Evidence

[kristina411]

Bear with me for a few moments, try to keep up if you will. I understand some wont see the idea but that is life.

I have unfortunately allowed myself to become frustrated in this forum. I have gotten frustrated on numerous occasions over this idea of "evidence". When I post in this forum, despite my initial post, it always leads to "what is your evidence to believe what you believe?" Everything diverts back to evidence.

Yet when evidence is give, it is not enough. So a post goes up asking what exactly is enough to constitute evidence. The response is a general scientific method of 100% proof and accuracy before the idea can be entertained. After all, what intellectual lives without facts?

The problem comes, however, when you let this search for "hard 100% certain facts" into all of your life. If it has to be so completely undeniably proven to be accurate, must the rest of life be the same?

If we must base our religious belief on cold, hard, undeniable, with certainty, no doubts about it mindset, what is to stop you from applying this logic to other areas of life?

Are you married? Can I see the evidence (cold hard factual evidence that con not be disputed) that you used when deciding that this person, with complete and utter certainty-without any cause for dispute- would be the person that you could enter into a binding life long marriage that you share your lives. Is love really that cold that the feeling, the faith, that you love each other is not enough? If faith and love is not enough to believe in God, it certainly can't be enough to believe in love.

Or happiness. I need cold hard facts to know I am happy. I may feel happy but maybe I'm delusional? Feeling happy, experiencing happiness is not enough evidence to claim I am happy correct?

I see this logic applied to belief system but tell me, do you require as much "evidence" about everything in life?

I will respond tomorrow or Monday. I have been putting everything off today for far too long.

 

[variant]

Or happiness. I need cold hard facts to know I am happy. I may feel happy but maybe I'm delusional? Feeling happy, experiencing happiness is not enough evidence to claim I am happy correct?

I see this logic applied to belief system but tell me, do you require as much "evidence" about everything in life?

I will respond tomorrow or Monday. I have been putting everything off today for far too long.

Think about what you are saying when you assert that you are married, happy or in love. You are the best person to judge these things so we have no reason to doubt you.

The assertions people are going to call you on are going to be the ones where you propose yourself to be an authority but it would require some hard evidence to present you as one.

If you start making factual claims about things you would need facts to know, then people are going to ask you "how do you know this?", and they are unlikely to accept that you just do as if you were asserting that you were in love.

Believers tend to present their beliefs without much if any doubt shown, so they get a negative reaction when they can't show why they are so certain about things to people who doubt them.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

I'm at least partially in agreement with you. Too many people on both sides of the God debate tend to overstate what they think evidence is or what kind of evidence they think is needed to count something as true. Too many people think that you need absolute certainty, that something needs to be "proved" in the sense of being undeniably true before it can/should be believed. It doesn't work like that.

That being said, it is possible that you can have some evidence for a position but that evidence will in fact not be enough to cause someone else to believe or even to warrant your own belief. You need to take all of the available evidence into account and try to figure out what is most likely.

 

[graceandpeace]

Christians of particular persuasions tend to set themselves up for this sort of questioning or scrutiny.

I.e. When a Christian presents the Genesis creation accounts as literal scientific or historical fact, then it stands to reason that scientific or historical evidence will be asked for in order to support the claim.

When I am asked for "evidence" for religious related discussions, it really depends on what the subject is specifically as far as what approach I take. If it ever comes to being asked to prove Christianity is true, the answer is simply that I can't do that. I think a willingness to explain what I believe & why I choose this path is better than trying to prove I'm right.

 

[quatona]

Yet when evidence is give, it is not enough.

"Not enough" for what?
Enough to convince that you have it right?
Indeed, I have never seen such evidence given for the existence of a God.

So a post goes up asking what exactly is enough to constitute evidence. The response is a general scientific method of 100% proof and accuracy before the idea can be entertained.

Could you link to a couple of those posts in which !00% evidence is demanded before the idea can even "be entertained"?

The problem comes, however, when you let this search for "hard 100% certain facts" into all of your life. If it has to be so completely undeniably proven to be accurate, must the rest of life be the same?

We typically have different requirements for evidence in different fields in our lives.
So what I guess is expected is evidence that is typically required for a comparable claim.

If we must base our religious belief on cold, hard, undeniable, with certainty, no doubts about it mindset, what is to stop you from applying this logic to other areas of life?

You can base your religious beliefs on whatever you like, or on nothing.
But when you say you have evidence, the presentation of evidence is going to be expected.

Are you married? Can I see the evidence (cold hard factual evidence that con not be disputed) that you used when deciding that this person, with complete and utter certainty-without any cause for dispute- would be the person that you could enter into a binding life long marriage that you share your lives.

Well, I never claimed I had evidence for it.

Is love really that cold that the feeling, the faith, that you love each other is not enough?

Enough for what? For everyone else being convinced that your spouse is the best thing since sliced bread?
The question at hand, however, is not comparable to your example. It is about the existence of something. When I claim there´s evidence for the existence of my spouse, evidence is expected, can be given, and can scrutinized.
I think when it comes to such discussions the keyword is "intersubjective evidence".

 

[cedric1200]

Christians of particular persuasions tend to set themselves up for this sort of questioning or scrutiny.

I.e. When a Christian presents the Genesis creation accounts as literal scientific or historical fact, then it stands to reason that scientific or historical evidence will be asked for in order to support the claim.

When I am asked for "evidence" for religious related discussions, it really depends on what the subject is specifically as far as what approach I take. If it ever comes to being asked to prove Christianity is true, the answer is simply that I can't do that. I think a willingness to explain what I believe & why I choose this path is better than trying to prove I'm right.

Exactly

This is what I have been saying in other posts. I can't prove it. Only God can.

 

[SteveNZ]

The problem comes, however, when you let this search for "hard 100% certain facts" into all of your life. If it has to be so completely undeniably proven to be accurate, must the rest of life be the same?................

Hi Kristina,
I think it is that this type of forum attracts folk who want that type of factual interaction. I have a Christian world view,

- Those who want to fight anything spiritual will not accept the fact that God is not under anyone's control to '..take a sample of Him and put under a microscope.' There is a daft idea that unless controllable by man for testing then anything spiritual does not exist.

- Those who are open to spirituality (forces and powers that are part of reality) but can only use one type of scientific methodology will only accept the one type of evidence. That is simply life.

- And remember that our God identifies evil forces exist that lie and deceive. If, as I know, spiritual forces exist then the whole understanding of powers and gods must be considered. But with deceiving powers also existing any evidence can also be deceiving.

So laugh with the frustration. Only a God above all others can set in place truth in the manner He chooses. A Christian can only share the truth leaving it up to God to sort out any internal spiritual truth shared to folk.

 

[variant]

I'm at least partially in agreement with you. Too many people on both sides of the God debate tend to overstate what they think evidence is or what kind of evidence they think is needed to count something as true. Too many people think that you need absolute certainty, that something needs to be "proved" in the sense of being undeniably true before it can/should be believed. It doesn't work like that.

That being said, it is possible that you can have some evidence for a position but that evidence will in fact not be enough to cause someone else to believe or even to warrant your own belief. You need to take all of the available evidence into account and try to figure out what is most likely.

In my experience God is defined so that no observations tell us whether it exists or does not exist, so the discussion of evidence is secondary to the epistemological problems.

Believers tend to want to convince people to believe and they make a lot of assertions that might not be germane to the people they are trying to convince.

 

[variant]

Hi Kristina,
I think it is that this type of forum attracts folk who want that type of factual interaction. I have a Christian world view,

- Those who want to fight anything spiritual will not accept the fact that God is not under anyone's control to '..take a sample of Him and put under a microscope.' There is a daft idea that unless controllable by man for testing then anything spiritual does not exist.

- Those who are open to spirituality (forces and powers that are part of reality) but can only use one type of scientific methodology will only accept the one type of evidence. That is simply life.

- And remember that our God identifies evil forces exist that lie and deceive. If, as I know, spiritual forces exist then the whole understanding of powers and gods must be considered. But with deceiving powers also existing any evidence can also be deceiving.

So laugh with the frustration. Only a God above all others can set in place truth in the manner He chooses. A Christian can only share the truth leaving it up to God to sort out any internal spiritual truth shared to folk.

I'm actually more offended by the fact that we have so many "experts" on a subject that no one seems to know the first thing about.

Then they get all haughty about how I'm being intractable to their non evidenced positions.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I'm actually more offended by the fact that we have so many "experts" on a subject that no one seems to know the first thing about.

This is why I never ask for evidence in such discussions.

Christianity, like all forms of supernaturalism, is both ontologically and epistemologically vacuous. You don't get to pretend to have evidence for something you've never coherently defined and never provided a mechanism by which information about it may be gleaned.

There is literally nothing to address until they remedy this fact. No supernaturalist ever has. Very few have even tried.

 

[SteveNZ]

This is why I never ask for evidence in such discussions.........................There is literally nothing to address until they remedy this fact. No supernaturalist ever has. Very few have even tried.

I been down that track before.
You are correct though that it is wise not to try with many folk. I looked until I found beyond any doubt that 'spiritual' forces are real.... and so is my Christian God. Find out for yourself if you want to.

Why do you expect Christian folk to try to prove anything?
I doesn't change God in any way!
Christians are instructed to share about God and have no ability to prove the wonders of God any more than a person can hold a galaxy in his hand.
Yet some folk expect them to.......!?
Believe me my God can prove who he is.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I looked until I found beyond any doubt that 'spiritual' forces are real.... and so is my Christian God.

By what means did you do this?

What are 'spiritual forces'?

How are 'spiritual forces' discerned from natural forces?

How are 'spiritual forces' discerned from something you may merely be imagining?

Find out for yourself if you want to.

Your claims to knowledge of the 'supernatural' are indistinguishable from imagination. Imagination is not a reliable means of gleaning facts about reality.

Why do you expect Christian folk to try to prove anything?

Because you are the positive claimant. The burden of proof is yours.

You can't even begin to meet it though, without an ontological or epistemological basis.

I doesn't change God in any way!
Christians are instructed to share about God

I have no reason to suspect you have any information about 'god' to share. I lend the same exact same credence to your claims of 'spiritual'/'supernatural' knowledge as I would to someone claiming to be an actual wizard with real magical powers.

Which is to say, none whatsoever.

Believe me my God can prove who he is.

No, I will not believe you. Not without sufficient reason to do so.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

I been down that track before.
You are correct though that it is wise not to try with many folk. I looked until I found beyond any doubt that 'spiritual' forces are real.... and so is my Christian God. Find out for yourself if you want to.

I tried finding out myself. That's how I became a naturalist.

Why do you expect Christian folk to try to prove anything?

Because a great many of them want me to believe what they do. Why should I do that if all they can do is assert things?

Christians are instructed to share about God and have no ability to prove the wonders of God any more than a person can hold a galaxy in his hand.

Then they shouldn't be surprised or upset when I dismiss their ideas when they can't explain why they are more likely to be true or if there is nothing I can do to observe their veracity.

Believe me my God can prove who he is.

Then I have no choice but to continue to live as though it doesn't exist until such time as it chooses to prove itself to me.

 

[Soul2Soul]

Bear with me for a few moments, try to keep up if you will. I understand some wont see the idea but that is life.

I have unfortunately allowed myself to become frustrated in this forum. I have gotten frustrated on numerous occasions over this idea of "evidence". When I post in this forum, despite my initial post, it always leads to "what is your evidence to believe what you believe?" Everything diverts back to evidence.

Yet when evidence is give, it is not enough. So a post goes up asking what exactly is enough to constitute evidence. The response is a general scientific method of 100% proof and accuracy before the idea can be entertained. After all, what intellectual lives without facts?

The problem comes, however, when you let this search for "hard 100% certain facts" into all of your life. If it has to be so completely undeniably proven to be accurate, must the rest of life be the same?

If we must base our religious belief on cold, hard, undeniable, with certainty, no doubts about it mindset, what is to stop you from applying this logic to other areas of life?

Are you married? Can I see the evidence (cold hard factual evidence that con not be disputed) that you used when deciding that this person, with complete and utter certainty-without any cause for dispute- would be the person that you could enter into a binding life long marriage that you share your lives. Is love really that cold that the feeling, the faith, that you love each other is not enough? If faith and love is not enough to believe in God, it certainly can't be enough to believe in love.

Or happiness. I need cold hard facts to know I am happy. I may feel happy but maybe I'm delusional? Feeling happy, experiencing happiness is not enough evidence to claim I am happy correct?

I see this logic applied to belief system but tell me, do you require as much "evidence" about everything in life?

I will respond tomorrow or Monday. I have been putting everything off today for far too long.

Well I guess what constitutes evidence for me in say my belief in God may not be accepted by somebody else as requisite evidence (for them). If the evidence required by me is insufficient and/or inappropriate for the other person to consider and/or accept, then so be it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

it always leads to "what is your evidence to believe what you believe?" Everything diverts back to evidence.

We should not believe things 'for no reason'. We should have reasons to believe things. Evidence is a good way to build up a rationale for belief.

The response is a general scientific method of 100% proof and accuracy

The scientific method is not about 100% proof. It is about evidence and frameworks for understanding that evidence. The best framework for explaining the evidence wins. Unless and until a better one comes along.

But before you can come up with a framework to explain the facts... you need some facts that require an explanation. Some evidence to work from.

If we must base our religious belief on cold, hard, undeniable, with certainty, no doubts about it mindset

That is not required.

Can I see the evidence (cold hard factual evidence that con not be disputed) that you used when deciding that this person, with complete and utter certainty-without any cause for dispute- would be the person that you could enter into a binding life long marriage that you share your lives.

Obviously, many people enter marriages without that evidence, or else divorce would be rarer than it is. Obviously, many people believe in religions without that evidence, or there wouldn't be so much disagreement about even how many gods there are.

Seeing so much error in the world, I look for evidence before making a decision. I've been with my wife for 27 years, but I don't have enough evidence to believe in any gods. When I ask people who do believe in gods for their evidence, I get very unsatisfactory answers.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Oh, I should say... we've only been married for 9 years. I spent 18 years gathering important evidence.

 

[Albion]

Bear with me for a few moments, try to keep up if you will. I understand some wont see the idea but that is life.

I have unfortunately allowed myself to become frustrated in this forum. I have gotten frustrated on numerous occasions over this idea of "evidence". When I post in this forum, despite my initial post, it always leads to "what is your evidence to believe what you believe?" Everything diverts back to evidence.

Yet when evidence is give, it is not enough. So a post goes up asking what exactly is enough to constitute evidence. The response is a general scientific method of 100% proof and accuracy before the idea can be entertained.

Mainly, you are speaking of a tactic--a debating tactic used primarily by posters who oppose what you say but don't have much of a rebuttal to offer.

The thought to keep in mind is that this is a discussion board, and if the opposition in any particular instance is going to snipe but not counter or even discuss ideas, let your contentions stand just as you've explained them.

 

[KCfromNC]

Bear with me for a few moments, try to keep up if you will. I understand some wont see the idea but that is life.

I have unfortunately allowed myself to become frustrated in this forum. I have gotten frustrated on numerous occasions over this idea of "evidence". When I post in this forum, despite my initial post, it always leads to "what is your evidence to believe what you believe?" Everything diverts back to evidence.

Yet when evidence is give, it is not enough.

Can you provide a link to a post providing "convincing" evidence of a supernatural god? Thanks in advance.

So a post goes up asking what exactly is enough to constitute evidence. The response is a general scientific method of 100% proof and accuracy before the idea can be entertained.

Again, links to posts actually saying this would be useful. I read the exact opposite claim many times but have never seen anyone demanding 100% airtight proof.

Are you married? Can I see the evidence (cold hard factual evidence that con not be disputed) that you used when deciding that this person, with complete and utter certainty-without any cause for dispute- would be the person that you could enter into a binding life long marriage that you share your lives. Is love really that cold that the feeling, the faith, that you love each other is not enough?

Yes, I have evidence that my wife loves me. Sorry if you are in a relationship where you have to take it on faith, but that isn't a common situation.

Or happiness. I need cold hard facts to know I am happy. I may feel happy but maybe I'm delusional? Feeling happy, experiencing happiness is not enough evidence to claim I am happy correct?

The only connection I can see here is an implied claim that gods are just feelings that exist only in our heads. I doubt many atheists would disagree, but I can't imagine that is what you'd hope to prove.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Bear with me for a few moments, try to keep up if you will. I understand some wont see the idea but that is life.

I have unfortunately allowed myself to become frustrated in this forum. I have gotten frustrated on numerous occasions over this idea of "evidence". When I post in this forum, despite my initial post, it always leads to "what is your evidence to believe what you believe?" Everything diverts back to evidence.

Yet when evidence is give, it is not enough. So a post goes up asking what exactly is enough to constitute evidence. The response is a general scientific method of 100% proof and accuracy before the idea can be entertained. After all, what intellectual lives without facts?

The problem comes, however, when you let this search for "hard 100% certain facts" into all of your life. If it has to be so completely undeniably proven to be accurate, must the rest of life be the same?

If we must base our religious belief on cold, hard, undeniable, with certainty, no doubts about it mindset, what is to stop you from applying this logic to other areas of life?

Are you married? Can I see the evidence (cold hard factual evidence that con not be disputed) that you used when deciding that this person, with complete and utter certainty-without any cause for dispute- would be the person that you could enter into a binding life long marriage that you share your lives. Is love really that cold that the feeling, the faith, that you love each other is not enough? If faith and love is not enough to believe in God, it certainly can't be enough to believe in love.

Or happiness. I need cold hard facts to know I am happy. I may feel happy but maybe I'm delusional? Feeling happy, experiencing happiness is not enough evidence to claim I am happy correct?

I see this logic applied to belief system but tell me, do you require as much "evidence" about everything in life?

I will respond tomorrow or Monday. I have been putting everything off today for far too long.

Kristina,

I understand your frustration(s), but the problem likely comes down to the fact that the whole concept of "evidence" is itself relative to the cognitive and epistemological framework that each individual either CHOOSES to begin with, or has by circumstantial DEFAULT, in his/her evaluation of the world/universe.

And that is why it is frustrating when dealing with other people. Few of us begin at the same conceptual starting point or with the same axioms.

Peace

 

[TillICollapse]

Oh, I should say... we've only been married for 9 years. I spent 18 years gathering important evidence.

Wowzers. I don't even think I've kept a friend for 18 years.