whosetosay...
Member
I was not aware off Topic, Is that the topic is in the wrong section
Unvarifiable Belief
Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by SigurdReginson, Sunday at 7:30 PM.
So not off topic for the religious debate section
-
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!
Unvarifiable Belief
- Thread starter SigurdReginson
- Start date
I was not aware off Topic, Is that the topic is in the wrong section
Unvarifiable Belief
Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by SigurdReginson, Sunday at 7:30 PM.
So not off topic for the religious debate section
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Yes, it is off topic in this thread. Make another one where this is on topic and I will participate.
If trustworthy testimony is a valid form of evidence in a law court, could it be a valid form of evidence in a religious claim?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Existence. Where did it first differ from non-existence?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Sure.
I like to think of it rather as an educated guess , because any belief I have is founded on at least some foundation that can be pointed out and verified for which the educated guess is made.
Such beliefs are essentially open to change as new information can be introduced , thereby altering my views to accommodate any changes or alterations that may occur.
Depends. If a group of people said that someone shot up a mall, but there was no physical evidence like bullet casings on the floor or bullet holes, and there were no reported deaths or other reports of a mall shooting, the testimony becomes suspect; even if those giving the testimony are trustworthy. Testimony requires verifiable evidence to be considered valid.
I think that religious claims require even more thorough testing, though, like testing done on a scientific level. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Hmmm... Maybe mundane, but unverifiable beliefs are easier to believe because because they do mirror verifiable things. As people say, they are "educated guesses." Those can be wrong, and if they are, we just adapt- but those beliefs don't necessarily impact day to day life.
Most mundane things we deal with in daily life are already well known. When we guess about other mundane things outside of what we already deal with, it doesn't really impact our lives directly. Those beliefs generally seem pretty harmless.
Many supernatural beliefs are often said to be able to influence daily life, however. Things such as prayer, demonic influence, and gifts of the holy spirit are examples I can think of off the top of my head. Some of those beliefs can be pretty harmful, like if someone tries to cast demons out of the child when they have a mental illness instead of just taking them to see a psychologist.
Then again, mundane unverifiable beliefs can also be harmful too, now that I think about it. Alien abductions come to mind (even though those can be explained via sleep paralysis), as well as many other conspiracies. Those are beliefs that can usurp more readily seen mundane beliefs in workings that we already know and deal with every day.
Postulating that aliens could exist is one thing, but saying that they abduct people is another. Postulating that gods exist is one thing, but saying you can cast demons out of people is another.
Sorry if some of this isn't making sense... I literally just woke up and I am in dire need of some coffee. I'm just letting my mind run on a tangent and freewheel to help kickstart my brain.
If trustworthy testimony in a court of law where the attestation cannot be verified externally can be considered valid, then why not with a religious claim?
Well... they say there's this Tower on the Champ de Mars in France, but I've never seen it.
When it decided that it exists.Existence. Where did it first differ from non-existence?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Like your amusing answer, but this is the very last question that we are facing. What made it to decide so? Solve this and you have solved all questions of the universe.When it decided that it exists.
Must there have been a cause?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Sure, that is a relevant point. It could just be the nature of 'whatever exists' - for Hindus, Brahman. Perhaps Brahman is not bound by the human concept of existence and has a non-existence phase also. RigVeda pointed to that 3,000 years ago.
"Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent."
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation "Nasadiya Sukta", generally referred as the Hindu Creation hymn.
Nasadiya Sukta: Interestingly it employs a double negative. (Na a sat = Not not exists)
"Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent."
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation "Nasadiya Sukta", generally referred as the Hindu Creation hymn.
Nasadiya Sukta: Interestingly it employs a double negative. (Na a sat = Not not exists)
Last edited:
Well... Could we say that with everything? Could we solve sceintific theses in the court of law using eye witness testimony? It doesn't apply. Same with religious claims.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The evidence needed to pass peer review in scientific claims is thorough... Religious claims need to at least be able to meet those standards if they make extraordinary claims on objective reality.
Why would we solve a scientific thesis in a court of law since it can be verified externally?
The original question is about cases in law courts where the only source of knowledge is trustworthy testimony: if trustworthy testimony is held as valid in that sphere, then why could it not be valid in the sphere of religious claims?
A court of law cannot find truth. This is why the verdict is "not guilty" instead of "innocent."
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Since how long? What was before it? How will it end, if it will? Why does it behave the way it does?What happens when it ends? Why it may not end? No dearth of questions to keep us occupied for the next hundred or two hundred years.
What is your description of 'trustworthy testimony'? Examples, one or two?
Scientific claims are claims that are meant to explain the nature of reality you and I share, and scientific claims utilize the scientific method to get to the core of those claims and test if they actually do reflect reality or not. Keep in mind, the scientific method is an all encompassing and universal system. Revisions can be made if better evidence comes into play to get just that much closer to the nature of reality. It's results are consistent, repeatable, and reliable.
Courts of law are establishments utilized to settle disputes such as murder trials or law suits. Their main goal is to settle disputes as fairly as possible according to the laws of the land: to reach a fair judgement. What constitutes "fairness" is often dictated by the judge, and he will tweak the rulings as he sees fit according to those laws of the land. Keep in mind, those laws change from system to system (state to state, country to country, constitution to constitution), and valid and admittable evidence has different standards among those systems. There is no clear cut universal way to settle claims using this method.
Also, while a court case may try to reconstruct events to best reflect reality as much as possible, it can still be swayed according to the jurors, the judge, the lawyers, or the restrictions of the law (evidence can be thrown out at the whim of the judge). Keep in mind, when the times come where they do try to reconstruct events, they do utilize science to help paint that picture. DNA evidence did a LOT to set many people who were unfairly convicted free; many of these people were convicted on eye witness accounts.
Now, which spheres do you think religious claims over lap with? Claims that try to explain the nature of reality, or claims that try to settle disputes? There's a reason why Yahweh is often referred to as "god of the gaps."
God of the gaps
Last edited:
tarasan
Well-Known Member
I suppose there are lots of things that can't be verified for example the outside physical world. I assume that what is around me is real that I talk to independent beings everyday but if u asked me to quantifyably prove it I couldnt without using circular reasoning.
Very interesting... Yah, our reality is subjective.
I could think I'm typing this message to you on my laptop while sipping my morning coffee, while in reality I could be strapped to a gurney in a madhouse just mumbling to myself. If I could construct a reality this intricate in my mind independant of what was actually happening, though, that would truly be impressive.