• 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!

Evidence is God

Just_me_Mike

Well-Known Member
Hope the title isn't misleading.


Just wondering how important evidence is to you when considering the following terms.
  1. God (any of them)
  2. spirit
  3. spirituality
  4. soul
  5. ghosts
  6. demons
  7. dreams
Also, is there any significance to experience instead of evidence. Meaning that experience is evidence to an individual or group, but may not have been documented as evidence.
We know in the courtroom eyewitness is counted as evidence, and therefor counts experience as evidence, not to be confused with scientific evidence, but how does this weigh on your personal position?
 

darkendless

Guardian of Asgaard
Hope the title isn't misleading.


Just wondering how important evidence is to you when considering the following terms.
  1. God (any of them)
  2. spirit
  3. spirituality
  4. soul
  5. ghosts
  6. demons
  7. dreams
Also, is there any significance to experience instead of evidence. Meaning that experience is evidence to an individual or group, but may not have been documented as evidence.
We know in the courtroom eyewitness is counted as evidence, and therefor counts experience as evidence, not to be confused with scientific evidence, but how does this weigh on your personal position?

Spirituality is a gift i've yet to recieve. To me, evidence means being able to communicate what you've seen with another person.

To me, spiritual evidence counts for nothing, since everyone has a different view. No two visions are the same.
 

CarlinKnew

Well-Known Member
Lone eyewitness accounts don't hold weight in a court of law. They need to be corroborated, and there are reasons for this. For starters, the human mind is susceptible to social influence and pattern seeking.
 

Just_me_Mike

Well-Known Member
To me, spiritual evidence counts for nothing, since everyone has a different view. No two visions are the same.
So can we say the opposite true, if more than one person has the same visions can we count that as evidence? I think the answer is still no, but I was reversing the logic in your last post.
 

Just_me_Mike

Well-Known Member
Lone eyewitness accounts don't hold weight in a court of law. They need to be corroborated, and there are reasons for this. For starters, the human mind is susceptible to social influence and pattern seeking.
The fact remains true eyewitness or true experience is indeed factual.
Which is why multiple sources in court is considered evidence. Otherwise it would never be allowed as evidence. So in one way true experience is very much like evidence, right?
Did that make sense?
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
Just wondering how important evidence is to you when considering the following terms...

Evidence is equally important to me when considering the factual existence of anything.
Also, is there any significance to experience instead of evidence. Meaning that experience is evidence to an individual or group, but may not have been documented as evidence.

There is far too much evidence indicating how unreliable individual and group experiences can be in order to make having objective evidence of the experience a requirement.
 
Last edited:

CarlinKnew

Well-Known Member
The fact remains true eyewitness or true experience is indeed factual.
Which is why multiple sources in court is considered evidence. Otherwise it would never be allowed as evidence. So in one way true experience is very much like evidence, right?
Did that make sense?

Eyewitness accounts are unreliable and need to be supported by some type of physical evidence, even more so when claims are extroardinary.
 

Just_me_Mike

Well-Known Member
Eyewitness accounts are unreliable and need to be supported by some type of physical evidence, even more so when claims are extroardinary.
When I say, for example, "my son hugged me last night".
It was real, but I can not prove it. At the most my son could corroborate, but still no physical evidence. So we are left with situations that are not provable, but indeed are real. Of which we are full of these occurrences that never will be provable, but to the individuals they are real.
That's a little off topic though.
 

CarlinKnew

Well-Known Member
When I say, for example, "my son hugged me last night".
It was real, but I can not prove it. At the most my son could corroborate, but still no physical evidence. So we are left with situations that are not provable, but indeed are real. Of which we are full of these occurrences that never will be provable, but to the individuals they are real.
That's a little off topic though.

Of course. That's a reasonable claim, so I have no reason to think you're lying or mistaken. If you said you hugged Bigfoot last night, that'd be a different story.
 

Tristesse

Well-Known Member
The fact remains true eyewitness or true experience is indeed factual.
Which is why multiple sources in court is considered evidence. Otherwise it would never be allowed as evidence. So in one way true experience is very much like evidence, right?
Did that make sense?

Eyewitness accounts are only factual to the person who witnessed it, not to the ones who didn't. But the type of eyewitness accounts your referring to would need much more than just an eyewitness. I mean it's one thing to say, "I saw bob walking his dog" and its a completely different thing to say, "I saw bob walking his fire breathing dragon." Because I know dogs exist and I know people have them as pets, but I don't know that fire breathing dragons exist, so, you would need much more evidence than just your say so.
 

Just_me_Mike

Well-Known Member
Eyewitness accounts are only factual to the person who witnessed it, not to the ones who didn't. But the type of eyewitness accounts your referring to would need much more than just an eyewitness. I mean it's one thing to say, "I saw bob walking his dog" and its a completely different thing to say, "I saw bob walking his fire breathing dragon." Because I know dogs exist and I know people have them as pets, but I don't know that fire breathing dragons exist, so, you would need much more evidence than just your say so.
Fair enough, so is that your answer for my initial question, also?
 

Tristesse

Well-Known Member
When I say, for example, "my son hugged me last night".
It was real, but I can not prove it. At the most my son could corroborate, but still no physical evidence. So we are left with situations that are not provable, but indeed are real. Of which we are full of these occurrences that never will be provable, but to the individuals they are real.
That's a little off topic though.

Well, most people could just take your word for it that your son hugged you. And believe it, I mean you have no reason to lie about something so trivial. But when people start talking about extraordinary claims, than we would need much more evidence than just your eyewitness account. Because the mind is easily fooled, just ask any magician.
 
Top