• 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!

A woman and child; truth via absence of evidence

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
If you didn't see the incident, taking out immediate response but theorizing instead, would there be a reason to assume the child was in danger or are you just going off human immediate response?
The apparent condition of the child as described would indicate that it is likely in need of immediate attention. If there was no immediate threat, then talking to the child would be the first step to see if the child is responsive. However, given the presence of a weapon and a person in possession of it, the first step would be to eliminate that as a potential threat. Only after that can any further action reasonably be taken.

Once while walking to class I noticed a man laying on the sidewalk as if he had fallen and passed out. One does not see adults laying immobile across a sidewalk impeding passage everyday. It is reasonable to assume an emergency situation given such scanty information until further information is determined. One thing that I immediately noticed and that raised anger in me was that people walking by were looking but making no effort to help. I decided I would find out if help was needed. When I got up to the man, I immediately saw the open manhole he was looking down. I could not see it from my initial perspective. The man and another down the manhole were working on repairs.
If relating this to god, do you think people can theorize the reason behind why they believe one synchronized event and two other ones they experience, although personal, is evidence that god, say, answered a prayer?
People seem to find almost any reason to claim prayer was answered. I think @PureX gave the best answer to this.
It's more questioning whether one would look at the facts of an godly experience or accept the experiences, feelings, and thoughts as an immediate response of human nature (if that be so?). I know many of us on any topic would have cognitive dissonance to theorize before making an conclusion but I don't know if that's something people take into consideration.
I am not sure I understand. Are you contrasting instinct with learned behavior to make a determination about the meaning people apply to conclude the existence of God?

Personally, I like scenarios like yours to stimulate thinking, but I may be too dense to follow what you are trying to reveal.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Think about it. If you walked into a home a child on the ground, blood, and a woman with a knife would you say "well, I'm not going to protect the child because I don't know if the woman would do anything so why intervene"?

It was not clear from the op that the child was living or already dead. Of course the welfare of the child would take precedence.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
One day you walk into a house. You see one woman with a gun and a child on the ground (using a child for a purpose). The child has blood on him and so does the woman.

You saw nothing.

So. Did a murder took place?

Unknown.

You can relate this to god if you like, ....

Which is no doubt why you posted this under "Religious Debates."

..., but the context is the same whether it be supernatural or every day physical reality.

See Wikipedia: Sagan Standard.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
We are familiar with people hurting children, using guns against others and that an apparently unresponsive person covered in blood is likely to be injured.

For all I know the scene encountered could have resulted from another person attacking the child and the woman possessing the gun, because she had used it to protect the child. The blood could be from an injured assailant that had already fled by the time I arrived.

I can only go by what I see initially and act on understanding garnered from prior experience and knowledge.

Do you think so people can step back without their personal experience interpreting a scene that may or may not add up to what they are assuming?

Backed up by personal experience and knowlege are good justifications but can they be trusted?

Putting this in a god seance, can knowledge and prior experience be trusted in deciding that god is the cause of, say, creating the world when we were not there to see it?

Context rather than details for a minute
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I'm bored.

One day you walk into a house. You see one woman with a gun and a child on the ground (using a child for a purpose). The child has blood on him and so does the woman.

You saw nothing.

So. Did a murder took place?

Holding a gun in your house, usually isn't a common thing to do.
When blood and guns are found in the same place at the same time, that indicates they are connected.

My initial hypothesis would however depend on the rest of the circumstantial evidence:
- is the woman crying / in shock / calm / apathic / ...?
- are there signs of a struggle (broken glass, knocked down or broken furtniture, a forced door, broken windows,...)?
- does the child have a gunshot wound?
- ...

Depending on the circumstances, I'ld suspect:
- the woman of having killed the child (murder)
- the woman of having tried to defend herself or the child from a violent third party no longer at the scene
- the woman of having tried to defend hersef from the child who attacked her and shot him (self defense)
- ... any other option which might be suggested by evidence

More thorough examination of the evidence might / will add additional info. Like:
- if child has gunshot wound, does it match the gun the woman is holding?
- are there gunpowder traces on the woman's hands / cloths, indicating she fired it?
- etc

If you think it has, what brought you to that conclusion without proper investigation of facts?

I guess I was a step ahead of you.
One always has to first properly investigate the facts before drawing any conclusions.
And even then, the conclusions are just mere attempts at explaining the data. One might still want to test the hypothesis in whatever ways possible.

How does absence of evidence and witness prove something is true regardless how strong your opinion, belief, and conclusion convinces you otherwise?

There is no absence of evidence, it seems. It's not like we have to make due with just an anecdote of this story, since you started with "you walk into a room...". Sounds like the room is filled with evidence. Then there's also the woman that can be interrogated. Next there might be traffic or security cams in the streets, maybe even dash cams, that will be able to unearth additional details of who did / did not enter / leave the house within reasonable timeframes.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
If you walked into a home and saw a child on the ground, knife, and blood would you automatically assume the child was in danger without needing to investigate it first?

If you had means to protect the child without the other person "doing" anything, what prompt you to protect the child outside of your belief, opinion, etc he may be in danger based on what you see at the moment?
By association of the objects of "knife" and "blood".
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Personally, I like scenarios like yours to stimulate thinking, but I may be too dense to follow what you are trying to reveal.

You're not the only one. It takes awhile. Thanks, though.

Prayer is a good example.

I go to the hospital and see my loved one dying. Both hospital and loved one dying are connected to each other. People go to the hospital when they are sick and can't help themselves to put it simply.

So, if someone prays and their loved one gets better, they believe that it is the will of god. The hospital, loved one, and the latter being sick "and" getting better are linked that when someone prays about it it is also linked to the outcome of the prayer (the desire for it).

What is the reasoning behind why someone would assume god answered the prayer just based on the situation-loved one dying, hospital, and getting better?

Likewise,

You have the woman/gun/blood (loved one dying) and the child/blood (hospital). If you put two and two together like above, of course our minds will think they have something to do with each other. So like prayer to the former, we may have means to investigate, call the police, so have you.

In this case, what is the reasoning behind why someone would assume a murder took place to call the police just based on the situation when you weren't there to see it?

I know we are going off our human instinct here, but I couldn't figure out another example that wouldn't cause too much distraction for the content of the scenario over the context.

Maybe another way to put it is, what is a reasoning behind putting meaning between two synchronized events when one hasn't actually witness whether either event are connected to each other?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
It was not clear from the op that the child was living or already dead. Of course the welfare of the child would take precedence.

It's not about the welfare of the child but when one goes into the house, sees the child and woman, why would they have an assumption something happened when they didn't see it happened?

Of course we have human instinct and people will reply with the content of the scenario, but it's just asking you have two syncronized events, in prayer (for example) because the events are personal, when they are seen together they are assumed that it is god's answered prayer. Without this assumption based on observation (if this wasn't a justification), what is the reasoning behind seeing these seemingly connected events evidence of god answering prayer?

There's many ways to ask this but I thought the child/woman scenario would be stronger but it went off like a loose cannon.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Unknown.



Which is no doubt why you posted this under "Religious Debates."



See Wikipedia: Sagan Standard.

Sheesh. The saracsm.

You have to synchronized events. In prayer, you feel god answered the events when they are too personal and they go together just well. Observation, personal experiences, pre-bias, and beliefs makes you assume god answer the prayers.

My question is, without these things above, how would you know the two synchronized events are answers to prayers?

There are many many ways to ask this question. But if you're going to be sarcastic about it, I let this go...
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Holding a gun in your house, usually isn't a common thing to do.
When blood and guns are found in the same place at the same time, that indicates they are connected.

My initial hypothesis would however depend on the rest of the circumstantial evidence:
- is the woman crying / in shock / calm / apathic / ...?
- are there signs of a struggle (broken glass, knocked down or broken furtniture, a forced door, broken windows,...)?
- does the child have a gunshot wound?
- ...

Depending on the circumstances, I'ld suspect:
- the woman of having killed the child (murder)
- the woman of having tried to defend herself or the child from a violent third party no longer at the scene
- the woman of having tried to defend hersef from the child who attacked her and shot him (self defense)
- ... any other option which might be suggested by evidence

More thorough examination of the evidence might / will add additional info. Like:
- if child has gunshot wound, does it match the gun the woman is holding?
- are there gunpowder traces on the woman's hands / cloths, indicating she fired it?
- etc



I guess I was a step ahead of you.
One always has to first properly investigate the facts before drawing any conclusions.
And even then, the conclusions are just mere attempts at explaining the data. One might still want to test the hypothesis in whatever ways possible.



There is no absence of evidence, it seems. It's not like we have to make due with just an anecdote of this story, since you started with "you walk into a room...". Sounds like the room is filled with evidence. Then there's also the woman that can be interrogated. Next there might be traffic or security cams in the streets, maybe even dash cams, that will be able to unearth additional details of who did / did not enter / leave the house within reasonable timeframes.

Yeah. There are a lot of factors involved. I took them out since it's not about investigation and looking at facts, it's asking what was the reasoning behind thinking of X if you weren't there to see it.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Yeah. There are a lot of factors involved. I took them out since it's not about investigation and looking at facts, it's asking what was the reasoning behind thinking of X if you weren't there to see it.

I'ld guess that if you remove all the evidence, or the ability to investigate the evidence, all you are left with are "gut feelings" and "intuition".

And very oftenly, those will lead you to a wrong conclusion.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Of course we have human instinct and people will reply with the content of the scenario, but it's just asking you have two syncronized events, in prayer (for example) because the events are personal, when they are seen together they are assumed that it is god's answered prayer. Without this assumption based on observation (if this wasn't a justification), what is the reasoning behind seeing these seemingly connected events evidence of god answering prayer?

Obviously that would depend on ones concept of prayer. For me prayer is not petition but communion.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Obviously that would depend on ones concept of prayer. For me prayer is not petition but communion.

I think you're catholic, right?

Yes. I can see the difference (being ex-catholic). I guess it would be more how you interpret how you experience god in the natural world. For example, even though you may not petitiion to god by prayer to ask god to take care of a dying loved one, there may still be a connection between the prayer and god that may assume to be healing (if the person got better) even though the actions and beliefs don't automatically assume so.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Yes. I can see the difference (being ex-catholic). I guess it would be more how you interpret how you experience god in the natural world. For example, even though you may not petitiion to god by prayer to ask god to take care of a dying loved one, there may still be a connection between the prayer and god that may assume to be healing (if the person got better) even though the actions and beliefs don't automatically assume so.

My prayer would be for the person to know she/he is not alone but within God's presence, the He is with her/him. I am hesitant to pray for the healing of the body that calls for an intervention by God.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Two questions.

Since not everyone falls under that immediate response (maybe because many of us have more of a critical mind than others), do you think it's possible to show them that their conclusions cannot be trusted?

I don't know, I don't know how to do that. I was faith driven for years. It was a gradual realization that there was something wrong with my view of the world. I couldn't trust what I had previously accepted as truth.
The second is, how could you shrink this because I was trying to say this but couldn't figure how to phrase it.

I suspect succinct dialog only works in the movies. Where someone says exactly what the listener needs to trigger a realization to a broader understanding. Most times I can't even get folks to agree on basic terms.

That and it made me think just now then it must be human evolution to think god exists based on interpretations of the outside world that in itself doesn't prove anything.

Certainly predisposed to supernatural explanations. We identify patterns really well but then fill in the gaps using imagination to try and make sense of the connections our mind tells us is there.
 
Top