|
Post by droskey on Jan 12, 2004 17:46:31 GMT -5
What counts as evidence for something depends on the person that you ask. However, I think that in a discussion, the criteria for evidence must be agreed upon. This is not to say that Truth (or even truth) is attained through consensus. But where serious discussion takes place, there is always some standard of evidence that is at least implicitly agreed upon by the group. This is certainly true in science.
So when we say that subjective evidence such as personal experience or anecdotal evidence is not admissable, we are really saying that some group (atheists?) do not recognize such evidence.
I think that we need to have a discussion about the nature of evidence and why we as a board will accept some type of evidence but not others (hint hint). Perhaps I will start another thread if you guys think that this is a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by ck on Jan 18, 2004 2:06:20 GMT -5
oh come on mav dont be so mean give tam some credit for atleast trying cause i think tam did a very good job
|
|
|
Post by Maverick on Jan 18, 2004 12:03:47 GMT -5
tamara
That is my point. I cannot verify your subjective experiences, whether they be how you taste food or if you perceive God. Therefore, your last peice of evidence is still something that is not accessible to others.
tamara
I have tried it and I once was a very genuine believer. Evidently, my own subjective experience of God didn't hold up to critical scrutiny, did it?
|
|
|
Post by Maverick on Jan 18, 2004 12:13:25 GMT -5
ck
I do give tamara credit. I especially give her credit for they way in which she has presented her arguments. Other theists often attempt to claim that their subjective experience is hard evidence but tamara is not claiming to have such. I also credit her with sticking to the topic of discussion. Other, less civil theists, might have generated some personal attacks by now. I think many other theists should take after tamara's example.
I don't see exactly how I was being mean. I was merely defending my points. How was I being mean, ck?
|
|
|
Post by ck on Jan 18, 2004 22:08:14 GMT -5
ok i read through this once again and i would like to apologize u were not being mean i was just skimming through it and saw some stuff like
"tamara, what you posted above isn't evidence. You merely speculated on what you believe to likely. To address your specific points:"
so sorry again.
|
|
tamara
Broken-in Plebe
Posts: 96
|
Post by tamara on Jan 19, 2004 11:23:09 GMT -5
Nah, everybody is cool, this is a very civilized board. Criticisms are always welcome.
Well, even medicine accepts anectodal evidence, tho with a grain of salt. When quite a few people find help from "unseen forces" then at least it should be counted for something. Not as a guarantee that unseen forces exist, but at least food for thought.
|
|
tamara
Broken-in Plebe
Posts: 96
|
Post by tamara on Jan 19, 2004 11:34:53 GMT -5
Jacopo, I don't have a problem with the points you raised. We are all just speculating... even the cosmologists, mostly...
It would be nice, however, if when cosmology decides that say, the universe had a begining, theistic intuition was given credit. They could have said, hey, the theists were right about this one! But instead, they have made it their business to heap ridicule and hostility on the theistic viewpoints.
Whether it is a matter of technology or not, I think that if there is a hypothesis, and a lot of effort goes into it, and it -- so far -- does not pan out, it should be acknowledged as possibly wrong rather than just saying well more money and more technology and we'll find those aliens...
Now maybe it is all accidental. But everything we know in our local world, that shows complex design with information built in, has a designer behind it. Even experiments attempting to show unguided evolution are guided by the human experimenter...
If you found something akin to DNA lying on the street, the rational inference would not be ... or it just sprung up out of the blue. You would be assuming a designer.
I was not aiming to get going with ID, but it has been in my thoughts and so I am mentioning it.
|
|
|
Post by Maverick on Jan 19, 2004 11:36:04 GMT -5
Don't worry about it, ck, I understand. I'm actually glad that you came to tamara's defense. I've tried my best to mold the atmosphere of this message board in such a way that it wouldn't turn into an "us" vs. "them" type of place (where atheists only defend other atheists and vice versa). I'm glad to see that my efforts have paid off. Thanks, ck.
|
|
muddog
Maverick's Chew Toy
The blue things are books titles Plato, and the kid has a jar of Play-Doh
Posts: 29
|
Post by muddog on Feb 3, 2004 18:47:07 GMT -5
I hate it when I find an interesting thread, read through it, have a good point to make, but the point is for way back in the thread.
However, on the first page, a lot of the assumptions of " you need a specific ocean size, heat, oxygen % in the atmosphere, et cetera" is a little narrow minded. Perhaps there is a species somewhere out there that needs a temperature of 4000 degrees celsius, no oxygen, but a 78/22 % argon/nitrogen compound, and absoultly no water whatsoever.
This species X has adapted to their own, unique environment, like we have adapted to ours. The post talking about us needing to have the moon to survive, well, now we do, but when we were bacteria we didn't. Simpely put, your assuptions on what life needs are based on what we need, not what it would be possible for life to exist. Your 1/9 inch per 18 miles stray is for a planet to form (or exist). After that base is down, then life can adapt. Perhaps there is life out there that needs no gravety from a planet anywhere. But the basis is, life can be in unlimited places. Our minds just have a hard time accepting the values and saying "life can exist there"
|
|
|
Post by Maverick on Feb 3, 2004 23:56:02 GMT -5
I think muddog has a good point here. Is the earth suited for human life or is human life suited for the earth? Stating that God created things a certain way because he wanted to create life seems to be putting a limitation upon God. After all, couldn't God (if we agree that he is all-powerful), change the conditions necessary for life so that, for example, living beings wouldn't need oxygen to survive?
Maybe we should answer this question first: Is God omnipotent? Or does God have limitations? Is God subordinate certain rules of logic?
|
|
|
Post by dragonfly on Feb 4, 2004 1:14:09 GMT -5
Firstly Muddog I really enjoyed your post,the points you raised were great! And I loved the way Maverick summed it up " Is earth suited for human life or is human life suited for earth.
However In answer to Mavericks questions regarding God...I think even alot of theists would have trouble answering them. (and more still spring to mind) If there is a god was it created by something even more indefinable ? Is there more than one? Is a god infinite or finite ? If it existed is it still functioning...is it still "here"?
I think if there is a God then I feel it must still conform to certain cosmic laws that either it created or were always in force.....if not surely we would see very disturbing evidence. Although there is much we do not understand yet there seem to be patterns and designs that life and non life adhere to.Even if a god created the principles that create the universe and set the whole process in motion it does not neccessarily mean it had an intended outcome...or that it could foretell that outcome.
|
|
tamara
Broken-in Plebe
Posts: 96
|
Post by tamara on Feb 4, 2004 10:42:20 GMT -5
Well, I think muddog pointed out the flaw of the anthropic & design ideas. Like Voltaire said, isn't it wonderful the way Europe's rivers unerringly flow thru the cities' bridges? Still, tho, it does look like design, and so this needs to be explained. I don't think the materialists are doing such a good job of it. In the old days, the findings of science seemed to corroborate the sense of there being nothing but silence and material explanations sufficed. I think this has changed. The universe is not silent: there is DNA with information in it. The universe is far weirder than Newton and the other classic scientists thought. Now if the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect says that the universe is non-local and that particles communicate instantaneously across any distance, then perhaps the theist hunch that immaterial "mind" or "logos" plays a big role in how things are set up should be at least considered. I tend to think that these considerations do not make a dent in questions of origin. But hey, I'll jump in with my 2 cents. I think that God is omnipotent in the sense of being able to do anything that's doable. There are some things God cannot do, like create a married bachelor (go against logic), or snap her fingers and give us gills overnight when we've had lungs all this time. I think God is limited by her creation, and is not free (like with the lungs) to say, hey, it does not apply to me. Once something's brought into existence, it puts its own limits on everyone. I am not dogmatic about this... I think the Kabbalists were right and God is essentially ineffable. But in the meantime, we humans are curious critters and speculate. ;D
|
|
|
Post by BaalShemRa on Mar 12, 2004 23:21:26 GMT -5
Tamara,
"While I do not discount that focusing one's energies like that may bring about some helpful event, I don't think God works that way. "
Why? Besides how much it conforms to what you wish was the reality.
Many people believe in astrology and say it helps them, it gives them guidance, is this evidence in favour of astrology? Does this prove Pluto is behind anything?
|
|