Is absence of evidence, evidence of absence?

[HonestJoe]

Yes, but ONLY IN A CLOSED FIELD OF INQUIRY. Which means it does not apply to the vast majority of theistic god-concepts.

That’s only because proponents of “god-concepts” typically refuse to establish any kind of meaningful hypotheses for their claims.

If we’re presented with a generic idea that there is some kind of all-powerful deity out there somewhere but one that is specifically defined as being outside the scope of our study and investigations, we’re obviously not able to do anything relating to evidence about it (which appears to be the point of that kind of definition in the first place). If we’re given specifically defined claims (if only indirectly), they can be assessed, including identifying a lack of evidence supporting the claim which can be a valid reason to doubt it (though not dismiss entirely).

“God exists!” can’t be assessed on the basis of evidence. “God exists and answers my prayers!” can be assessed on the basis of evidence (though not necessarily definitely).

 

[Desert Snake]

No...

 

[PureX]

IWe'll take the deistic view of deities: There is a God out there that exists outside of the realm of spacetime who is responsible for creation. Now, we can search for evidence of such a god concept and find no evidence; but here, the lack of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But when we go to the realm of the theistic views of personal deities who interacts in the goings on of mankind, then that deity interacts with the natural world. In interacting with the natural world, within our view of observation and possible experimentation, it seems to me that this deity would inevitably leave evidence of its existence.

That is not a logical assumption given the presumption that this deity exists outside the limitations of that which it was willing and able to create. It's like saying that if I paint a painting of myself, I would not be able to repaint parts of it according to my will because the painting wouldn't allow it. If God created the laws of physics, why would we assume that God could not negate them at will, and then reinstate them at will?

Also, people's personal conceptions of God are not God. So discrediting people's personal conceptions of God using the limitations of natural law does nothing to discredit the proposition that God is an actuality. It only discredits their personal conception of God's actuality. Which is irrelevant, since their personal conceptions of God are based on personal functionality, not on natural law or universal functionality. The proper evidence to be considered, then, is related to how their personal conception of God works for them. Not how it works for you, or in accordance with natural law.

 

[PureX]

That’s only because proponents of “god-concepts” typically refuse to establish any kind of meaningful hypotheses for their claims.

Why should they concede to your debate criteria when your intent is only to discredit their position?

For nearly every theist on Earth, "God" is the embodiment of the great mystery of existence. God is the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that it. God is the author of the very rules you want to apply to it's reality. So from the theist's perspective, you are the one being illogical, as you are expecting the creator to be contained and constrained by it's own creation.

If we’re presented with a generic idea that there is some kind of all-powerful deity out there somewhere but one that is specifically defined as being outside the scope of our study and investigations, we’re obviously not able to do anything relating to evidence about it (which appears to be the point of that kind of definition in the first place).

I think your idea of what is evidence is very narrow, and very biased. If I pray to God for a new car, and I win a new car in a raffle the next day, I would consider that strong evidence. But it's not evidence that anyone else could test or reproduce in some materialist's scientific experiment. Because the action comes from outside the limitations of that kind of inquiry. And millions of humans have these kinds of experiences, and consider them evidence for their beliefs about the nature and existence of 'God'.

If we’re given specifically defined claims (if only indirectly), they can be assessed, including identifying a lack of evidence supporting the claim which can be a valid reason to doubt it (though not dismiss entirely).

You can't always get what you want.

“God exists!” can’t be assessed on the basis of evidence. “God exists and answers my prayers!” can be assessed on the basis of evidence (though not necessarily definitely).

The evidence, then, (as you define it) cannot answer the question. Which does not answer the question in the negative. So the lack of evidence for the existence of God is not evidence of the lack of God's existence.

 

[HonestJoe]

Why should they concede to your debate criteria when your intent is only to discredit their position?

I never said they should. I was just clarifying why the evidence question doesn’t apply to (most) god-concepts; nothing fundamental or insurmountable, merely a question of how they are defined and presented. It isn’t science dismissing the idea of gods but the faithful dismissing the idea of science.

For nearly every theist on Earth, "God" is the embodiment of the great mystery of existence.

Great mysteries with very specifically defined characteristics, actions, rules and consequences? I’ve no issue with the idea of a mysterious and unknowable deity, I do question the idea of a mysterious and unknowable deity who has somehow specifically defined which animals we’re allowed to eat, how long our hair should be or which day of the week we should gather in a big building to worship them.

If I pray to God for a new car, and I win a new car in a raffle the next day, I would consider that strong evidence.

Evidence of what though? Was your god defined as one who answers prayers with material gains (or one specifically defined as not doing that)? Could you have won the car anyway? Couldn’t something equally unknown and powerful have intercepted your prayer and fulfilled it for its own mysterious reasons? Evidence needs to be evidence of something and that something generally requires some form of proceeding hypothesis, even an informal one.

But it's not evidence that anyone else could test or reproduce in some materialist's scientific experiment.

Of course we can. It’d be very easy to assess a whole load of prayers people make and determine how many are fulfilled, balanced by a predicted chance of those things happening anyway – it’s probably been done. It’ll never be definitive of course, not least due to the lack of clear hypothesis I mention above (the whole point of my reply in the first place) but you could certainly establish a pattern of effects (or lack thereof).

The evidence, then, (as you define it) cannot answer the question. Which does not answer the question in the negative. So the lack of evidence for the existence of God is not evidence of the lack of God's existence.

I agree. As a general question, we can’t know whether some kind of god (or gods) exist or not nor, if any do exists, what their actually scope and natures are. That’s the same for the literally infinite number of other unknowable things we could choose to propose too though. As I initially said though, the limitation there is because we’re choosing to define them as unknowable.

 

[PureX]

I never said they should. I was just clarifying why the evidence question doesn’t apply to (most) god-concepts; nothing fundamental or insurmountable, merely a question of how they are defined and presented. It isn’t science dismissing the idea of gods but the faithful dismissing the idea of science.

It's apples and oranges. Theology is not science, and science is not theology. Neither criteria should be applied to the other. For some strange reason, though, (materialist) atheists INSIST on applying scientific criteria (intended to investigate physics) to theological propositions (regarding metaphysical phenomena). I think it's because they see a straw man they can easily knock apart (even though it's a completely irrelevant victory).

Great mysteries with very specifically defined characteristics, actions, rules and consequences?

Only if you're ignorant enough not to be able to recognize artifice when you see/hear it (allegory, symbolism, metaphor, myth, etc.).

I’ve no issue with the idea of a mysterious and unknowable deity, I do question the idea of a mysterious and unknowable deity who has somehow specifically defined which animals we’re allowed to eat, how long our hair should be or which day of the week we should gather in a big building to worship them.

Perhaps if you were not so intent of ignoring the artifice that's involved when humans try to grasp the inexplicable, you wouldn't be so confused about it.

Evidence of what though? Was your god defined as one who answers prayers with material gains (or one specifically defined as not doing that)? Could you have won the car anyway? Couldn’t something equally unknown and powerful have intercepted your prayer and fulfilled it for its own mysterious reasons? Evidence needs to be evidence of something and that something generally requires some form of proceeding hypothesis, even an informal one.

For we humans, experience is truth. And that goes as much for science as it is does for religion, or for anything else. How we experience it is how it is until we experience it differently.

Of course we can. It’d be very easy to assess a whole load of prayers people make and determine how many are fulfilled, balanced by a predicted chance of those things happening anyway – it’s probably been done. It’ll never be definitive of course, not least due to the lack of clear hypothesis I mention above (the whole point of my reply in the first place) but you could certainly establish a pattern of effects (or lack thereof).

You are assuming that consensus (repeatability/universality) = truth. It doesn't. That's why people tend to stick with what works for them, even when "everyone else" says it's nonsense.

I agree. As a general question, we can’t know whether some kind of god (or gods) exist or not nor, if any do exists, what their actually scope and natures are. That’s the same for the literally infinite number of other unknowable things we could choose to propose too though. As I initially said though, the limitation there is because we’re choosing to define them as unknowable.

It is the unknowable nature of the god-concept that makes it so useful to us. If we could know that God exists, and how, or we could know that god does not exist in any manner we'd consider real or relevant, all the other options would be closed. But because we cannot know this, we CAN CHOOSE for ourselves what we want to be true, and we can reasonably act in accordance with that chosen truth, and we can see how it works for us. And if it works in a positive way, we have legitimate reason to maintain our chosen presumption.Yet you want us to doubt, based on nothing, when to do so negates the ability of faith to help us achieve positive gain. Why? Why should we close ourselves off to positive possibilities for no reason at all?

Does it really matter that our preferred God does not exist if we cannot ever know this, and that in our trusting/believing it does exist,we can attain goals that we could not attain otherwise?

Atheism makes no sense. It is a rejection, based on nothing, of a possibility that could afford the atheist positive results. It's like someone hands them a free lotto ticket, invites them to pick the numbers, and they refuse to take it because they just blindly assume it won't win.

The point here is that faith in God works for millions of people whether God exists or not. Whereas doubting presumes an answer that we don't have, never will, and that results in nothing.

 

[ratiocinator]

It is the unknowable nature of the god-concept that makes it so useful to us. If we could know that God exists, and how, or we could know that god does not exist in any manner we'd consider real or relevant, all the other options would be closed. But because we cannot know this, we CAN CHOOSE for ourselves what we want to be true, and we can reasonably act in accordance with that chosen truth, and we can see how it works for us. And if it works in a positive way, we have legitimate reason to maintain our chosen presumption.

So this is a reworking of "if it feels good, do it", except it's "if feels good, believe it". One could say exactly the same for any unfalsifiable belief, no matter how daft, or even dangerous and destructive it is. There is no guarantee that a belief in some god (or demon or anything else unfalsifiable) will work in a positive way. What "works" for an individual may be positively damaging to other people. Quite apart from the obvious case of religiously inspired terrorism, there are cults that, for example, encourage people to ignore medical advice. These faith beliefs can lead to all sorts of conflicts with other faiths - who have to audacity to believe in the "wrong" god(s).

Oh, it's all nice a cosy in many cases, and belief based on nothing at all but the inability to falsify it, may give some people a sense of purpose and community, but don't pretend that it is always like that and that it never has negative consequences. Encouraging people to live in a make-believe reality just because it suits them and nobody can falsify it (which is what you are doing) is risky.

Atheism makes no sense. It is a rejection, based on nothing, of a possibility that could afford the atheist positive results.

This is a staggering self-contradiction! You've just basically said that people should believe whatever works for them and now you're saying "unless it doesn't involve any god(s)". Have you actually given any thought to this at all?

I actually find what you are suggesting horrifying - Sam Harris expressed it well: "This to me is the true horror of religion, it allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions what only lunatics could believe on their own. If you wake up tomorrow morning thinking that saying a few Latin words over your pancakes is going to turn them into the body of Elvis Presley - you have lost your mind. But if you think more or less the same thing about a cracker and the body of Jesus you're just a Catholic."

 

[PureX]

So this is a reworking of "if it feels good, do it", except it's "if feels good, believe it".

It has little to do what one "feels", and everything to do with what one values in life.

There is no guarantee that a belief in some god (or demon or anything else unfalsifiable) will work in a positive way. What "works" for an individual may be positively damaging to other people.

Well, that's true of EVERYTHING we humans believe and do. One could certainly say the same of (falsifiable) science, couldn't they. And God knows it applies to commerce, and to government. But keep in mind that among the 7 billion humans on this planet, the vast majority of whom are theists, only a very small fraction of them are actually trying to harm anyone else based on their theistic beliefs. Most, in fact, are seeking to do just the opposite.

If one's theology were not working for them, they would almost certainly drop it, or change it, to gain a more positive result. And the same would be true of any applied ideology. If it is working for them, but at the expense of others, then it becomes a personal moral issue to keep it or change it, just as it does with any applied ideology (capitalism, for example).

Quite apart from the obvious case of religiously inspired terrorism, there are cults that, for example, encourage people to ignore medical advice. These faith beliefs can lead to all sorts of conflicts with other faiths - who have to audacity to believe in the "wrong" god(s).

Yes, humans abuse other humans. And they'll use whatever reasoning or excuse they find available when that desire strikes. Trying to tie it exclusively to religion is a fools errand. And a bigoted fool, at that.

Oh, it's all nice a cosy in many cases, and belief based on nothing at all but the inability to falsify it, may give some people a sense of purpose and community, but don't pretend that it is always like that and that it never has negative consequences. Encouraging people to live in a make-believe reality just because it suits them and nobody can falsify it (which is what you are doing) is risky.

It's not based on nothing at all. It's based on hope, and on idealized desire, and on necessity. And you keep overlooking the fact that all reality is "make-believe" to we humans because your own subjective bias has convinced you that your reality is truth, and that it's everyone else's that must be "make-believe". But in this you are as deluded as you are accusing everyone else of being.

That's absurd irony of atheism.

I actually find what you are suggesting horrifying - Sam Harris expressed it well: "This to me is the true horror of religion, it allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions what only lunatics could believe on their own. If you wake up tomorrow morning thinking that saying a few Latin words over your pancakes is going to turn them into the body of Elvis Presley - you have lost your mind. But if you think more or less the same thing about a cracker and the body of Jesus you're just a Catholic."

You feel that way because you think your truth is THE TRUTH. Same as any zealot does. The only difference being that their truth accepts and affords possibilities that yours does not.

 

[columbus]

The point here is that faith in God works for millions of people whether God exists or not.

So does alcohol, money, and weed.

There's a reason that somebody famous referred to religion as "the opiate of the masses". And somebody referred to Christianity as "the religion of slaves".

Because it "works", as you put it.
Tom

 

[PureX]

So does alcohol, money, and weed.

There's a reason that somebody famous referred to religion as "the opiate of the masses". And somebody referred to Christianity as "the religion of slaves".

Because it "works", as you put it.
Tom

We all use all kinds of tools all the time. The key is to use them well, and to positive effect.

 

[Jollybear]

I'm getting some great feedback and thoughtful replies. Thanks for the discussion!



Agreeable, for the most part.

We'll take the deistic view of deities: There is a God out there that exists outside of the realm of spacetime who is responsible for creation. Now, we can search for evidence of such a god concept and find no evidence; but here, the lack of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But when we go to the realm of the theistic views of personal deities who interacts in the goings on of mankind, then that deity interacts with the natural world. In interacting with the natural world, within our view of observation and possible experimentation, it seems to me that this deity would inevitably leave evidence of its existence. So if we search for that evidence and find none, would that not place reasonable doubt on the existence of that deity in light of the absence of the evidence we would expect to see?



Is it any clearer after recent posts, or do you still wish for clarification?

Unfortabately i didnt read every post. Just yours and mayby 2 others.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

If God created the laws of physics, why would we assume that God could not negate them at will, and then reinstate them at will?

I'm not saying that such a deity couldn't do such a thing. What I am saying is that, should this deity perform such acts, there would be evidence left behind for us to investigate.

If I pray to God for a new car, and I win a new car in a raffle the next day, I would consider that strong evidence.

This has been responded to and I concur with the response. The fact that a prayer seems answered is not necessarily evidence that the answer was due to the prayer being answered; let alone being answered by the deity you prayed to.

If, however, the car is NOT won, the believer would then insist that the prayer was still answered; but the answer was "no" as it was not God's will. It is an unfalsifiable position and because it is unfalsifiable, it is not evidence (let alone strong evidence).

Correlation is not always causation.

I’ve no issue with the idea of a mysterious and unknowable deity, I do question the idea of a mysterious and unknowable deity who has somehow specifically defined which animals we’re allowed to eat, how long our hair should be or which day of the week we should gather in a big building to worship them.

[Like!]

Of course we can. It’d be very easy to assess a whole load of prayers people make and determine how many are fulfilled, balanced by a predicted chance of those things happening anyway – it’s probably been done.

It has been done specifically in prayer "intervention" for the sick.

Theology is not science, and science is not theology. Neither criteria should be applied to the other. For some strange reason, though, (materialist) atheists INSIST on applying scientific criteria (intended to investigate physics) to theological propositions (regarding metaphysical phenomena). I think it's because they see a straw man they can easily knock apart (even though it's a completely irrelevant victory).

Claims made about the natural world can be investigated by science, because science deals in the natural world. Can a human being live 3 days in the belly of a whale? Was there a flood or exodus? Is the earth 6000 years old? These are descriptions and claims pertaining to the natural world, and thus can be investigated.

Claims by believers that do not pertain to the natural world can not be investigated by science. However, they can still be analyzed by logic, inductive and deductive reasoning and by other means.

For we humans, experience is truth.

I disagree. Experience is purely subjective. Our experience may not be as we believe it to be; in fact, studies about memory have shown how faulty human memory truly is. Our memories and subjective perceptions about experiences rarely reflect the true nature of the given phenomenon.

And that goes as much for science as it is does for religion, or for anything else.

No. It doesn't. Eyewitness testimony and subjective experiences are the lowest, and most faulty forms of evidence in the scientific arena.

You are assuming that consensus (repeatability/universality) = truth.

Not "truth" in the philosophical sense. Repeatability gives us explanations or examples on how the world works; and from that, we can form predictive models of reality.

Unfortabately i didnt read every post. Just yours and mayby 2 others.

If a claim is made and we search for evidence for that claim, and fine no credible evidence, then does that lack of evidence supporting that claim equate to the claim being false?

 

[ratiocinator]

If one's theology were not working for them, they would almost certainly drop it, or change it, to gain a more positive result.

Don't be silly, most people stick with the faith they were brought up in. Changing one's faith, in some societies, can be costly or even deadly.

If it is working for them, but at the expense of others, then it becomes a personal moral issue to keep it or change it, just as it does with any applied ideology (capitalism, for example).

Not if you've been convinced that the almighty god of all creation will condemn you to hell for all eternity if you dare to question its teachings.

Yes, humans abuse other humans. And they'll use whatever reasoning or excuse they find available when that desire strikes. And they'll use whatever reasoning or excuse they find available when that desire strikes. Trying to tie it exclusively to religion is a fools errand. And a bigoted fool, at that.

I didn't try to tie it to religion exclusively - but discouraging one of the reasons people abuse each other, especially an unnecessary and irrational one, has to be a good idea.

It's not based on nothing at all. It's based on hope, and on idealized desire, and on necessity.

What necessity? Pretending that things that you hope for are real, is useful, how?

And you keep overlooking the fact that all reality is "make-believe" to we humans because your own subjective bias has convinced you that your reality is truth, and that it's everyone else's that must be "make-believe". But in this you are as deluded as you are accusing everyone else of being.

That's absurd irony of atheism.

This is just silly. If you think that all reality is make-believe, try jumping out of a tenth story window and floating majestically to the ground using only make-believe (don't really!). The 'objective' world is there, we can distinguish it from the other contents of mind, it is shared, and it is unavoidable. If it isn't reality, it might as well be.

 

[PureX]

I'm not saying that such a deity couldn't do such a thing. What I am saying is that, should this deity perform such acts, there would be evidence left behind for us to investigate.

What makes you presume so?

If "God" were floating in the air right in front of me, right now, in "a blaze of glory", claiming to be God, how would I determine that what I'm seeing and hearing is God? What evidence would I have or could I use that could stand as proof that it's God, and not some very clever alien, or a magician's trick, or some generated experience in my own mind? And if I can't verify it when it's right in front of me, how would I do so a millennium later?

This has been responded to and I concur with the response. The fact that a prayer seems answered is not necessarily evidence that the answer was due to the prayer being answered; let alone being answered by the deity you prayed to.

Nor is it proof that it was not answered by God. So we have a choice as to what we will believe about it. And if that choice cannot be based on empirical evidence, it could reasonably be based on a positive personal result.

If, however, the car is NOT won, the believer would then insist that the prayer was still answered; but the answer was "no" as it was not God's will. It is an unfalsifiable position and because it is unfalsifiable, it is not evidence (let alone strong evidence).

Correlation is not always causation.

When causation cannot be verified, that axiom becomes irrelevant. And we need to look for another criteria for determination.

Claims made about the natural world can be investigated by science, because science deals in the natural world.

Science can only investigate the interfunctionality of the natural world. Not the cause, nor the purpose. So it does not define what is or is not natural, for us. It can only illuminate some functional relationships within nature.

Can a human being live 3 days in the belly of a whale? Was there a flood or exodus? Is the earth 6000 years old? These are descriptions and claims pertaining to the natural world, and thus can be investigated.

Because these are mythical representations of spiritual axioms (artifice), your questions are completely irrelevant, and thereby pointless.

Claims by believers that do not pertain to the natural world can not be investigated by science. However, they can still be analyzed by logic, inductive and deductive reasoning and by other means.

Some theists are as blind to artifice as you are being. And so cannot differentiate between the ideological content and the artificial representation. But I see no value in one blind man arguing with another about what they presume themselves to be seeing.

I disagree. Experience is purely subjective. Our experience may not be as we believe it to be; in fact, studies about memory have shown how faulty human memory truly is. Our memories and subjective perceptions about experiences rarely reflect the true nature of the given phenomenon.

Everything we experience is experienced subjectively, because WE are the subjects doing the experiencing. This is as true of science as it is of spirituality. And the idealization of objectivity does not magically override this limitation. Everything we experience, is experienced subjectively, and everything we know is understood subjectively. The same limitations apply to it all, because we are the limitation.

Not "truth" in the philosophical sense. Repeatability gives us explanations or examples on how the world works; and from that, we can form predictive models of reality.

How the world works is a part of truth, but partial truth is subjective, and relative, and should not be presumed to be always or absolutely true.

If a claim is made and we search for evidence for that claim, and fine no credible evidence, then does that lack of evidence supporting that claim equate to the claim being false?

In this case the claims are imagined, and the evidence does not exist. In science this would be a hypothesis that could not be tested.

 

[sayak83]

???

Yes, when evidence is expected.
If I don't see a jar on the table, its evidence of the absence of jar on the table...obviously.

 

[PureX]

Don't be silly, most people stick with the faith they were brought up in. Changing one's faith, in some societies, can be costly or even deadly.

No one controls what one chooses to believe. They can only control their actions, and only then, by force. And choosing to believe our oppressors can be considered a positive functional choice.

Not if you've been convinced that the almighty god of all creation will condemn you to hell for all eternity if you dare to question its teachings.

We choose to accept such threats as real for a reason. We could choose not to accept them. You are giving religion power that it does not have. And when you ask yourself why people choose to believe such religious threats, you will find that they gain an advantage of some sort from doing so. Most of the human carnage done in the name of religion was motivated by very non-religious desires. The religion was just twisted and used as an excuse to pursue those desires. Same as we twist and use politics, or economics, or race, or history, or whatever else.

I didn't try to tie it to religion exclusively - but discouraging one of the reasons people abuse each other, especially an unnecessary and irrational one, has to be a good idea.

Your blind presumption that religion is unnecessary and irrational is your own false bias. And one you are working hard to maintain.

 

[ratiocinator]

No one controls what one chooses to believe. They can only control their actions, and only then, by force. And choosing to believe our oppressors can be considered a positive functional choice.

We choose to accept such threats as real for a reason. We could choose not to accept them.

Well this is all very well to say in our cosy little intellectual bubble here, but I think you underestimate the power of having a belief system drummed into you from infancy.

You are giving religion power that it does not have. And when you ask yourself why people choose to believe such religious threats, you will find that they gain an advantage of some sort from doing so.

Like not dying or not being cut off from all of their family and social group?

Your blind presumption that religion is unnecessary and irrational is your own false bias. And one you are working hard to maintain.

As I asked in the part of my post you ignored, why do you think religion is necessary? I see no necessity for it. As for irrationality, it's believing something for no other reason than you want it to be true and it can't be falsified - that's irrational.

 

[PureX]

Well this is all very well to say in our cosy little intellectual bubble here, but I think you underestimate the power of having a belief system drummed into you from infancy.

And I think you way over-estimate it because you confuse compliance with alliance.

Like not dying or not being cut off from all of their family and social group?

Again, compliance rather than alliance.

As I asked in the part of my post you ignored, why do you think religion is necessary?

Religion isn't, but faith is. Faith moves us forward when knowledge can no longer light the way. And for we humans, that happens a great deal of the time.

 

[Jollybear]

I'm not saying that such a deity couldn't do such a thing. What I am saying is that, should this deity perform such acts, there would be evidence left behind for us to investigate.



This has been responded to and I concur with the response. The fact that a prayer seems answered is not necessarily evidence that the answer was due to the prayer being answered; let alone being answered by the deity you prayed to.

If, however, the car is NOT won, the believer would then insist that the prayer was still answered; but the answer was "no" as it was not God's will. It is an unfalsifiable position and because it is unfalsifiable, it is not evidence (let alone strong evidence).

Correlation is not always causation.



[Like!]



It has been done specifically in prayer "intervention" for the sick.



Claims made about the natural world can be investigated by science, because science deals in the natural world. Can a human being live 3 days in the belly of a whale? Was there a flood or exodus? Is the earth 6000 years old? These are descriptions and claims pertaining to the natural world, and thus can be investigated.

Claims by believers that do not pertain to the natural world can not be investigated by science. However, they can still be analyzed by logic, inductive and deductive reasoning and by other means.



I disagree. Experience is purely subjective. Our experience may not be as we believe it to be; in fact, studies about memory have shown how faulty human memory truly is. Our memories and subjective perceptions about experiences rarely reflect the true nature of the given phenomenon.



No. It doesn't. Eyewitness testimony and subjective experiences are the lowest, and most faulty forms of evidence in the scientific arena.



Not "truth" in the philosophical sense. Repeatability gives us explanations or examples on how the world works; and from that, we can form predictive models of reality.



If a claim is made and we search for evidence for that claim, and fine no credible evidence, then does that lack of evidence supporting that claim equate to the claim being false?

It dont equate to the claim being false perse. It dont equate to it being true either. It could be true, it could be false.

I know in the case for God, agnostics say theres no evidence for God, but that dont perse mean theres no God. There may be one, there may not.

But, i find this odd because there IS evidence for God.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

If "God" were floating in the air right in front of me, right now, in "a blaze of glory", claiming to be God, how would I determine that what I'm seeing and hearing is God? What evidence would I have or could I use that could stand as proof that it's God, and not some very clever alien, or a magician's trick, or some generated experience in my own mind? And if I can't verify it when it's right in front of me, how would I do so a millennium later?

In the part of apparitions, there is validity to that statement. However, we have the story of Exodus with no evidence to substantiate it. We have the story of the flood, with no evidence to substantiate it. We have sites and places named but can't seem to be located. We have claims of miraculous healings, to this very day, but they can't be validated and are most often found to be fraudulent. We have the Creation myth, which is refuted by almost every scientific discipline.

With things such as apparitions and the like, we then consider the source, and we find the source to be uncredible (see above); so rightfully question the source. If practically every claim made by the source which we can investigate is found to be false, why should we believe the claims that can't be investigated?

Nor is it proof that it was not answered by God. So we have a choice as to what we will believe about it. And if that choice cannot be based on empirical evidence, it could reasonably be based on a positive personal result.

No.

The rational answer to the question is, "I don't know why".

I need a new car. I write a letter to Santa Clause and tell him I need a new car. Dad gives me a new car for Christmas. To say, "I don't know why my dad gave me a new car for Christmas, so Santa Clause must have told him!"; we would find that ridiculous. This is not a reasonable conclusion, no matter how likely it is that it is based on a positive result.

When causation cannot be verified, that axiom becomes irrelevant. And we need to look for another criteria for determination.

Again, no.
We need to seek a criteria that is supported by evidence.
Not pull one out of our hindside.
If I prayed to Zeus for the new car and won the raffle, would that be evidence for Zeus?

Science can only investigate the interfunctionality of the natural world. Not the cause, nor the purpose. So it does not define what is or is not natural, for us. It can only illuminate some functional relationships within nature.

Science can definitely determine cause in many aspects. "Purpose" is a weak word in this discussion, as it can suggest teleological thinking, so without clarification, I will skip this claim. It can definitely determine that some events are not natural, and thus frame for us what "is" natural.

Everything we experience is experienced subjectively, because WE are the subjects doing the experiencing. This is as true of science as it is of spirituality.

This is why peer review, repeat-ability in experiments, etc. are so important in science; to rule out as much of that subjectivity as possible. These steps are not present in religion.

How the world works is a part of truth, but partial truth is subjective, and relative, and should not be presumed to be always or absolutely true.

Here we have the word "truth" which can be a tricky word, implying philosophical connotations. Nothing is science is presumed to be always or absolutely true, as all conclusions of science stand to be criticized and refined (if not completely thrown out) in light of new evidence.

But, i find this odd because there IS evidence for God.

Oh? Please, present it, if you like?