 100 percent on this thread - a thread about - evidence!!!

I just looked at evidence. I gave you 2 links above about said evidence.

The score on evidence now is
Christians 3 - atheists minus 3

Pidgeon chess.

 

[Mountainmike]

Are you really going to claim that the shroud thingy is like totally new and not at all discussed to death already?
.

And thats the problem with using google to find a sceptic article by an illinformed journalist trying to fill space..

You can tell in the first sentence, where he quotes a piece of (historically disprovable) hearsay - as if hearsay had merit over science. But I can tell pseudoscience because it always starts by quoting darcis! Who by the way was upset if not financially ruined because nobody wanted to visit his diocese, visitors who he relied on for funds, who were going to lirey instead. But even the dates dont match. Darcis is seen to have blessed the church in which the shroud was at the time it was there. Why ? if he disapproved? But it is the only argument in sceptic favour so they use it none the less.



Meanwhile in the world of actual science - instead of sceptic fake believe... (go to wiki for that)
1/ The RC date is bunk
2/ Several (not just one) physiochemical dating tests put it first century. Including the Atheist Los Alamos physicist in charge of the shroud project. ie someone looking at the actual shroud! Books written on it.
3/ The forensic pathology of sudarium matches the shroud with dozens of points of correspondence and is far older than shroud. Madrid criminal forensics lab to thank for that Books written on it.
. Not an unheard of academic university at which the entrance qualification is "a pulse" , who has never even touched the shroud and thinks simulation is more ndicative that a practising forensic pathologists vuire.
4/ Blood flows extensively analyzed in both sudarium and shroud - Got books written on it by forensic pathologists..

And finally the kicker
5/ The only way the mark has been simulated is bodycentric coherent radiation.

6/ Nobody has any credible way to fake it. Not even todays technology So it is real. Get over it.

I suggest you go to ACTUAL SOURCES not the independent newspaper which always has carried as much anti religious stuff as it can.
If you look you will find one in the Independent that said "da vinci did it" - who was not born in time! Not that history (or science) matters to sceptics.

The only reason you point at that article is because you agree with it.

But at least you are thinking evidence, even if not giving a balanced view of sources.
So some credit for that.

Here is a good summary of why the dating screwed up, and the problems with the shroud, if you canto be bothered to go back to sources - notice even the director of the Oxford lab agrees - hall was an apriori sceptic and quite the wrong man for the job. Harwell should have done it.


The Biggest Radiocarbon Dating Mistake Ever


You concluded of the phenomena "it was false because it wwould all be in newspapers" Some of the phenomena were indeed reported not only country wide, but also Internationally! all the main newspapers carried them.
So you made an assumption (one of many) preferring it to fact.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It seems to me that while you are acknowledging the presence of that differentiation, you are not actually answering the question of why...

I think it holds try for everything you can "believe".
The question is why you don't.

Why? Well, here's the answer I gave gaara4158 back up in post #117

Evidence of God in the world?

You are the one that pushes the "christian faith" forward as something special.
My response is generic: i don't believe things without a justifiable reason.
If something can't be shown/supported to be true, I don't accept it as true, because I have no reason to. I'm not singling out christianity (or any other claim, for that matter).

But you do. Why?

I do because on a practical scale, when it comes to my understanding and recognition of the spiritual epistemic dynamics which are involved in "having faith," within what might look like a Coherence structure of epistemological modeling, there is also a kind of aesthetic response that one is bound to have in reaction to, firstly, the person of Jesus, then to the plans of God, to the recognition of Satanic Evil in the World, to the fellowship one can have with other, imperfect Christians, to the view that the Universe is indeed awesome even if it's not completely explainable, and to the representational literary diversity we find within the Biblical literature.

So, in taking all of this into consideration, wholistically and while doing my very best to actually apply all of the various nuances of hermeneutics to my understanding about the Christian faith, I, with God's Sovereign help, can claim that I have had the lights in my mind turned on, or as Pascal and Kierkegaard might say, a "Fire in my Heart" for Christ, or that I've made the fateful "Leap of Faith into the Absurd."

Just because an atheist says something, that doesn't mean that other atheists will agree or that it has anything to do with atheism.

Shall we test that claim? I've got a ton of atheistic books on my bookshelf. Maybe I should pull one of and begin going chapter by chapter, paragraph by paragraph, sentence by sentence to see just how little of one or the other of them you "disagree" with? I mean, to me, this sounds only "fair" since Skeptics take so much time to do this favor for Christians all the way around. In fact, I count the dissembling of atheistic arguments and authors a part of the act of Christian Apologetics; obviously, it isn't a part that all of my fellow Christians necessarily agree is an actual part of "defending" the faith. But I do.

Such things would also be about other claims. Like the claim that christianity is false.
Your position is that christianity is accurate - since you believe it.
I don't believe that (=accept that as true). I'ld like to know why you believe.
And by extension in the particular point being discussed in this exchange, why that above another unfalsifiable claim?

Which unfalsiable claim?

I disagree again.
Again I'll say: this is true for all claims.

Nope. You're going to have to bifurcate the two, and there's really little to any good reason to see Christianity and Science as 'clashing' or at war. In fact, a large portion of working scientist don't think it is--it's rather a myth that getting foisted and toted about by those who adhere to Philosophical Naturalism. Maybe it's because they like to ignore the analyses put forth by Philosphers of Science as well as those academics who work in Science Education and insist that our understanding N.O.S. (the Nature of Science) is necessary for working scientists to best practice within their respective fields of expertise.

See, again you speak about the "truth" of christianity.
What "truth"? How are the unfalsifiable claims of christianity more "true" then any other random unfalsifiable claim? How do you know?

I never said Christian truths are MORE true than other. When I talk about "Christian truth," I am talking in Pascalian and Kierkegaardian terms. Christian Truth is Subjective and only very partially meant to be objective, and from the Epistemological Indices we find in the Bible we understand that our arriving at faith is MORE THAN just our having put on our thinking caps.

So, on a SECULARIZED epistemic scale, sure, Christianity may appear to be only a few bits more feasible than other World Religions, but some of this could be due to two things: 1) Personal Bias on the part of the Skeptic, and 2) the Fact that God has not yet orchestrated [not demonstrated] for the skeptic a scenario in which he/she finds that the Christian faith begins to make "sense."

You see, in having Christian faith, the Bible tells us, the readers, that even though we need to do the best we each can to understand God's intentions in this world, it's not completely up to us to make all of this happen for ourselves. No, we each have our part to play in our individual coming to faith in Christ; but then God in His Spirit has his own complementary part He has to play as well, and for many of us, it's this other, very mysterious role of His that has us all frazzled and flustered.

 

[FIRESTORM314]

I think it's hilarious, and telling, then of all the posts I responded to, where I dismantled and exposed how your "lesson" isn't a lesson at all and in fact only backfires on you, you chose this one to reply too.


If that is how you think science works, then that sure explains a lot.

I didn't need to do it at all to be honest

John 2
Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Festival, many people saw the signs he was performing and believed in his name. But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all people. He did not need any testimony about mankind, for he knew what was in each person.