Evidence, specifically scientific evidence.

[Subduction Zone]

I'd go further. I'd say that because creationism tries to argue supernatural intervention in nature, it is ipso facto an unscientific hypothesis.

The "how" does not necessarily need to be answered fully. But what they can't do is to form their belief in a testable form. Also most creationists do not believe that their God can lie. That does limit them in their approach since a lying God could have simply planted false evidence and that would be a purely unscientific hypothesis. What they could try to do is to explain the observable evidence assuming using a model where God created life. And they cannot even do that. As a result they have to deny the existence of evidence for evolution since they know that they have no explanation. They not only need a God that is continually creating new life forms. They need an incompetent God whose life always looks as if it had the drawbacks that come with an evolved life from.

 

[PureX]

It depends upon what one means by "reality". At any rate this is not about evidence for or against a god or gods. It is simply about the concept of evidence, and specifically scientific evidence.

Many creationists in effect take themselves out of the debate by trying to claim that there is no evidence for evolution. That is obviously wrong. They may disagree with the conclusions one derives form the evidence, but to say that it does not exist is a clear error on their part and they automatically lose the debate when they make such an obviously fallacious claim.

Well, I think they do this because their criteria for evidence is not based on the evidential principals used in science, but rather on their own subjective interpretive experience of "reality". My point is that the principals used to define evidence in science do not apply to all areas of human thought and experience. And so it's not surprising that some humans would choose to disregard it. This is somewhat puzzling, I admit. But no more-so than those who are equally ignorant of the limitations of the science model of 'evidence'. Which is why whenever the members of these two camps meet, they argue endlessly, and pointlessly, to exhaustion, as neither of them is willing or perhaps even capable of recognizing the other's evidential criteria.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, I think they do this because their criteria for evidence is not based on the evidential principals used in science, but rather on their own subjective interpretive experience of "reality". My point is that the principals used to define evidence in science do not apply to all areas of human thought and experience. And so it's not surprising that some humans would choose to disregard it. This is somewhat puzzling, I admit. But no more-so that those who are equally ignorant of limitations of the science model for "evidence". Which is why whenever the members of these two camps meet, they argue endlessly, and pointlessly, as neither of them is willing or perhaps even capable of recognizing the other's evidential criteria.

A valid post. But that brings back the purpose of this thread. When debating matters of science one should understand what is and is not evidence. And of course when one debates science one is going to use scientific evidence.

Even scientists will sometimes say "there is no evidence" for an idea that they do not like. By showing that scientist that observable, empirical evidence agrees with a hypothesis he will have to admit that it exists, He may rightfully argue that that evidence is not sufficient or conclusive, he simply will not be able to use the "there ain't none" argument at that point. I think that most creationists have a hint at how much evidence there actually is for evolution and they do not want to have to attempt to refute it.

Many Christians accept evolution and do not interpret Genesis literally. Accepting evolution does not magically turn one into an atheist

 

[ChristineM]

This thread is on the concept of scientific evidence. A concept that creationists seem to avoid understanding. Wikipedia has an excellent article on the topic, but of course other sources are welcome. This article:

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

Starts with this clear definition:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

I will gladly discuss this or other well supported definitions of scientific evidence along with examples of evidence and how the details of the definition apply.

Do you consider evidence put forward under proof by exhaustion to be valid?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you consider evidence put forward under proof by exhaustion to be valid?

It can be but caution must be applied. Do you have a specific case?

 

[ChristineM]

It can be but caution must be applied. Do you have a specific case?

Actually a negative case of Deism, over ten thousand years or more literally billions of people have claimed proof of their deity(s) and not one has proven valid.

Using proof by cases shows with 100% failure rate thus showing there are no deities. At least in this corner of the universe

I've used this argument often enough, to me its accurate and more than fair, it only takes one success to trash the proof.

Your view would be appreciated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually a negative case of Deism, over ten thousand years or more literally billions of people have claimed proof of their deity(s) and not one has proven valid.

Using proof by cases shows with 100% failure rate thus showing there are no deities. At least in this corner of the universe

I've used this argument often enough, to me its accurate and more than fair, it only takes one success to trash the proof.

Your view would be appreciated.

Yes, I would say that is rather strong evidence against the existence of a God. It would not qualify as scientific evidence since the problem of God's existence would be rather hard to form as a testable hypothesis.

 

[RuixinGlass]

Ha. And what about 'same evidence, different interpretation?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ha. And what about 'same evidence, different interpretation?

That may be. But if one does not have a testable hypothesis at the least then he cannot even claim 'same evidence'. The sciences have a few put up or shut ups. To even have evidence one needs a testable hypothesis first.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Ha. And what about 'same evidence, different interpretation?

Well, I think they do this because their criteria for evidence is not based on the evidential principals used in science, but rather on their own subjective interpretive experience of "reality". My point is that the principals used to define evidence in science do not apply to all areas of human thought and experience. And so it's not surprising that some humans would choose to disregard it. This is somewhat puzzling, I admit. But no more-so than those who are equally ignorant of the limitations of the science model of 'evidence'. Which is why whenever the members of these two camps meet, they argue endlessly, and pointlessly, to exhaustion, as neither of them is willing or perhaps even capable of recognizing the other's evidential criteria.

I would say it's a clash between two old foes, the two faces of science; the academic and the methodological. The fashionable and the practical

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would say it's a clash between two old foes, the two faces of science; the academic and the methodological. The fashionable and the practical

I am unsure of what you are trying to claim here.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Actually a negative case of Deism, over ten thousand years or more literally billions of people have claimed proof of their deity(s) and not one has proven valid.

Using proof by cases shows with 100% failure rate thus showing there are no deities. At least in this corner of the universe

I've used this argument often enough, to me its accurate and more than fair, it only takes one success to trash the proof.

Your view would be appreciated.

This argument only proves that all cases so far presented have failed. Not that all possible cases presented can and will fail. Unless all possible cases have been presented and failed, then the argument itself is invalid. It is just another form of an argument from ignorance. The lack of proof, does not mean that proof does not exist. Proof by consensus is not always a valid proof of certainty(Santa Clause, God(s), etc.). As long as Believers confine their beliefs to the unfalsifiable and unverifiable world of "buckley's" certainty, all claims from the Easter Bunny to an unmoved mover, are virtually and religiously valid. No belief in the supernatural can ever be proven or disproven(prayer, prophecies, miracles, myths and superstitions), by science or logic. In a 4 dimensional reality, science does not have the zero dimensional tools(supernatural) tools necessary to measure, demonstrate, and explain any supernatural phenomena. Therefore, to speak of material "evidence", we are speaking only about its application within the material world only.

 

[Vancouversailor]

I have never throughout my life, which spans close to 70 years, seen the slightest shred of scientific evidence of the existence of hell, heaven or God. It is all faith based, and faith as we know is very subjective. people believe what they want to and don't let facts get in the way of that belief. Those who are in the know, i.e. linguistic scholars, have told me that 2000 years ago around the time that the bible was being written, the word hell, in the local dialect where Jesus lived, simply meant grave. So whenever someone is sent to hell. it means they are either buried six foot under or cremated. Despite that you can't listen to an average North American radio station on an average Sunday without hearing some perverse pastor spewing out descriptions of the torments sinners are going to experience in hell and describing the horrifying appearance of Satan, who I suspect was invented by some medieval monks with far too much time on their hands. The only scientific and irrefutable fact in this story is that hell was meant to mean grave, not a place where US Democrats, UK liberals and the unwashed masses of Africa and Asia were meant to spend eternity. In fact, this stands as one of the biggest scams and con jobs in history before the emergence of US President Donald Trump and his "alternative facts" universe.

 

[exchemist]

I would say it's a clash between two old foes, the two faces of science; the academic and the methodological. The fashionable and the practical

That has to be the first time I've heard someone describe academic science as fashionable.

 

[PureX]

A valid post. But that brings back the purpose of this thread. When debating matters of science one should understand what is and is not evidence. And of course when one debates science one is going to use scientific evidence.

Sure, but the creationist is not debating the science. They have already rejected it's validity within their subjective experiential understanding of reality. So it's sort of akin to trying to communicate with someone who speaks a different language even though they're using the same words as you,. Yet they mean something different by them.

Even scientists will sometimes say "there is no evidence" for an idea that they do not like. By showing that scientist that observable, empirical evidence agrees with a hypothesis he will have to admit that it exists.

Yes, but you and this scientist share the same principal criteria for what constitutes 'evidence'. So his mind can follow the same path of reasoning that you are following.

He may rightfully argue that that evidence is not sufficient or conclusive, he simply will not be able to use the "there ain't none" argument at that point. I think that most creationists have a hint at how much evidence there actually is for evolution and they do not want to have to attempt to refute it.

Maybe, and maybe not. It's usually a bad idea to assume motive when it's really impossible to know. (Though I am as guilty of it as anyone else is.)

Many Christians accept evolution and do not interpret Genesis literally. Accepting evolution does not magically turn one into an atheist

Certainly. But their experience of Christianity has probably been markedly different from those who were raised to understand the world through a literal and unquestionable interpretation of the Bible. It's very difficult for people to question the foundations of their currently held understanding of reality. In fact, few of us will ever do so without some relatively traumatic event to make us recognize the truth of our profound ignorance, and force us into doing something about it. And this can be as true for an atheist as for a "believer".

 

[PureX]

I would say it's a clash between two old foes, the two faces of science; the academic and the methodological. The fashionable and the practical

I don't really understand this reply. I am not aware that there is a schism in science about what constitutes evidence.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Yes, but you and this scientist share the same principal criteria for what constitutes 'evidence'. So his mind can follow the same path of reasoning that you are following.

Certainly. But their experience of Christianity has probably been markedly different from those who were raised to understand the world through a literal and unquestionable interpretation of the Bible. It's very difficult for people to question the foundations of their currently held understanding of reality. In fact, few of us will ever do so without some relatively traumatic event to make us recognize the truth of our profound ignorance, and force us into doing something about it. And this can be as true for an atheist as for a "believer".

Scientific evidence is continually vetted, tested, and regularly scrutinized by other independent or scientific disciplines. It is the convergence of evidence and supportive evidence, that reduces the subjectivity of interpretation. Scriptural, Biblical, or supernatural, or mythical evidence are SOLELY based on subjective interpretation. There is absolutely no supportive or primary evidence to scrutinize, test, or to vet. For example, what is the meaning of, "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"(Genesis 3:22)? Should this be interpreted that there is more than one God, that man should be amoral, or that God was fearful that man wanted immortality? Were these the real reason for "The Fall"? What does this suggest about the character of God?

Since an Atheist's position is entirely dependent on the amount of knowledge received from objective evidence, and not from his "profound ignorance", your comparison is just wishful thinking at best. However, believers require no evidence at all. Many have stated that the more faith they have, the less evidence they need. I think that there are those whose psyches are fuelled only by the physical evidence that explains natural phenomena. And, that there are those whose psyches are fuelled only by psychological affirmations, and not objective evidence. Also, Atheists are not making any supernatural claims, or ask others to prove them wrong. Finally, even if all of science was proven to be "woefully ignorant", a believer's position would still need to be proven as factual. It is not truth by default, as many creationists try to claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure, but the creationist is not debating the science. They have already rejected it's validity within their subjective experiential understanding of reality. So it's sort of akin to trying to communicate with someone who speaks a different language even though they're using the same words as you,. Yet they mean something different by them.

Was there a point to this? Their inability to accept reality only reflect badly on them. Try to remember in this thread that the topic is evidence.

Yes, but you and this scientist share the same principal criteria for what constitutes 'evidence'. So his mind can follow the same path of reasoning that you are following.

Anyone that can be honest with themselves can follow the same path. This is not a method of reasoning limited to the sciences. It is a method of rational thought.

Maybe, and maybe not. It's usually a bad idea to assume motive when it's really impossible to know. (Though I am as guilty of it as anyone else is.)

It is a rather reasonable conclusion. I don't think that creationists are totally irrational.

Certainly. But their experience of Christianity has probably been markedly different from those who were raised to understand the world through a literal and unquestionable interpretation of the Bible. It's very difficult for people to question the foundations of their currently held understanding of reality. In fact, few of us will ever do so without some relatively traumatic event to make us recognize the truth of our profound ignorance, and force us into doing something about it. And this can be as true for an atheist as for a "believer".

The problem with that is that they are demonstrably wrong. And no, it is not "true". They may believe their ideas to be true, but that does not make them true. No matter how hard a cargo cult follower believes he can't force the planes to come back and bring him more wonders and riches. I am not stating that all of the Bible is false, but some parts are demonstrably wrong. And by avoiding the concept of evidence a believer is tacitly admitting that he is wrong.

 

[Audie]

I would say it's a clash between two old foes, the two faces of science; the academic and the methodological. The fashionable and the practical

Why yes, you would say that! Did, in fact.

But why do you?

There is of course, a difference in physics, say,
between the theoretical and the applied.

"fashionable and practical", though? Seriously?

Theoretical guys come up with ideas like why
we need the Hadron collider. The applied guys
are the ones who figure out how to build it.

Are you proposing that this to be somehow a problem,
or even something that calls into deep question the
value / validity of science?

 

[Audie]

[Q*UOTE="Truly Enlightened, post: 5606102, member: 63092"]
Finally, even if all of science was* proven to be "woefully ignorant", a believer's position would still need to be proven as factual. It is not truth by default, as many creationists try to claim.[/QUOTE]


I think the point of saying "woefully ignorant" is to imply much, while
delivering nothing. Intended as a sweeping indictment of all science,
with a hand wave.

Of course there is much to learn. But "woe" is an emotion, and
if you feel woe because you only got an Omega when you wanted
a Rolex,that is your problem.

Calling science "woefully ignorant"?

I call such "lying with the truth".

Let's say there is someone applying for a job on, oh, evening news
tv. Someone who interviewed her says, "Lets not hire her, she
has crooked teeth, her face is lopsided! One eye is bigger, lower than the
other, same with the eyebrows. Nose is crooked."

Sounds bad. Lying with the truth, because it could be describing Ms America, it describes everybody's face.

But it is the best that our creofriends seem able to come up with.






* dont bold it if you are going to mess up the subjunctive!