homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Evidence (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Evidence
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Evidence.

It seems to me that this is a word which is often used with the assumption that the reader or hearer will naturally know what it means, but actually it may mean different things to different people.

There is empirical evidence, the evidence of logic and then degrees of strength of evidence, direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, and even the evidence of personal experience and testimony.

A common assertion is: "there is no evidence for God" or "there is no demonstrable evidence for God".

I have often asked such people what they mean by the word 'evidence' and the reply I get is usually along the lines of "whatever would be accepted in a court of law". This answer has a whiff of circularity about it.

So if you were sitting on a jury, what kind of evidence would you accept as legitimate? And why?

[ 10. April 2013, 05:43: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942

 - Posted      Profile for the giant cheeseburger     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Evidence, like all words, only has meaning within context.

The question of which evidence should be accepted by a jury is easy - they, as legal laypeople, are directed by the judge as to which evidence they shall consider.

--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?

Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Eyewitness testimony is admissible in most courts. What people generally mean is that there is no proof of God, i.e. that they are not convinced by the available evidence.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have sat on a jury and we all believed nothing and everything. It was one of the most complex experiences of my life. And MOST analogous to the whole.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hmmm - more thinking required! I am conscious when using the word evidence that it is difficult to pin ddown exactly what I mean in any particular context.

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Og, King of Bashan

Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562

 - Posted      Profile for Og, King of Bashan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
The question of which evidence should be accepted by a jury is easy - they, as legal laypeople, are directed by the judge as to which evidence they shall consider.

And I think that many lay people would be surprised by how the rules of evidence that courts apply work. At least in the United States, a lot of it has its origins in common law, and is based on what to some might seem like rather arcane ideas. For instance, an out of court statement cannot be offered for the truth of the statement under the hearsay rule. But if the out of court statement was made by someone who believes that they are at death's door and the statement is about the cause of their death, you can get that statement in front of a jury, because everyone knows that a dying person won't risk lying right before their soul is judged.

The rules of evidence work in my brain, but I think a lot of people with a more post modern disposition might think they are pretty stupid.

--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy

Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
One of the things that often strikes me is how 'modernist' many people with a supernaturalist or highly charismatic approach are when it comes to issues like 'evidence' or to allegory and symbolism etc. The same person can often be pre-modernist, modernist and modernist at one and the same time.

I think we can see this at work in all Christian traditions ... a selective fundamentalism as it were.

It is very peculiar. But then, people are peculiar.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185

 - Posted      Profile for que sais-je   Email que sais-je   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Assuming you don't just mean law courts (where, I would agree with cheeseburger, evidence is what the judges says is evidence), I'd pinch a very sensible quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Insofar as we are rational in our beliefs, the intensity of belief will tend to correspond to the firmness of the available evidence. Insofar as we are rational, we will drop a belief when we have tried in vain to find evidence for it.
—Quine and Ullian, The Web of Belief

On the other hand I have limited belief in my rationality. I hang onto beliefs for which there is little evidence and reject some for which there is a great deal. Does anyone else find that "reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions"? If you want to believe you do, the evidence can always be found later.

‘Let the jury consider their verdict,’ the King said, ....
‘No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first — verdict afterwards.’


--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)

Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Og, King of Bashan

Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562

 - Posted      Profile for Og, King of Bashan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The same person can often be pre-modernist, modernist and modernist at one and the same time.

Yes. A few Easters ago, a member of our congregation pulled me aside after Easter to run through the old talk about how Jesus must have actually died on the cross and come back to life, because there was no other logical explanation. He couldn't have just passed out and then pushed the stone away, because Romans were trained killers, not enough energy, etc.

That talk always surprises me a bit. Believing in the resurrection of Jesus is, I admit, crazy enough. I don't really think that scientific evidence is going to be helpful in proving that it actually happened- you just have to have faith that it happened.

On the other side of the same coin are people who try to use science to show that the events described in the Bible might actually have been natural events that were mistaken by people for divine intervention. Like the people who tie the plagues of Egypt with a particular fungus growing in the Nile and a volcanic eruption in the Mediterranean. As if the possibility that the scriptures might not be a reliable historical source has never crossed their minds.

--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy

Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican_Brat   Email Anglican_Brat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Didn't Hume and Kant both disprove the notion of evidence in an objective manner?

My philosophy is rusty, but from what I recall is that both Hume and Kant argued is that you could never prove X caused Y, because it was all a matter of your mind making the connection, as in, the notion of scientific knowledge being objective observation of the natural world is simplistic. Now this is considered extreme idealism, the notion that nothing exists outside of one's mind, but neither Hume or Kant should be understood as using their philosophy to justify religious thinking, far from it, Kant only concluded that God existed on the basis of ethics, not on any metaphysical evidence.

--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.

Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
que sais-je, everybody here does whether they deny, admit, know it or not.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Og, King of Bashan, yes, I've seen this too ... and from people from whom I would least expect it at times.

When it gets really bizarre is when people start to offer literal, scientific information about ocean currents and so on in response to the reference to 'the paths of the seas' in the Psalms and to astrological phenomena and fields of gravity and so forth in relation to some of the references to Orion and the Pleaides in the Book of Job. As if God was leaving scientific clues in poetic or pre-modernist literature ...

I sometimes wonder whether these people have ever watched a film or seen a play or read a poem in their lives.

Mind you, it doesn't just happen in Christian circles.

I well remember watching an RSC production of King Lear when, in the interval, after Gloster had lost his eyes, an old lady behind me turned to her friends and said, "I don't think he'd have been able to say all that if he'd just had his eyes plucked out, do you?"
To which one of her companions responded, "I don't know, they were a lot tougher in those days ..."

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
deano
princess
# 12063

 - Posted      Profile for deano   Email deano   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I have often asked such people what they mean by the word 'evidence' and the reply I get is usually along the lines of "whatever would be accepted in a court of law". This answer has a whiff of circularity about it.

I always find the answer about the courts of law to be quite ironic. I like to watch the looks on their face when I point out that most witness evidence in a UK courtroom is only allowed after the witness has sworn an oath before God to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help them God. So the courts have accepted that God exists!

--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot

Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As a Christian I ONLY ever affirm.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I have often asked such people what they mean by the word 'evidence' and the reply I get is usually along the lines of "whatever would be accepted in a court of law". This answer has a whiff of circularity about it.

I always find the answer about the courts of law to be quite ironic. I like to watch the looks on their face when I point out that most witness evidence in a UK courtroom is only allowed after the witness has sworn an oath before God to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help them God. So the courts have accepted that God exists!
It is perfectly acceptable in courts in the UK to make a (secular) affirmation rather than swear a theist oath, and it makes no difference to whether the testimony is accepted. Incidentally, as the Quakers have always insisted, the former is far more appropriate from a Christian perspective.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
deano
princess
# 12063

 - Posted      Profile for deano   Email deano   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
As a Christian I ONLY ever affirm.

Then, unless you have a very, very good reason for doing that and are able to convince the judge and council, you are skirting with having your evidence dismissed and possibly being held in contempt of court.

--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot

Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
deano
princess
# 12063

 - Posted      Profile for deano   Email deano   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It is perfectly acceptable in courts in the UK to make a (secular) affirmation rather than swear a theist oath, and it makes no difference to whether the testimony is accepted. Incidentally, as the Quakers have always insisted, the former is far more appropriate from a Christian perspective.

I know, which is why I said "most" witness evidence, instead of all.

As I understand it, I think most people do still swear the oath.

In any case, you are missing my point, which is that the courts have already accepted the de facto existence of God, as evidenced (pun intended) by having a witness swear to God to tell the truth.

Thus, whatever evidence exists, it is acceptable in a court of law.

--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot

Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
As a Christian I ONLY ever affirm.

Then, unless you have a very, very good reason for doing that and are able to convince the judge and council, you are skirting with having your evidence dismissed and possibly being held in contempt of court.
Deano, that is absolute garbage. In the UK, here, and in any other jurisdiction of which I know, any witness has the choice of taking a religious oath or a secular affirmation. In less than a minute, and using the very unfriendly UK legislation site, I found the Oaths Act 1978 s.5. You might like to read that. Martin chooses the affirmation. I assume he does so on the basis that he should not take an oath before God in secular proceedings. That is not a common opinion, but it is one deeply held by a number of people.

Your argument that

In any case, you are missing my point, which is that the courts have already accepted the de facto existence of God, as evidenced (pun intended) by having a witness swear to God to tell the truth.

is equally garbage. The courts have not accepted the de facto existence of God, but rather permitted a person to take an oath by God, as permitted by the same Act s.3.

FWIW, when I started legal practice in litigation some 45 years ago, some 90% of witnesses took a Christian oath; about 5% a Jewish oath and the remainder an affirmation. These days, there's a few, perhaps another 5%, who take a religious, but non-Christian, oath In any case, you are missing my point, which is that the courts have already accepted the de facto existence of God, as evidenced (pun intended) by having a witness swear to God to tell the truth.

[ 31. December 2012, 19:42: Message edited by: Gee D ]

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Could a kind host please delete the 3rd passage in bold from my last post please?

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185

 - Posted      Profile for que sais-je   Email que sais-je   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Didn't Hume and Kant both disprove the notion of evidence in an objective manner?

My philosophy is rusty, but from what I recall is that both Hume and Kant argued is that you could never prove X caused Y, because it was all a matter of your mind making the connection, as in, the notion of scientific knowledge being objective observation of the natural world is simplistic. Now this is considered extreme idealism, the notion that nothing exists outside of one's mind, but neither Hume or Kant should be understood as using their philosophy to justify religious thinking, far from it, Kant only concluded that God existed on the basis of ethics, not on any metaphysical evidence.

Hume argued that we couldn't prove that X caused Y but admitted that when he left his study he still believed it did. That is, we seem forced to believe in cause and effect because of our psychology even though, philosophically, we can doubt it. Hume would have been appalled to be called an idealist in the modern sense. Nothing suggests he doubted the existence of external objects - but he did doubt the power of human reason to comprehend them. And he did believe in cause and effect - he just didn't think we could ever prove it existed.

Kant is too hard for me.

--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)

Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
George Spigot

Outcast
# 253

 - Posted      Profile for George Spigot   Author's homepage   Email George Spigot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
How do I see evidence? I suppose I see it as the thing that proves or backs up somebody's claim. So for example if somebody claimed they were born in Birmingham evidence would be a birth certificate. I'm interested in the OP's inclusion of "personal experience and testimony". They sound more like claims to me. For example if somebody told me about their personal experience of climbing mount Everest I'd see that as a claim and I'd go on to ask for the evidence.

[ 31. December 2012, 22:40: Message edited by: George Spigot ]

--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html

Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
As a Christian I ONLY ever affirm.

Then, unless you have a very, very good reason for doing that and are able to convince the judge and council, you are skirting with having your evidence dismissed and possibly being held in contempt of court.
Utter rubbish.

Martin is quite correct in his principles, and he's hardly the only Christian to do it. I know an Anglican minister who does the same. And when some fool of a lawyer tried to suggest he wasn't swearing because he wanted to lie in his testimony, the minister happily quoted Matthew 5:34-37.

The only time I've had to do this was last year (2012), when I was admitted to the legal profession. I affirmed instead of swore. The only person who batted an eyelid was my mother. I explained why I did it.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058

 - Posted      Profile for Net Spinster   Email Net Spinster   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:

In any case, you are missing my point, which is that the courts have already accepted the de facto existence of God, as evidenced (pun intended) by having a witness swear to God to tell the truth.

Actually not, it is only evidence that the courts accept that some people believe in God and feel it is necessary to swear by him/her/it to ensure they are telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Note that Muslims swear by Allah and Hindus and Sikhs also have different oaths. Does that mean the courts believe their religions are de facto correct?

--------------------
spinner of webs

Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010  |  IP: Logged
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058

 - Posted      Profile for Net Spinster   Email Net Spinster   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:

In any case, you are missing my point, which is that the courts have already accepted the de facto existence of God, as evidenced (pun intended) by having a witness swear to God to tell the truth.

Actually not, it is only evidence that the courts accept that some people believe in God and feel it is necessary to swear by him/her/it to ensure they are telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Note that Muslims swear by Allah and Hindus and Sikhs also have different oaths. Does that mean the courts believe their religions are de facto correct?

--------------------
spinner of webs

Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
As a Christian I ONLY ever affirm.

Me too

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet
What people generally mean is that there is no proof of God, i.e. that they are not convinced by the available evidence.

What I have often found is that such people admit that there are no categorical proofs in science, and therefore all conclusions are based on strength of evidence. But yet that doesn't stop them from declaring that "there is no evidence for the existence of God". Clearly if 'evidence' is defined as 'proof', then they would also have to say that "there is no evidence for their own conclusions about reality."

I would suggest that what many atheists mean is that "there is no evidence for the existence of God which convinces them". Then we would have to ask what sort of evidence would convince them?

I was interested to read a comment by Susan Doris on another thread:

quote:
Well, your solid evidence may be able to be argued based on logic, but I guarantee there are scientist now and in the future who will be beavering away at this subject until they have a real, and of course, logical answer -again, however long it takes.
The subject in question was free will. But it's clear from this comment that she distinguishes between logical evidence, on the one hand, and real and logical evidence, on the other. I find this perplexing. What exactly does the word 'real' mean in this context?

Who makes up the rules governing the definition of 'evidence'??

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No evidence can work until we stand before Jesus, unknowing, like Mary Magdalene, and he says our name.

Science turns its head away from the greatest miracle in creation bar none: Fermi's paradox, including in the heads of all here.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Martin PC not and Ship's Biohazard
Science turns its head away from the greatest miracle in creation bar none: Fermi's paradox, including in the heads of all here.

Well, Fermi's paradox is not really even a paradox, as it's based on a false presupposition, namely, the belief that life can arise naturally given the right physical conditions (abiogenesis). If abiogenesis is impossible, then the entire reasoning behind this paradox collapses. All this so called paradox indicates is that abiogenesis should be called into question.

Another piece of strong circumstantial evidence for the necessity of creation.

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Well, Fermi's paradox is not really even a paradox, as it's based on a false presupposition, namely, the belief that life can arise naturally given the right physical conditions (abiogenesis). If abiogenesis is impossible, then the entire reasoning behind this paradox collapses. All this so called paradox indicates is that abiogenesis should be called into question.

You seem fairly sure that abiogenesis can't happen. What evidence do you have to support that belief?

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
All this so called paradox indicates is that abiogenesis should be called into question.

Another piece of strong circumstantial evidence for the necessity of creation.

Not at all. The questions are completely irrelevant to each other. God's act of creation looks natural to the creatures - because from our point of view it is natural, it is the foundation of the world we are in.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
You seem fairly sure that abiogenesis can't happen. What evidence do you have to support that belief?

Because of the chicken and egg scenario of protein / DNA production, which is convincing evidence that abiogenesis is impossible. The "RNA world" theory doesn't answer this, because RNA still has to be decoded by specific proteins that are themselves coded for by the information in RNA. This is an example of irreducible complexity, requiring the immediate appearance of a fully formed complex system, that could not have come into being in stages, which abiogenesis requires.

If we want to carry on this discussion I guess we'll have to do so in DH. I don't really want to see this thread moved, as I had hoped that it would be a general discussion about what counts as legitimate evidence - and not specifically related to origins. (Although I plead guilty to moving it in this direction by my comment about Fermi's Paradox. Sorry!)

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The "RNA world" theory doesn't answer this, because RNA still has to be decoded by specific proteins that are themselves coded for by the information in RNA.

If I understand what you are saying then I'm pretty sure you are entirely wrong about this - maybe you would want to start another thread in Dead Horses to explain what you actually mean by it.

quote:

This is an example of irreducible complexity...

I've never seen any clearly explained example of this mythical "irreducible complexity". If you know of any, please post them (though maybe on another thread)

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yours is the false assumption EE. Fermi's paradox REFUTES abiogenesis empirically off the scale.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
anteater

Ship's pest-controller
# 11435

 - Posted      Profile for anteater   Email anteater   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have always thought that the idea of evidence includes objectivity, i.e. it would be publicly recognised. Hence my love of Mahler is not evidence for his greatness as a composer, but maybe here, the large number of devotees may be evidence.

The difficulty arises when the evidence is in principle objective but not in practice, in the sense that it takes a huge amount of expertise to decide it, as in complex financial court cases, and indeed evolution, where you would need an unrealistically high degree of training and resources to directly assess the evidence.

Hence the reliance on expert witnesses. I have argued before that most (not all) people accept most scientific theories by faith: the faith being in the integrity of the scientific experts, which is why any suggestion that science is getting snarled up in politics can lead to a backlash of skepticism, as in the androgenic climate change arena.

Of course, you then need evidence of expertise, and this usually comes from some government backed structure of qualifications. At one time the church was accepted as a source of expertise. Why it no longer is, is probably a long story.

--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.

Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dancing around the fossilised equine bones here, the whole point of the RNA world is that proteins are not involved in decoding RNA; it proposes self-replicating RNA.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There is no rational or faithful basis for disbelieving abiogenesis IF the universe crawls with life, which by materialism it must. One HAS to believe it. In fact belief is the wrong word. It is SO. There can be no doubt. It isn't a matter for discussion, there is no discussion.

As with God.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet
What people generally mean is that there is no proof of God, i.e. that they are not convinced by the available evidence.

What I have often found is that such people admit that there are no categorical proofs in science, and therefore all conclusions are based on strength of evidence. But yet that doesn't stop them from declaring that "there is no evidence for the existence of God".
I think the right words are more like, 'no verifiable, testable and repeatable' evidence. You cannot provide such evidence/proof/call it whatever you will. You can quote personal experience, which may be very similar to other people's experiences, but name one that cannot be explained by a study of human biological, evolved structure, etc. The ones that are elusive are 'don't know yets'. Just because something can, it seems - and I don't know enough of the language of philosophy to elaborate -, be argued logically to be x or y, does not mean that these conclusions must exist outside of our thoughts in reality.

I've been involved in a discussion about what is real elsewhere and one says that everything is an illusion, since there is no such thing as matter; but of course although every single atom may well be scientifically classified as 95% empty space, there is still matter/energy which, in day to day living, can certainy be counted as reality!!
quote:
Clearly if 'evidence' is defined as 'proof', then they would also have to say that "there is no evidence for their own conclusions about reality."
Can you give me an example or two of any such conclusions about reality by non-believers?
quote:
I would suggest that what many atheists mean is that "there is no evidence for the existence of God which convinces them...
No, not just each individual's personal view, but one which stands up to testing independently and is objective; can consistently be tested and challenged but remain firm. And, of course, updated and improved as necessary.
quote:
Then we would have to ask what sort of evidence would convince them?
Believers bring that up very often, I've found. It is the believers who state that something exists and it should, therefore, be straightforward for them to prove it to non-believers.
quote:
I was interested to read a comment by Susan Doris on another thread:

quote:
Well, your solid evidence may be able to be argued based on logic, but I guarantee there are scientist now and in the future who will be beavering away at this subject until they have a real, and of course, logical answer -again, however long it takes.
The subject in question was free will. But it's clear from this comment that she distinguishes between logical evidence, on the one hand, and real and logical evidence, on the other. I find this perplexing. What exactly does the word 'real' mean in this context?
I've tried to make this clear above, I think. There are aspects of human behaviour which are given names to enable us to talk about and understand them, but they do not then take on an independent existence of their own. I won't ask for an explanation in philosophical language, because I shall not be able to respond in kind.
quote:
Who makes up the rules governing the definition of 'evidence'??
Well, scientists have developed a way of testing and verifying etc that is the best available at present and it seems to be quite robust. It is impossible to devise any test which would provide evidence (in all its meanings?) of something which exists only as an idea in human minds; sometimes said to be 'experienced.

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I believe in the principle that you can't reason about higher things from lower ones. Spiritual realities can't be known or demonstrated via physical evidence.

This doesn't mean, however, that there is no evidence. There is information from many sources, and people can decide for themselves whether it is credible or not.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
George Spigot

Outcast
# 253

 - Posted      Profile for George Spigot   Author's homepage   Email George Spigot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I believe in the principle that you can't reason about higher things from lower ones. Spiritual realities can't be known or demonstrated via physical evidence.

This doesn't mean, however, that there is no evidence. There is information from many sources, and people can decide for themselves whether it is credible or not.

Can you give me an example of information being evidence for the spiritual?

--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html

Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I certainly can. After you Freddy.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris
It is impossible to devise any test which would provide evidence (in all its meanings?) of something which exists only as an idea in human minds;

That is simply not true.

For example, we cannot empirically test that the prime numbers continue to infinity, and yet we know that they do based on a simple logical argument (e.g. Euclid's proof), which is unchallenged by mathematicians, and therefore accepted as irrefutable. Or the idea that the square root of 2 is an irrational number. Again, this can be proven by logic, not 'empirical' (repetitive) computation.

quote:
Well, scientists have developed a way of testing and verifying etc that is the best available at present and it seems to be quite robust.
But this empirical method of verification is itself simply an idea in the human mind, which cannot be tested by its own method.

This is the fundamental problem of empiricism: it cannot be proven empirically.

Therefore you have to respect logical inference as the means by which we gain any grasp of reality.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
Then we would have to ask what sort of evidence would convince them?

Believers bring that up very often, I've found. It is the believers who state that something exists and it should, therefore, be straightforward for them to prove it to non-believers.
OK, if you want to use the "burden of proof" argument, and demand that we 'prove' our position, it is not at all unreasonable for us to ask you what you mean by the word 'proof'. Why is it that you won't tell us?

You set a task for us, but refuse to give us any indication as to what we are supposed to achieve. It's a bit like telling a sports team to go and win a game, but refusing to tell them what the game actually involves and how they are supposed to go about achieving this end!

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
George Spigot

Outcast
# 253

 - Posted      Profile for George Spigot   Author's homepage   Email George Spigot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
EE. I gave a couple of examples of how I would define evidence up thread but would you define evidence and proof differently?

--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html

Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
This doesn't mean, however, that there is no evidence. There is information from many sources, and people can decide for themselves whether it is credible or not.

Can you give me an example of information being evidence for the spiritual?
Just stories and experiences in large numbers. Whether or not they are true is one question. The second question is what they mean.

But again, this is only evidence if you believe it. If evidence needs to be tangible to be believed, then there is no evidence.

On the other hand, some would consider Near Death Experiences to be evidence even though they are just more stories and experiences. The reason for this is that since there are large numbers of similar cases they can be statistically analyzed - yielding conclusions that some people find more convincing than individual stories. Again, though, these are just stories.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot
Can you give me an example of information being evidence for the spiritual?

There is a method of proof called argument by contradiction. It is often used in mathematics, for example.

It is also known as falsification.

There are certainly arguments which falsify the philosophy of naturalism, which denies the existence of dimensions of reality above that closed physical system known as 'nature'. If this philosophy can be falsified, then it follows logically that, by default, the supernatural exists.

This sounds like a rather negative way of argumentation, but actually it isn't. When we accept that there are realities beyond the comprehension of the human mind, then this method of argument flags up that these realities exist even if we cannot fully explain them. For example, ideas concerning infinity. I gave an example in my last post of the prime numbers continuing to infinity.

Arguments that contradict the philosophy of naturalism include:

1. Free will, which is a reality and is necessary for the correct functioning of both reason and morality (if all ideas are merely determined, then no rational discourse is possible, and all ideas are equally valid, being determined by the same source.) According to naturalism, nature is a closed system which operates according to a deterministic chain of cause and effect governed by the laws of nature. If this is not so, then nature would be an open system - therefore open to something else. Therefore it follows that free will cannot possibly exist within this closed system, because it is deterministic. But free will does exist. Therefore nature cannot be a closed system, but open to some other reality, which explains free will.

2. Reason, which cannot have its origin in something non-rational, otherwise it would itself be non-rational (and if all ideas arose merely for the pragmatic purpose of aiding survival, then truth is an illusion, because lies can be useful for survival.)

3. Nature itself, which is defined in terms of its own laws. These laws have an informational content which govern how matter and energy work (a point made by the eminent physicist Anton Zeilinger). Therefore information precedes matter. This information must have come from somewhere, and not from matter itself, otherwise we could not talk about the laws that govern matter. If this information is merely a description of how we - the observer - perceive the workings of nature, then it has no objective validity, and that spells the end of science.

4. Consciousness and the problem of the 'now'. Our consciousness operates in the present moment, which is a durationless instant (if the 'now' possesses duration, then it could be divided into periods of past and future and therefore it would not be "the present moment"). How can this possibly be explained naturalistically? How can something exist within a time frame which is effectively 'nothing' from a material point of view? But the existence of an eternal dimension interacting with nature explains it perfectly. (By the way, consciousness cannot be explained simply as the interaction of memory and anticipation, because we know the 'now' exists objectively. If it did not, then no human activity could ever be coordinated and everyone would be living in different time frames based on their own relationship to their memories and perception of the future.)

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I certainly can. After you Freddy.

I love what EE says just above. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I'm interested in the OP's inclusion of "personal experience and testimony". They sound more like claims to me. For example if somebody told me about their personal experience of climbing mount Everest I'd see that as a claim and I'd go on to ask for the evidence.

That last sentence is a claim, so I suppose we should ask for evidence. What evidence do you have that when someone tells you about their experience of mountain climbing you ask for evidence?
Your personal testimony, according to your above statement, does not count as evidence.

(Serious point: social life, most of the time, relies on taking people at their word.)

[ 03. January 2013, 19:31: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250

 - Posted      Profile for W Hyatt   Email W Hyatt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Clearly if 'evidence' is defined as 'proof', then they would also have to say that "there is no evidence for their own conclusions about reality."
Can you give me an example or two of any such conclusions about reality by non-believers?
As far as I can tell, the conclusion that the complexity of our brains is sufficient to explain our experience of awareness would qualify as such an example.

--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.

Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
George Spigot

Outcast
# 253

 - Posted      Profile for George Spigot   Author's homepage   Email George Spigot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well I did ask.

Once again I've received answers that are bewildering and seem only to highlight my own ignorance. I'm going to go away and google this stuff and hope I can get enough of the sense of it to be able to carry on the conversation.

--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html

Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221

 - Posted      Profile for Grokesx   Email Grokesx   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
if all ideas are merely determined, then no rational discourse is possible, and all ideas are equally valid, being determined by the same source
Argument from adverse consequences. If all ideas are merely determined, we will just have to live with it.
quote:
Reason, which cannot have its origin in something non-rational, otherwise it would itself be non-rational
I've mentioned this to you before - by this logic it is possible to prove that liquid water cannot ever be derived from the reaction of gaseous hydrogen and oxygen because neither are wet. And considering what we know about the nature of electrons and quarks and shit, in your logical world we obviously don't exist as flesh and blood at all.
quote:
Nature itself, which is defined in terms of its own laws. These laws have an informational content which govern how matter and energy work (a point made by the eminent physicist Anton Zeilinger). Therefore information precedes matter. This information must have come from somewhere, and not from matter itself, otherwise we could not talk about the laws that govern matter.
If you were a Regularist, rather than a Necessitarian you wouldn't talk about about laws governing matter, but laws describing matter, and wouldn't worry your pretty little head about science disappearing in a puff of logic.
quote:
Consciousness and the problem of the 'now
Don't understand something therefore something else. Argument from ignorance or using one mystery to explain another.

Edited for typo.

[ 03. January 2013, 22:16: Message edited by: Grokesx ]

--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken

Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221

 - Posted      Profile for Grokesx   Email Grokesx   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
(Serious point: social life, most of the time, relies on taking people at their word.)
There's probably an internet law about this, but I've got a bridge, mate. Mint condition. Yours for a grand.

--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken

Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools