Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

Mallz wrote:

Kenny wrote:But once empirical evidence is presented, is it really faith at that point?

I like this question, it gets at what faith is. Yes, it would be faith after having empirical evidence. Faith, at least defined by the bible, is: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".

Evidence of things NOT seen. If it is not seen, how can you call that empirical? Empirical is that which has been repeatedly tested and verified. Evidence of things not seen sounds like something that lacks physical verification aka blind faith. Do you agree?

Ken

Mallz wrote: Hey, Kenny. Sorry for being in and out (you already know my presence here is spotty, aye?).

Hey no problem my friend; I’ve been on travels for the past week and haven't had access to the internet, thus have not been able to reply to anything during that time, so I think my presence been a bit spotty as well.

Mallz wrote: Evidence of things NOT seen, I gave examples such as: gravity or wisdom or love. It IS empirical.

I don’t consider gravity, wisdom, or love to be unseen. Gravity can be scientifically measured, and analyzed, and though love and wisdom are subjective labels people attach to behaviors, (what I call wise, you may call common sense, or what I call love, you may call it something else; and visa versa) the people using the labels will consider the actions empirical. You see I don’t consider “unseen” as having anything to do with vision; it has to do with what can be detected. IOW, gravity, love, and wisdom can be empirically detected.

Mallz wrote: I know God is real through empirical evidence. And you won't get that empirical evidence until you approach Him and test Him on His terms (unless you're very lucky/unlucky), which would give an acknowledgment to Him and is the beginning of humility.

So empirical evidence is only given after you believe? Isn’t that backwards? What good is empirical evidence to someone who already believes? (back in my theistic days, they used to call that preachin’ to the choir) seems to me the evidence should be reserved to the skeptic who reserves belief.

Mallz wrote: Only humility (from our end) leads to knowledge, wisdom and truth. I think you're limiting what is empirical to something that is not scientific.

You got that backwards, more like I’m limiting empirical to that which can be scientifically verified.

Mallz wrote: I can verify His existence and my relationship with Him from observation and experience. If you look back over the years, you will see I have always made this claim (which leads me to conclusions such as: all babies love Jesus).

True. Unfortunately when people of all the other religions make this claim, the credibility of your claim gets muddied up along with theirs.

Mallz wrote: One of the biggest differences between God and 'that chair' is God is a person and demands to be respected in the very basic level (like you and I would),

Also the existence of the chair can be scientifically verified.

Mallz wrote: and that is to be acknowledged and believed in (how you and I acknowledge and believe in each other). And btw, metaphysics has empirical areas of study, and much of it does not. Where something can be engaged with on an empirical level, I agree it should be.

I’ve always understood metaphysics as being the opposite of empirical. Can you give an example of a metaphysical claim that can be empirically verified?

Mallz wrote: And example of an interdisciplinary study that brought forth results with God (not of God, btw) would be theology, philosophy, metaphysics, physics, quantum physics, pneumatology, and microbiology. Or, simply, praying and watching Him work. And it's repeatable and with its results.

Are you suggesting prayer has consistent results? Can you site a scientific study that verifies this?

Mallz wrote: The reason why you can't get here, though, is because you're engaging in a discipline yet denying the discipline is true and should be followed to be educated in it.

You are losing me on this one; which discipline am I engaging in that I also deny? Are you suggesting I engage in theism as a discipline?

Mallz wrote:How can you do math if you refuse to learn and engage in algorithms and instead color animals instead of using numbers and learning mathematical formulas? That's the biggest mistake I see most people make and one you are also making.

If I am unable to understand math, would it make sense to attempt to communicate with me using math? Wouldn't it make more sense to communicate to me in a language I understand?

Ken

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:
Why do you consider it a meaningless phrase, that is contridiction?

Ken

Because it IS an extraordinary claim. Go ahead and present the extraordinary evidence it is requiring.

If you told me you had a chicken that lays 2-3 eggs per day, I would believe you. As a matter of fact; I would probably buy one from you if I were interested in buying chickens, based strictly on your word.
However; if you told me you had a chicken that would lay golden eggs, eggs made of solid gold; and you were willing to sell me this chicken at a reasonable price, now your word is no longer sufficient; before I make such an investment, I am going to require you provide evidence to prove your claim has merit. At minimum I am going to require you provide me one of those eggs for personal inspection; I will probably go as far as requiring a demonstration from your chicken under observed conditions.
Does this sound reasonable to you?

Ken

Byblos wrote: Sounds very reasonable.

Great! Sounds like we understand each other.

Byblos wrote: And utterly besides my point.

Dang spoke too soon.

Byblos wrote: My contention is not with the fact that claims require evidence, that's just trivially true. My contention is with the label 'extraordinary' on both, the claim and its evidence. You are the one making the claim that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". And make no mistake about it (actually you made several), it is, in fact a claim. As such, the onus is on you to define what an extraordinary claim means, how to define it as such, who defines it and why, what are the rules, the parameters, constraints, etc. etc. In the absence of such a rigorous definition, we are left with an arbitrary definition, rendering said claim meaningless, for the claim does not even apply to itself, therefore self-defeating.

Okay! I think I can see why we are misunderstanding each other.
Extra ordinary is not objective, it is subjective; meaning it is based on personal opinions, assumptions, beliefs, and perceptions; not empirical evidence, proof, or facts. So when I say “extra ordinary claims require an extra ordinary amount of evidence," I am explaining what is required in order to convince me; not anybody else, or everybody else; that a claim is true. A more detailed way perhaps would have been to say; "what I consider to be an extra ordinary claim will require what I determine to be an extra ordinary amount of evidence in order for me to accept as true."

So to answer your questions :
Q What is an extra ordinary claim?
A A claim I consider to be extra ordinary.

Q Parameters, constraints, etc. etc.?
A These are determined on a case by case basis, by myself.

For me this is just another way of saying, I do not give all claims equal consideration.
If we go back to the Chicken that lays golden eggs, I would consider it absurd to consider a chicken laying eggs of solid gold the same consideration as a claim that a chicken lays typical eggs.

Does this sound reasonable to you?

Ken

It stopped being reasonable the moment you mentioned subjectivity. Nothing to add after that, I'm good. Thanks kenny.

Fair enough. But It’s a shame you couldn’t get past “subjectivity”; if you had and actually read the rest of what I wrote, with a desire to understand what I was saying, perhaps you would be able to know why atheists like myself are constantly quoting Dawkins…. that is if you actually want to know.

Peace
Ken

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote: It stopped being reasonable the moment you mentioned subjectivity. Nothing to add after that, I'm good. Thanks kenny.

Fair enough. But It’s a shame you couldn’t get past “subjectivity”; if you had and actually read the rest of what I wrote, with a desire to understand what I was saying, perhaps you would be able to know why atheists like myself are constantly quoting Dawkins…. that is if you actually want to know.

Peace
Ken

How many times are we supposed to have this conversation kenny? I can remember at least half a dozen times over the years. It is not me who is not desiring understanding, it is in fact you. And precisely so when you invoke subjectivity because that's when all manner of discourse becomes meaningless. If we can't agree that there are some things truly objective in and of themselves, if everything descends into subjective interpretations, then agreement on anything else is virtually impossible. Might as well talk about iuwyeiuhcfjnksjdnskfjhksjdhfksjdhfkjsdh and try to make sense of it. I say it means I'm right. You may disagree. It's all subjective, who cares.

Post edit: In other words, when you state that the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is subjective, then you ought not be using it in discussions as if it were a universal truth that should be taken at face value. At a minimum, you need to qualify it as subjective so others know you're not generalizing it.

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote: It stopped being reasonable the moment you mentioned subjectivity. Nothing to add after that, I'm good. Thanks kenny.

Fair enough. But It’s a shame you couldn’t get past “subjectivity”; if you had and actually read the rest of what I wrote, with a desire to understand what I was saying, perhaps you would be able to know why atheists like myself are constantly quoting Dawkins…. that is if you actually want to know.

Peace
Ken

Byblos wrote: How many times are we supposed to have this conversation kenny? I can remember at least half a dozen times over the years. It is not me who is not desiring understanding, it is in fact you. And precisely so when you invoke subjectivity because that's when all manner of discourse becomes meaningless. If we can't agree that there are some things truly objective in and of themselves, if everything descends into subjective interpretations, then agreement on anything else is virtually impossible.

I’ve never claimed everything was subjective. I think I’ve been very clear that I believe some things are objective, and some things are subjective; we just disagree on what is objective or subjective.

Byblos wrote: Might as well talk about iuwyeiuhcfjnksjdnskfjhksjdhfksjdhfkjsdh and try to make sense of it. I say it means I'm right. You may disagree. It's all subjective, who cares.

I kinda see your point. When I answer a question, I can only answer it in the context of what I believe to be true; not what anyone else believes to be true. And its not just this objective/subjective on going argument, but the first cause, adaption vs evolution, Atheism a belief systems, and all the countless other dead horses we’ve beaten over the years as well. If I believe “X” to be true, and you consider it to be false, my answer will probably sound like juwyejuhcfjnksjdnskfjhksjdhfksjdhfkjsdh to you because my answer will be made in the context that “X” is true; a POV that will make no sense to you. And often when someone asks a question, one of those dead horses are likely to pop up because the question may be similar to what has been discussed countless times before. Its not a slight against you or anyone else who may disagree with me, it’s just that this is the best way I can answer the question.

Byblos wrote: Post edit: In other words, when you state that the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is subjective, then you ought not be using it in discussions as if it were a universal truth that should be taken at face value. At a minimum, you need to qualify it as subjective so others know you're not generalizing it.

I did attempt to do that 05/04/17 at 7:03pm.

Kenny wrote:I don’t consider gravity, wisdom, or love to be unseen. Gravity can be scientifically measured, and analyzed, and though love and wisdom are subjective labels people attach to behaviors, (what I call wise, you may call common sense, or what I call love, you may call it something else; and visa versa) the people using the labels will consider the actions empirical. You see I don’t consider “unseen” as having anything to do with vision; it has to do with what can be detected. IOW, gravity, love, and wisdom can be empirically detected.

In the same way you don't consider gravity, wisdom or love to be unseen I don't see God as being unseen. I disagree those terms are subjective (although we live in a society where words have lost their meanings for the most part..). And how you can't use your eyes to see these things, your eyes see their effects. God is unseen in the same sense. And He is empirical. But like with any branch of science you want to study, you have to use the tools within its discipline to understand it. If you want empirical evidence of YHWH then you have to use the tools of 1 John 5:14, John 6:40. It's a discipline, a pool of knowledge waiting to be found/revealed to gain wisdom in. And that's the beginning of a relationship with Him. From there, empirical evidence ensues.

Kenny wrote:So empirical evidence is only given after you believe? Isn’t that backwards? What good is empirical evidence to someone who already believes? (back in my theistic days, they used to call that preachin’ to the choir) seems to me the evidence should be reserved to the skeptic who reserves belief.

Eh, this is the wrong perspective. Do you believe in Biochemistry? Neuroscience? Physics? Your describing something delusional. I'm talking about engaging in a discipline on it's terms and gauging it's own integrity.

Mallz wrote: Only humility (from our end) leads to knowledge, wisdom and truth. I think you're limiting what is empirical to something that is not scientific.

Kenny wrote:You got that backwards, more like I’m limiting empirical to that which can be scientifically verified.

I think in ways we are talking across each other.

Mallz wrote: I can verify His existence and my relationship with Him from observation and experience. If you look back over the years, you will see I have always made this claim (which leads me to conclusions such as: all babies love Jesus).

Kenny wrote:True. Unfortunately when people of all the other religions make this claim, the credibility of your claim gets muddied up along with theirs.

Eh, I think that's too general of a claim. I get what you mean, but I think you can decipher reality from delusion/illusion.

Mallz wrote: One of the biggest differences between God and 'that chair' is God is a person and demands to be respected in the very basic level (like you and I would),

Kenny wrote:Also the existence of the chair can be scientifically verified.

Many things in reality exist that aren't scientifically verified Thing of which if did not exist, science wouldn't be able to function for us coherently.

Mallz wrote: and that is to be acknowledged and believed in (how you and I acknowledge and believe in each other). And btw, metaphysics has empirical areas of study, and much of it does not. Where something can be engaged with on an empirical level, I agree it should be.

Kenny wrote:I’ve always understood metaphysics as being the opposite of empirical. Can you give an example of a metaphysical claim that can be empirically verified?

It's not in a correlation with empirical. A person hitting a ball with a bat towards a large window with great force will shatter the thin window.

Mallz wrote: And example of an interdisciplinary study that brought forth results with God (not of God, btw) would be theology, philosophy, metaphysics, physics, quantum physics, pneumatology, and microbiology. Or, simply, praying and watching Him work. And it's repeatable and with its results.

Kenny wrote:Are you suggesting prayer has consistent results? Can you site a scientific study that verifies this?

I would have to look, I bet Jack would know right off... But I have my own studies and have verified his existence through praying in His will (when I'm able to align in it.... and Him with me, which can be real fun...)

Mallz wrote: The reason why you can't get here, though, is because you're engaging in a discipline yet denying the discipline is true and should be followed to be educated in it.

Kenny wrote:You are losing me on this one; which discipline am I engaging in that I also deny? Are you suggesting I engage in theism as a discipline?

Totally. Yes on all accounts.

Kenny wrote:I don’t consider gravity, wisdom, or love to be unseen. Gravity can be scientifically measured, and analyzed, and though love and wisdom are subjective labels people attach to behaviors, (what I call wise, you may call common sense, or what I call love, you may call it something else; and visa versa) the people using the labels will consider the actions empirical. You see I don’t consider “unseen” as having anything to do with vision; it has to do with what can be detected. IOW, gravity, love, and wisdom can be empirically detected.

Mallz wrote: In the same way you don't consider gravity, wisdom or love to be unseen I don't see God as being unseen. I disagree those terms are subjective (although we live in a society where words have lost their meanings for the most part..). And how you can't use your eyes to see these things, your eyes see their effects. God is unseen in the same sense. And He is empirical. But like with any branch of science you want to study, you have to use the tools within its discipline to understand it. If you want empirical evidence of YHWH then you have to use the tools of 1 John 5:14, John 6:40. It's a discipline, a pool of knowledge waiting to be found/revealed to gain wisdom in. And that's the beginning of a relationship with Him. From there, empirical evidence ensues.

We weren’t discussing God, we were discussing faith. I said faith was unseen; not God.

Kenny wrote:So empirical evidence is only given after you believe? Isn’t that backwards? What good is empirical evidence to someone who already believes? (back in my theistic days, they used to call that preachin’ to the choir) seems to me the evidence should be reserved to the skeptic who reserves belief.

Mallz wrote: Eh, this is the wrong perspective. Do you believe in Biochemistry? Neuroscience? Physics? Your describing something delusional. I'm talking about engaging in a discipline on it's terms and gauging it's own integrity.

Is this possible to engage this discipline without believing first?

Mallz wrote: Only humility (from our end) leads to knowledge, wisdom and truth. I think you're limiting what is empirical to something that is not scientific.

Kenny wrote:You got that backwards, more like I’m limiting empirical to that which can be scientifically verified.

Mallz wrote:I think in ways we are talking across each other.

Mallz wrote: I can verify His existence and my relationship with Him from observation and experience. If you look back over the years, you will see I have always made this claim (which leads me to conclusions such as: all babies love Jesus).

Kenny wrote:True. Unfortunately when people of all the other religions make this claim, the credibility of your claim gets muddied up along with theirs.

Mallz wrote: Eh, I think that's too general of a claim. I get what you mean, but I think you can decipher reality from delusion/illusion.

My point was, from my perspective, your religious claims don’t look any more credible than religious claims that contradict yours.

Mallz wrote: One of the biggest differences between God and 'that chair' is God is a person and demands to be respected in the very basic level (like you and I would),

Kenny wrote:Also the existence of the chair can be scientifically verified.

Mallz wrote: Many things in reality exist that aren't scientifically verified Thing of which if did not exist, science wouldn't be able to function for us coherently.

Such as???

Mallz wrote: and that is to be acknowledged and believed in (how you and I acknowledge and believe in each other). And btw, metaphysics has empirical areas of study, and much of it does not. Where something can be engaged with on an empirical level, I agree it should be.

Kenny wrote:I’ve always understood metaphysics as being the opposite of empirical. Can you give an example of a metaphysical claim that can be empirically verified?

Mallz wrote: It's not in a correlation with empirical. A person hitting a ball with a bat towards a large window with great force will shatter the thin window.

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy. What does that have to do with philosophy?

Mallz wrote: And example of an interdisciplinary study that brought forth results with God (not of God, btw) would be theology, philosophy, metaphysics, physics, quantum physics, pneumatology, and microbiology. Or, simply, praying and watching Him work. And it's repeatable and with its results.

Kenny wrote:Are you suggesting prayer has consistent results? Can you site a scientific study that verifies this?

Mallz wrote: I would have to look, I bet Jack would know right off... But I have my own studies and have verified his existence through praying in His will (when I'm able to align in it.... and Him with me, which can be real fun...)

If your personal studies verify God’s existence, I can understand your belief that prayer results are repeatable and observable; but I am sure you can understand my skepticism……

Mallz wrote: The reason why you can't get here, though, is because you're engaging in a discipline yet denying the discipline is true and should be followed to be educated in it.

Kenny wrote:You are losing me on this one; which discipline am I engaging in that I also deny? Are you suggesting I engage in theism as a discipline?

Mallz wrote: Totally. Yes on all accounts.

[/quote]
What have I told you that gave you the impression that I engage in theism as a discipline?

Ken

Talk about confusing responses from you. I should just let old threads remain dead

We weren’t discussing God, we were discussing faith. I said faith was unseen; not God.

What are you talking about? This is almost word salad to me. Earlier you said "If it is not seen, how can you call that empirical?" I gave you examples of such (which apply the same to God). God is the object of faith that was being discussed, obviously I would bring it in (the whole unseen vs seen which you expressed having a problem with. Faith is unseen like love, duh?).

Is this possible to engage this discipline without believing first?

Again, in the same way you believe in any science, you have to believe. If you deny math exists, even though it is unseen yet apparent, you won't understand or engage in it. That doesn't mean mathematics is a non-existent part of reality.

My point was, from my perspective, your religious claims don’t look any more credible than religious claims that contradict yours.

I understood that and I'll say again, your claim is too general. What you just said doesn't matter, it's a logical fallacy. Unless you care to compare claims and gauge their veracity and explore then you will never get beyond opinions (including your own).

Motion has to do with metaphysics (which shows you don't understand what metaphysics is). What is science? What exists that aren't scientifically verified?? Do you really not know? I think you have a problem with scientism. Those are not rhetorical questions. How can we communicate when we don't even apply the same value to terms?

If your personal studies verify God’s existence, I can understand your belief that prayer results are repeatable and observable; but I am sure you can understand my skepticism……

I understand your skepticism and encourage you to treat finding/knowing God as a discipline, you'll actually get somewhere. You don't engage theism as a discipline, and again, I'm encouraging you to do so. That you don't, shows your lack of seriousness on the topics towards yourself. So why engage at all?

We weren’t discussing God, we were discussing faith. I said faith was unseen; not God.

Mallz wrote:What are you talking about? This is almost word salad to me. Earlier you said "If it is not seen, how can you call that empirical?" I gave you examples of such (which apply the same to God). God is the object of faith that was being discussed, obviously I would bring it in (the whole unseen vs seen which you expressed having a problem with. Faith is unseen like love, duh?).

At that time, I was speaking of faith, not God.

Is this possible to engage this discipline without believing first?

Mallz wrote:Again, in the same way you believe in any science, you have to believe. If you deny math exists, even though it is unseen yet apparent, you won't understand or engage in it. That doesn't mean mathematics is a non-existent part of reality.

Math doesn’t require faith, it provides facts.

My point was, from my perspective, your religious claims don’t look any more credible than religious claims that contradict yours.

Mallz wrote:I understood that and I'll say again, your claim is too general. What you just said doesn't matter, it's a logical fallacy. Unless you care to compare claims and gauge their veracity and explore then you will never get beyond opinions (including your own).

Motion has to do with metaphysics (which shows you don't understand what metaphysics is). What is science? What exists that aren't scientifically verified?? Do you really not know? I think you have a problem with scientism. Those are not rhetorical questions. How can we communicate when we don't even apply the same value to terms?

If your personal studies verify God’s existence, I can understand your belief that prayer results are repeatable and observable; but I am sure you can understand my skepticism……

I understand your skepticism and encourage you to treat finding/knowing God as a discipline, you'll actually get somewhere. You don't engage theism as a discipline, and again, I'm encouraging you to do so. That you don't, shows your lack of seriousness on the topics towards yourself. So why engage at all?

It appears you’ve mistaken me for someone searching for God. That explains a lot.

Mallz wrote:I should just let old threads remain dead

I agree! Good day sir.

Kenny wrote: It appears you’ve mistaken me for someone searching for God. That explains a lot.

It took a while, but I believe we have finally found an answer to the long-running question, "Kenny, why are you here?"

Hortator wrote:

Kenny wrote: It appears you’ve mistaken me for someone searching for God. That explains a lot.

It took a while, but I believe we have finally found an answer to the long-running question, "Kenny, why are you here?"

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 5&start=15

K

Kenny wrote:

Hortator wrote:

Kenny wrote: It appears you’ve mistaken me for someone searching for God. That explains a lot.

It took a while, but I believe we have finally found an answer to the long-running question, "Kenny, why are you here?"

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 5&start=15

K

Ok. I'll accept that as a competing answer. Putting it next to the other ones.