My Evidence Challenge

[Nostromo]

Not necessarily -- see my next comment.

A miracle could be an event that leaves no evidence as well.

Examples:

Genesis 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

A change in the local gravitational field, and air moving to fill the void where his body used to be.

Exodus 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

An increase in the total amount of matter in the universe.

Deuteronomy 29:5 And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot.

Daniel 3:27 And the princes, governors, and captains, and the king's counsellors, being gathered together, saw these men, upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them.

Energy would have been distributed in a way inconsistent with the situation.

 

[AV1611VET]

A change in the local gravitational field, and air movig to fill the void where his body used to be.

An increase in the total amount of matter in the universe.

Energy would have been distributed in a way inconsistent with the situation.

Now you see why I define "faith" as "a belief in something, even when science says otherwise."

 

[Nostromo]

No, I don't. You're not believing it in spite of science. Science tells us what does happen, not what can't.

Every observation in history concerning gravity has seen objects feeling an attractive force between them. We, you and I, infer from that as a matter of practicality that future observations will yield similar results, though it needn't necessarily be so. Tomorrow it might be different.

Similarly, observations of people, animals and combustibles of all kinds subjected to intense heat and flames have always resulted in some kind of change, usually burning.
You and I would infer that, were we to be thrown into a furnace that killed those standing near the open door, we should be killed as well.
Shadrach's experience might have been different, and science doesn't tell you that it can't have been.

You believe these things in spite of reason, not in spite of science. If someone came up to me in the street and told me they'd survived 10 minutes in a blast furnace unscathed, in light of experience I'd have no reason to believe them, just like I have no reason to believe your story.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, I don't. You're not believing it in spite of science. Science tells us what does happen, not what can't.

So a scientist has no business saying, "This can't happen." -or- "It won't happen."?

 

[Tinker Grey]

No, I don't. You're not believing it in spite of science. Science tells us what does happen, not what can't.

I agree with the majority of your post. Effectively, science makes its inferences inductively. That is, we see that patterns and explain them. If something breaks the pattern (makes a new pattern), we strive to explain the new thing while still explaining the usual stuff.

However, I'm not sure about the above quote. Doesn't science tell us that there is no chemical process by which lead can be made gold?

 

[razeontherock]

No, I don't. You're not believing it in spite of science. Science tells us what does happen, not what can't.

Every observation in history concerning gravity has seen objects feeling an attractive force between them. We, you and I, infer from that as a matter of practicality that future observations will yield similar results, though it needn't necessarily be so. Tomorrow it might be different.

Similarly, observations of people, animals and combustibles of all kinds subjected to intense heat and flames have always resulted in some kind of change, usually burning.
You and I would infer that, were we to be thrown into a furnace that killed those standing near the open door, we should be killed as well.
Shadrach's experience might have been different, and science doesn't tell you that it can't have been.

You believe these things in spite of reason, not in spite of science. If someone came up to me in the street and told me they'd survived 10 minutes in a blast furnace unscathed, in light of experience I'd have no reason to believe them, just like I have no reason to believe your story.

You avoided your own point. What would the evidence be in such situations? Your last attempt at addressing this really didn't answer the question.

 

[Nostromo]

So a scientist has no business saying, "This can't happen." -or- "It won't happen."?

That depends how literal and absolute they intend it. I'd bet my life that the Earth won't just pop out of existence tomorrow, but I acknowledge that nothing is 100% certain.

Like I said before, from a practical point of view it's reasonable to say that something won't or can't happen, but in the absolute sense I don't think it's right to do so.

 

[Nostromo]

You avoided your own point. What would the evidence be in such situations? Your last attempt at addressing this really didn't answer the question.

Could you be more specific as to why you don't think it does?

 

[Nostromo]

However, I'm not sure about the above quote. Doesn't science tell us that there is no chemical process by which lead can be made gold?

I think that's more of a logical inconsistency than anything, based on how we define "chemical".

If it happened it would be a nuclear process, so turning lead into gold chemically seems like drawing a song, or knitting a marathon.

That's my take on it anyway.

 

[Stephen Kendall]

Stephan, I don't see what any of that had to do with the issue we are discussing. Just a few paragraphs saying the atheists are blind, are ignorant, that sort of thing.

Only the first word seems to be any kind of response to what was actually being asked. But that answer is wrong, because I very clearly asked what was the difference between an event that leaves no evidence and an event that never happens.

you are right, sorry to be off base.

 

[razeontherock]

turning lead into gold chemically seems like drawing a song, or knitting a marathon.

As one who has synesthesia I rather like your idea here

The Merging of the Senses - The MIT Press

 

[Tiberius]

The event itself.

How do I know the event occurred? Wouldn't I need evidence for that?

Now you see why I define "faith" as "a belief in something, even when science says otherwise."

Given that the Bible doesn't tell us if the air rushed in where Enoch disappeared from, or if the total amount of matter in the universe increased or not, of if the energy flow was what one would expect, how can you say that no evidence was left behind? How do you know that there was no rushing in of air when Enoch disappeared?

You see, evidence is evidence, even if there was no one there measuring it.

 

[AV1611VET]

... what was the difference between an event that leaves no evidence and an event that never happens.

The event itself.

How do I know the event occurred?

It doesn't matter if you know or not, does it?

• If you were there, the event occurred.
• If you were not there, the event occurred.

I was not there when the St. Valentine's Day Massacre took place, nor do I have evidence that it took place; yet it took place.

 

[Tiberius]

It doesn't matter if you know or not, does it?

• If you were there, the event occurred.
• If you were not there, the event occurred.

I was not there when the St. Valentine's Day Massacre took place, nor do I have evidence that it took place; yet it took place.

So how do you know it took place?

If I am not there and have no evidence that the event took place, what reason do I have to believe that the event took place?

 

[AV1611VET]

So how do you know it took place?

If it's a Biblical event, I have the Holy Spirit helping me decide.

If I am not there and have no evidence that the event took place, what reason do I have to believe that the event took place?

From a non-Biblical stance, and just to give you something to automatically reject, the splitting of time into BC/AD would be a good example of Jesus' authenticity.

 

[Nostromo]

Similar to how the splitting of time into BH/AH is a good example of Muhammad's authenticity?

 

[AV1611VET]

Similar to how the splitting of time into BH/AH is a good example of Muhammad's authenticity?

Do you use BH/AH? if not, your point is nebulous.

(And what does "H" stand for?)

 

[Tiberius]

If it's a Biblical event, I have the Holy Spirit helping me decide.

How do you explain the fact that while the Holy Spirit helps you decide that Genesis 1 is a literal truth, other Christians have the Holy spirit helping them decide that Genesis 1 is metaphorical?

From a non-Biblical stance, and just to give you something to automatically reject, the splitting of time into BC/AD would be a good example of Jesus' authenticity.

And the naming of the days of the week gives us reason to believe in the Roman gods...

And you didn't answer the question.

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you explain the fact that while the Holy Spirit helps you decide that Genesis 1 is a literal truth, other Christians have the Holy spirit helping them decide that Genesis 1 is metaphorical?

What's that to an atheist?

If He doesn't exist, what does it matter if He uses 30 different methods?

And the naming of the days of the week gives us reason to believe in the Roman gods...

Speaking of diabolical mimicry, don't forget El Nino blames the weather on Jesus.

And you didn't answer the question.

Of course not -- it's my trademark --

 

[Nostromo]

Do you use BH/AH? if not, your point is nebulous.

I was a couple of years ago, was he authentic back then?

If you didn't keep coming out with such nonsense you wouldn't have to make these silly excuses as to why I can't be making a reasonable point.

(And what does "H" stand for?)

Hijra, Muhammad's journey to Medina following his persecution in Mecca.