• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Empirical Evidence and Arguments for God(s)

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
"uncorroborated"? All four Gospels and Acts, etc., confirm / corroborate the resurrection. That's independent confirmation. That does work for the unbiased individual.
And a real theologian would know why the Bible is one source. That is not "corroboration".
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
No, they are simply unfalsifiable repetitions of the claim. Where is the evidence the claim rest upon?

I'd recommend you study up on it. Evidences in the book.

51QG8FPL2KL._SX328_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
There is no way to question witnesses, or reproduce the miracle. There is only hearsay evidence from very old stories.
I have asked you for a current day miracle which I can actually document. Is there one? It is a question with a binary answer. Yes or no.....

If yes, then where can I find the medical records of before and after? Surely someone who actually did something that was contradictory to the laws of physics would want it to be known.

This can't be something vague and/or subjective like pain or stress. It also can't be a claim to have cured something that sometime self corrects anyway.

Also, again, why doesn't god heal amputees? If god wanted to demonstrate his presence or power, that would be the most incredible thing to do. Or eliminate say, cancer entirely from the human race instead of grandstanding by picking a single person out of a stadium filled with people looking for cures.

Even with medical records, one needs to recognize the possibility of a misdiagnosis.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Grabbing my laptop for the longer ones but...

Walls of confusing gibberish text does not a god make.

Haha that's amazing. Are books you agree with also walls f gibberish?

The OP is way too long and has so much "information" to even give an answer the creator of the OP will be satisfied off, but there is a lot of error in it too.
The part about Consciousness is incorrect in so many ways.

I absolutely love when this happens! "This is so obviously wrong but I can't even give a single example as to why." I totally believe you have those refutations ;)

I'm afraid you lost me at consciousness being proven to be distinct from matter, the rest of your arguement stands on that ground.

Lost you... As in you didn't understand? I don't think a lack of comprehension by others invalidates evidence...

Are you kidding me? This guy??? He's dumb as a brick.

Are you defining consciousness as anything that reacts in a chemical way?

Explicitly not.

Yeah. Empircal? Not so much. Don't know why you chose that word for the thread title. Here is Webster's definition:

Definition of empirical


1: originating in or based on observation or experience //empirical data
2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory// an empirical basis for the theory
3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment// empirical laws
4: of or relating to empiricism.
A proposition or belief might be true logically without reference to the real world.

I love this! So anthropology, medicine, biology, psychology... Suddenly none of these are empirical because you don't like the conclusions I draw from them! In all my time the groups that deny science the most for contradicting their Faith's are creationists and atheists!
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Without a functional living brain there would be no consciousness, so you might say that its something else, but in the end its a byproduct of the brain.

How can you conclude this without a Consciousness to know brains? Have you ever seen a brain, alive or dead, without your consciousness being present?

It fits perfectly with biological evolution,

Hahaha so now biological evolution includes no biological change? Woooooooooow.

The Upper Paleolithic revolution simply shows how human developed our skills and abilities to share knowledge and do more advance thinking compared to other animals.

Not through genetic change though.

So this period of which we and our ancestors learned to use tools is rather long.

That's actually a good straw man, pretending the UPR was just tool use. Unfortunately I've formally studied the UPR so doesn't really work on me haha.
 
Last edited:

Phaedrus

Active Member
No is your word.

I provided the truth, yet you perverted it.

Typical for most believers who want to pretend they have and know the truth.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Errrr..... no.
If anything, all the empirical data is showing the exact opposite: that consciousness is an emergent property of a rather specific arrangement of matter. Ie, a brain.

Then why could I actually show evidence, and you just claim it? The only evidence you speak of is correlation between mind and brain states, which is expected in literally every metaphysical position. Even freaking solipsism.

It is not something that exists "distinct" from matter. Ever seen a "conscisousness" that existed without a physical brain? I sure haven't.

I love this question because it illustrates how confused materialism is. When have you ever seen or known anything about a physical brain at any time without relying on your own consciousness?

Your main premise ("distinct from matter") flies in the face of all evidence and is thus far from "proven". Literally all evidence supports the exact opposite statement of your premise.

Huh, and yet still can't provide one shred of "all the evidence". Not suspicious at all!!
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
No is your word.

I provided the truth, yet you perverted it.

Typical for most believers who want to pretend they have and know the truth.

I mean the truth is there's an op of fully cited evidence from biology, psychology, anthropology, and medicine. And that since you can't refute it you're acting like this instead :)

Enjoy the weekend!
 

Phaedrus

Active Member
I mean the truth is there's an op of fully cited evidence from biology, psychology, anthropology, and medicine. And that since you can't refute it you're acting like this instead :)

Enjoy the weekend!

Link me, and I'll refute. That'll be my weekend.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Please show empirical evidence that there is consciousness absent a brain

It would be impossible to say anything about brains or even gather evidence without consciousness. When have you seen or known of a brain without the presence of your Consciousness?
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Oh, well, then I'll just leave you to your delusion. Happy trails.

Hahahaha ignore the evidence then pretend it went away huh? I actually see this literally every day and only really from scriptural literalists and atheists.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Lost you... As in you didn't understand? I don't think a lack of comprehension by others invalidates evidence...

No I meant I lost agreement/interest in your long argument after realizing that the whole very long post appeared to be based on what I took to be a false supposition...that consciousness is an ontological primitive.

I have recommended to others that have posted a long argument that they consider breaking it down into smaller chunks. That way someone who has 30 minutes might be able to offer a significant and considered reply.

I believe I made an effort to respond in another post that was meant to pick out the first thing I thought I needed to understand better from you before I would look further at the whole of your argument.
 
Top