Evidence of God in the world?

[FIRESTORM314]

The real question is, should you believe something if it hasn’t been demonstrated?

You are looking for Evidence of God by Demonstration - but God is looking for evidence of truth in you. You are the one under test and need to do the demonstrating and as soon as you grasp that little concept then we may get somewhere.

Salvation is by Faith

 

[Mountainmike]

Not with you, based on the attitude you’ve taken thus far. It’s not personal, I just don’t see the effort I’d have to put into discussing each piece of evidence with you paying off. You spout off objectionable claims much faster than I can dismantle them. Cheers.

You havent managed a single objection - except to reinforce stereotypes - and confirm you arent interested in science or evidence.

I repeat for example. A panel of atheist doctors in a hospital trial determined Alexandrina da Costas inedia was beyond science to explain.
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.
Thats before we get to some of the more interesting claims, like forensic investigation of several eucharistic miracles confirmed the prodigy. ( i gave at least 10 different phenomena worth looking at - hard to discount. Impossible to explain.)Your objections is...... DONT KNOW, because you have never looked - your entire position is apriori prejudice (the Kind einstein hated).

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

 

[Steve Petersen]

You havent managed a single objection - except to reinforce stereotypes - and confirm you arent interested in science or evidence.

I repeat for example. A panel of atheist doctors in a hospital trial determined Alexandrina da Costas inedia was beyond science to explain.
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.
Thats before we get to some of the more interesting claims, like forensic investigation of several eucharistic miracles confirmed the prodigy. ( i gave at least 10 different phenomena worth looking at - hard to discount. Impossible to explain.)Your objections is...... DONT KNOW, because you have never looked - your entire position is apriori prejudice (the Kind einstein hated).

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

As has been pointed out before 'beyond science' does not require God or miracle as an explanation. The idea that 'we don't know, so we know' is and argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy.

 

[gaara4158]

You are looking for Evidence of God by Demonstration - but God is looking for evidence of truth in you. You are the one under test and need to do the demonstrating and as soon as you grasp that little concept then we may get somewhere.

Salvation is by Faith

I don’t need demonstration, but I won’t believe it until I have it. Is something wrong with that?

 

[gaara4158]

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. 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.

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

That’s a fair point. By demonstration, I mean empirical evidence fed through logical reasoning resulting in a valid, sound argument. I think the degree to which this is accomplished for any given claim should determine the amount of credence we give to it. I’d like to know ignorance anyone here thinks differently.

 

[Mountainmike]

As has been pointed out before 'beyond science' does not require God or miracle as an explanation. The idea that 'we don't know, so we know' is and argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy.

Put in the word "necessarily" if you want to use critical thinking.
"'beyond science' does not NECESSARILY require God or miracle as an explanation"

You also conflate and so confuse the scientific model with the universe.
Your meaning of "explain" means "Is consistent with the scientific model" - so is no explanation at all at a fundamental level. The axiomatic scientific model and the world are not the same thing. So spare me the sophistry.

My suggestion is you look at the evidence and see where it points.
Plausibility arguments based on evidence are not in essence fallacious

 

[Mountainmike]

I don’t need demonstration, but I won’t believe it until I have it. Is something wrong with that?

But then you refuse to look at evidence so you are caught in an intellectual trap of your own making.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Put in the word "necessarily" if you want to use critical thinking.
"'beyond science' does not NECESSARILY require God or miracle as an explanation"

You also conflate and so confuse the scientific model with the universe.
Your meaning of "explain" means "Is consistent with the scientific model" - so is no explanation at all at a fundamental level. The axiomatic scientific model and the world are not the same thing. So spare me the sophistry.

My suggestion is you look at the evidence and see where it points.
Plausibility arguments based on evidence are not in essence fallacious

What possible evidence allows you to leap from an empirical model to a supernatural one?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That’s a fair point. By demonstration, I mean empirical evidence fed through logical reasoning resulting in a valid, sound argument. I think the degree to which this is accomplished for any given claim should determine the amount of credence we give to it. I’d like to know ignorance anyone here thinks differently.

I'm with you in that I have a preference for empirical experience over just simply using the ol' grey matter all by itself. But where Christianity is concerned, I'm going to stick with the ideas you've heard me proffer before for what I think the Epistemological Indices within the Bible tell us about how God has intended to bring about faith in any one of us.

 

[gaara4158]

But then you refuse to look at evidence so you are caught in an intellectual trap of your own making.

I’ll talk about evidence with people who aren’t so quick to dismiss evidence on principle of it coming from a site they disapprove of.

 

[FIRESTORM314]

I don’t need demonstration, but I won’t believe it until I have it. Is something wrong with that?

Yes - as that statement is not True of You.

I said earlier that you wouldn't see the evidence even if it smacked you in the face.

Faith believes before the demonstration. The demonstration simply confirms the belief you already had and helps it grow.


BEFORE RAISING LAZARUS FROM THE DEAD...

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me will live, even though he dies. 26And everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?” 27“Yes, Lord,” she answered, “I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world.”…

It's a simple concept - but far from your grasp. This is how it works

 

[FIRESTORM314]

As Christians - we get the demonstration - that demonstration is Christ in You.
You remain clueless waiting for your proof of evidence. The evidence is simple - the truth is not in you

 

[Steve Petersen]

As Christians - we get the demonstration - that demonstration is Christ in You.
You remain clueless waiting for your proof of evidence. The evidence is simple - the truth is not in you

The notion of 'Christ in you' comes from fallible human authors and their fallible book.

 

[gaara4158]

Yes - as that statement is not True of You.

I said earlier that you wouldn't see the evidence even if it smacked you in the face.

Faith believes before the demonstration. The demonstration simply confirms the belief you already had and helps it grow.


BEFORE RAISING LAZARUS FROM THE DEAD...

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me will live, even though he dies. 26And everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?” 27“Yes, Lord,” she answered, “I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world.”…

It's a simple concept - but far from your grasp. This is how it works

Is there any position - true or false - that can’t be taken on faith?

 

[gaara4158]

I'm with you in that I have a preference for empirical experience over just simply using the ol' grey matter all by itself. But where Christianity is concerned, I'm going to stick with the ideas you've heard me proffer before for what I think the Epistemological Indices within the Bible tell us about how God has intended to bring about faith in any one of us.

I’m hesitant to open this can of worms, but I must ask - why do you use a different epistemic formula for Christianity than for other things?

 

[FIRESTORM314]

The notion of 'Christ in you' comes from fallible human authors and their fallible book.

And fallible scientists using fallible methods and fallible reasoning producing statistics gathered by fallible methods interpreted by fallible statisticians with fallible agendas

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I’m hesitant to open this can of worms, but I must ask - why do you use a different epistemic formula for Christianity than for other things?

Basically, because the "formula"--if we can even really call it that--within the Bible is indicatively "other" than that (or those) which we commonly use for things like history or science.

It'd be kind of strange, I think, for me to read the Bible, all the while when doing so noticing that the writers give us clues as to "how" this God stuff is going to work epistemologically, but then to ignore it and just plow ahead anyway, evaluating the Christian life by way of the usual modern day epistemological theories and frameworks, and still giving credence to the typical expectations. [Of course, I'll admit that in forming this conclusion, I have had a little help from outside, academic sources. ]

Moreover, I also lean slightly toward the skeptical side of things when it comes to giving credence to any one particular epistemology.

 

[FIRESTORM314]

Is there any position - true or false - that can’t be taken on faith?

You'd better explain your question in more detail so i don't misinterpret it

 

[gaara4158]

You'd better explain your question in more detail so i don't misinterpret it

It's not a trick question. I'm asking you if there's any belief you can't adopt merely by faith. The correct answer to that is no, there is no belief you couldn't adopt merely by faith. Faith can be used to justify any belief you want, even if it's false. Therefore, faith is not a reliable method of coming to true beliefs. So, you'll have to excuse me for not starting out with faith in my search for truth.

 

[gaara4158]

Basically, because the "formula"--if we can even really call it that--within the Bible is indicatively "other" than that (or those) which we commonly use for things like history or science.

It'd be kind of strange, I think, for me to read the Bible, all the while when doing so noticing that the writers give us clues as to "how" this God stuff is going to work epistemologically, but then to ignore it and just plow ahead anyway, evaluating the Christian life by way of the usual modern day epistemological theories and frameworks, and still giving credence to the typical expectations. [Of course, I'll admit that in forming this conclusion, I have had a little help from outside, academic sources. ]

Moreover, I also lean slightly toward the skeptical side of things when it comes to giving credence to any one particular epistemology.

Sure, we don't have the perfect epistemology at our disposal so we shouldn't lean too heavily on any single one. It just puzzles me that you would take the Bible and let it dictate how you evaluate its claims when I can't imagine you do that for anything - or anyone - else. Do you do the same for the Qur'an and the Vedas?