mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Okay, you are a simple person and I am irrational. But I know that for both cases. So what do you know?
-
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!
Lack of evidence
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
Okay, you are a simple person and I am irrational. But I know that for both cases. So what do you know?
When to conserve effort.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Or no actual understanding of evidence. Get some education about the history and limits of evidence, if you want to use that word.
Do you claim to understand it?
What difference does that make?
Why not?
What does that have to do with the literal existence of a god?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
At least for the basics for all versions for truth, proof, evidence and knowledge, then yes.
Tell us all about it.
Don't leave anything out.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, don't just post a link.
Tell us.
Besides, Agrippa's opinions & even existence are subjective.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Okay, I will simply rewrite. No, I won't. Read the text and ask for clarification.
Your instructors didn't write everything themselves. Nor am I going to do that. Read the text and we will talk about it.
This is a basic site about science. Read it yourself: Understanding Science 101 - Understanding Science
It has already been done and then we can talk about it.
That is how modern teaching is done at this level. You read a text and then...
I'm disappointed.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah and not willing to learn as something you do. I can't learn something for you. You have to do that. I can help you, if you read the texts and ask questions.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, you know a part of STEM, so you don't have to learn more. Get that. I do it differently.
Tinker Grey
Wanderer
I'm here to enjoy discussion and perhaps learn from it. I'm not here to be given homework assignments.Yeah, you know a part of STEM, so you don't have to learn more. Get that. I do it differently.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, here it is for you and all the rest including me. Just as some people don't understand science, because they have to learn it. Some people don't understand the limit of science, because they have to learn it.
So if someone claim something I try to read about that and try to understand the position.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Evidence to the contrary is why people don't believe in God. Lack of evidence does not mean there is no God. But it was never about the mere lack of evidence. It's about evidence to the contrary.
God is often defined as having magical abilities. No one has ever witnessed magic to be anything but illusion.
God is often defined as having magical abilities. No one has ever witnessed magic to be anything but illusion.
... you assume, because you lack evidence to the contrary?
And of course objective thinkers rely on the definitions and descriptions of the many thousands of gods from the believers. When believers fail to articulate what they mean or believe when they refer to their God it suggests a lack of knowledge themselves, and they are confusing a general idea of their God with what they believe. Believers often seem to be caught off guard with questions by skeptics.
So it's not a matter of an objective thinker not finding evidence, but the believers who have not thought through what they believe and claim.
Skeptics see this quite a bit. I ask believers who claim some sort of special ability to sense a God if they have this actual ability, and it is very rare that a believer claims to have special ability, like an extra sensory ability to detect God. Even the few that have claimed such an ability they have failed to articulate any actual ability, so likely it was just a desperate bluff.
Besides, what God are we referring to? Gaia is essentially earth, and anyone can detect earth. It's just an "eye of the beholder" situation where a claimant has their own type of God and experience that applies to how ordinary mortals can detect the divine.
Another typical claim that offers no actual explanations. I notice you make this point, but offer no evidence that it is practical or reliable.
We do see believers share their evidence and it is reliably poor.4) ...
Also, if those who know don't share their evidence then such a claim would be false too of course
@stvdvRF
To me lack of evidence for a god doesn't mean a god doesn't exist.
It means we don't yet know if a god does or not.
100's of years ago we had lack of evidence for DNA, evolution, and even dinosaurs... Yet even though unknown to us at the time, they all existed.
While I don't accept or believe in something without evidence, I also will not rule it out or think its impossible.
PS: save your unicorn and spaghetti monster comments for the funny papers
The term "evidence" is a fabrication made up by the angelic beings to fool humans. As a matter of fact, humans NEVER EVER rely on evidence to get to a truth of any kind.
Joe Biden won the majority vote. Do you, as an individual human being, have the evidence. You don't! They the authority responsible for counting the votes may have the evidence (now they choose to rely on a computer server to try to do so more reliably which is questionable, as it's more reliable than humans only under the circumstance that no human is cheating). So if you don't actually have the evidence of the resulting votes, how do you know that it's fact! It is by your faith that it's a fact. It is because truth is by faith that Trump can actually deny it!. So it became a bet on either you trust the media with faith, or you trust Trump with faith. In either case, evidence never arrives you. To put it another way, if the votes can be evidenced to you, then Trump cannot lie (or perhaps our media lies which we cannot tell either).
In reality, evidence comes scarcely to humans, and humans never rely on it to get to a truth. Instead, they rely on a credible source (such as our media) which is supposed to gather facts from an extremely small amount of humans who interact with these facts directly, those are the witnesses. We put faith on a authority we deem reliable and credible by the assumption that this authority responsibly gathers facts/truths for us to trust/believe with faith!. That's how we get to facts, there's never another way round (or any alternative ways are never efficient to humans)!
In WWII, there is an event named as the Nanjing Massacre, involving a death toll of 300,000 civilians as claimed by the Chinese but denied by the Japanese. So if history can be evidenced, the Japanese cannot deny it. It is because it if faith based that it can be denied. Even in the case that this is true, it can only be conveyed as a testimony from those experienced and witnessed it. There's no other way (or better way) for humans to get to this fact at all! Here we are talking about 300,000 humans being killed, not to mentioned 1 out of them being crucified!!! The math is simple, if it's impossible for humans to evidence the death of 300,000 humans, how possible is it for them to evidence the death of 1 human (in terms of history that is)?!
Last edited: