GDR writes:
It doesn't seem to be a problem now, but what was happening was that I would take the time to answer a post and in the meantime there would be three more.
And giving each reply the time it deserves will slow the back-and-forth down, making things easier for you. There's nothing wrong with being a week or month behind in replying. There's no hurry. Take your time and do a good job.
OK I'll try again.
There is zero scientific evidence for anything beyond the physical.
This is disingenuous in the extreme. In the very message you're replying to I explained, and not for the first, second or third time, that there is no difference in character between everyday evidence and scientific evidence. They're both based on observation. Everything we know, from whether it's safe to proceed at an intersection to how to hit an asteroid with a spacecraft, the only difference is that science gathers its evidence more carefully and accurately. At one point I said that it's sort of like the difference between "It got hot" and "It reached a temperature of 63.9°C."
My question is why are you forcing me to repeat myself yet again. If you disagree with my characterization of the difference between ordinary and scientific evidence then raise your objections. Don't simply ignore what I said again and again. You are the cause of the frustration and anger you complain about.
The Bible is evidence. It is obviously written to be believed although not always literally. You argue that it isn't reliable and give reasons. However, it still remains that it in fact exists. It might contain truths or it might be a total lie, but it is evidence to be considered.
You're just stating your position again and not addressing a single thing I said, specifically, yet again, that accepting the Bible as evidence means you're accepting everything ever written and to be written as evidence, including the Bhagavad Gita, the Quran and the Book of Mormon. People can put down anything on paper that they like, from complete fiction and lies to accurate recountings of events.
You know what your response was the last time I said this? Something like, "If you say so. Other very bright people disagree." That is not a rebuttal. You haven't made any argument at all. That's deflection, not a response. You keep avoiding addressing the issues at the heart of the discussion.
The Quran says, "It does not befit the majesty of God that He should beget a son." (There are various translations.) It was obviously "written to be believed," so according to you this is evidence. Hitler wrote in
Mein Kampf, "With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people." Written to be believed, is this, too, evidence? Rep. Andrew Clyde (R. Ga.) said that people looking at film from January 6th inside the capitol building would "think it was a normal tourist visit," and he expected it to be believed. Trump says the FBI planted evidence at Mar-a-Lago with the intent that it be believed? Is that evidence of FBI misbehavior? Or is Dearie doing the right thing by requesting that Trump's lawyers document precisely which materials they are alleging are on the FBI inventory that were not originally at Mar-a-Lago?
I don't think you've thought your position on evidence through, which is consistent with your reluctance to actually discuss it. Surprise me with an answer that goes beyond, "We just disagree on this."
Beyond that we apply our own rational form our own conclusions. If we decide that there is some level of accuracy we follow a path of faith which should be to live a life to one degree or another in coherence with Christ's message.
Why Christ's message? Why not Mohammed's message? Or Buddha's message? Or Ghandi's message? According to your criteria there's evidence of all their messages, yet you argue the evidence for only one. Why is that?
OK, so you reject all world religions. What then do you contend is the nature of this supernatural being and what should it mean to our lives.
Every observation that anyone who ever lived ever made was of the natural world. There's no evidence of a "supernatural being." There's no evidence of a "cosmic intelligence." That's your schtick.
Of course it has nothing to do with any religion. It is simply the question of what is the root cause of the evolutionarily process. It might be atheistic, deistic or theistic. My conclusion without any scientific evidence is that it is theistic. I don't even know what your conclusion would be.
You know exactly what my "conclusion would be," because I told you in the very message you're replying to. I said, "Replication is imperfect and changes are carried forward to the next generation when they result in production of offspring (or of more numerous offspring) being more likely. Again, nothing to do with religion."
Why do I have to keep repeating things I just said, sometimes a few messages ago, but often in the very message you're replying to. It's like you're filtering out from your conscious awareness any argument your subconscious judges effective.
I have no scientific evidence.
You are again ignoring for the umpteenth time what I've said about evidence. Again (I have to use that word a lot), there is no difference of substance between ordinary evidence and scientific evidence. You not only don't have scientific evidence, you have no evidence at all because you have no real world observations. All you have is a book containing the same style of fantastical claims typical of religion. You're falling all over yourself to be taken in by this obvious flim-flam.
We can however come to our conclusions based on life experience and observation but that can lead to atheism or theism and anything in between.
What is the matter with you? Again, "Life experience and observation" is what evidence is. What observations have you or anyone made of God or Jesus?
As an example of that we have just had a major hurricane in both the Canadian Maritimes as well as Florida. If we come to the conclusion that a loving God wouldn't allow that to happen we will likely hold to an atheistic belief. On the other hand if we marvel at home people come out in love to selflessly help those in distress we might tend to a theistic position.
There's a complete absence of observational evidence in this. You made no observation of God, loving or otherwise, as the hurricane rolled through. You have no evidence that God played any role in people's behavior in the aftermath. All you have is your own religiously biased speculations.
I had written this:
GDR writes:
We have all the evidence needed to confirm the evolutionary process. Then the question is WHY does the evolutionary process exist. If you reject the idea of an external intelligence then it obviously is there because of nothing but natural processes.
If however, you accept the notion of an external intelligence then it makes sense to conclude that the evolutionary process has this intelligence as its first cause.
You then pull this out of that:
Percy writes:
...then it makes sense to conclude that the evolutionary process has this intelligence as its first cause.
How about using enough of the quote so that it doesn't distort what I was actually saying.
You're accusing me of distortion? What chutzpah!
I quoted and dissected almost everything in that entire paragraph sentence by sentence, even phrase by phrase, including the portion you bolded, and you accuse me of distortion? What is the matter with you? Why is it always Christians who behave in the most unChristian manner? Here's the actual sentence-by-sentence dissection, again, since you must not have read it the first time:
Percy:
We have all the evidence needed to confirm the evolutionary process.
Evolution has nothing to do with religious belief or non-belief.
Then the question is WHY does the evolutionary process exist.
Because replication is imperfect and changes are carried forward to the next generation when they result in production of offspring (or of more numerous offspring) being more likely. Again, nothing to do with religion.
If you reject the idea of an external intelligence...
We're no more rejecting the idea of an "external intelligence" (whatever that is) than we are of the idea of unicorns or oobleck. We're pointing out that you have no evidence that it's real.
If however, you accept the notion of an external intelligence...
Why should we accept "the notion of an external intelligence," when it has just as much evidence as the notion of unicorns or oobleck. This is usually the point where you again claim that you do too have evidence. Please, don't close that loop again. You do not have evidence. You haven't observed a single thing.
...then it makes sense to conclude that the evolutionary process has this intelligence as its first cause.
Holy cow! Had no idea you were going to end up here. I was literally just reading and responding one sentence at a time and this just blew my mind.
No, it does not make sense. I have no idea why this completely off-the-wall idea turns on the "makes sense" light in your brain, but it does not make sense.
See that? I quoted and commented on nearly every word of that paragraph. Again, what is the matter with you? How do you live with yourself doing stuff like this?
There is no scientific evidence.
There is no evidence of any kind. If you think you have evidence, something that's been observed no matter how unscientifically, then tell us what that evidence is.
We can all marvel at new life,...
Let's say we both look at a newborn calf. New life. I see natural processes, and while you also see natural processes you also claim to see something additional. What is it, observationally, that you see? Awareness of a internal subjective emotional state is not an observation of anything, except maybe in a psychological sense.
...the fact that we can see beauty in a flower,...
Again, what observation are you making, no matter how unscientific? What are you seeing of the supernatural that I'm not seeing? Isn't this just an internal emotional state?
...that we can experience joy or so, that we can experience empathy etc. We then can simply form our own conclusions, non-scientifically.
It's not only non-scientific, it's absent any observational evidence whatsoever.
Percy writes:
Your "subjective conclusions" have no evidence.
Sure, no scientific evidence at all.
I didn't say "scientific evidence." I said "evidence." I've expended many words explaining that all evidence, both ordinary and scientific, is based upon observation. But you're determined to ignore all that and just mindlessly parrot stuff like, "I have no scientific evidence." You do this over and over, and not just on the topic of evidence. Again, your manner of approaching the discussion leaves only yourself to blame for any animosity directed at you.
GDR writes:
Frankly I hear what some Christian preachers have to say and see myself with having more in common with many atheists.
Percy writes:
I don't think anyone here would agree with this self-assessment. Nothing you've ever said at EvC has ever been remotely like what an atheist might say.
When Christian preachers start rationalizing the stories of genocide and public stoning in the Bible then I have more common with Chris Hitchens that I do with such a preacher.
I think that's just a normal human reaction against hate. There's nothing specifically atheistic about it.
Percy writes:
No, we're not asking questions. We're telling you you have no evidence. And you agree. And then you change your mind and claim you have evidence again.
You keep saying that. This is not in a science forum.
You are correct, this is not a science forum, this is the
Faith and Belief forum. You can't say you've got evidence and then argue that because this is the
Faith and Belief forum that all claims of evidence must be accepted uncritically. Either back up your claims of evidence, or stop making these claims.
If you believe there are other kinds of evidence, which you tried to argue earlier in the discussion, then you have so far not successfully made that case.
Correct me if I'm wrong but in your view, and in the view of others, it appears to me that the only evidence that is allowed is scientific evidence. Observational conclusions are not based on evidence.
Do I have to say it yet again? All evidence is just observations. As you become more disciplined about making observations then you're moving in a scientific direction. This is exactly as I said before. If you grab a hot water pipe you might quickly pull your hand away and exclaim, "Wow, that's hot." That's an observation. You've just gathered evidence that the water pipe is hot. Now someone comes in with a temperature measuring device and says, "The temperature of this water pipe is 63.9°C." That's still just an observation, merely more accurate evidence that the water pipe is hot. That observation is no different in character than you grabbing the water pipe. It's just more accurate and definitive. But they're both just observations of the real world.
So, again, when I say you have no evidence, I do not mean you have no scientific evidence. I mean you have no evidence whatsoever. You have absolutely zero observations of the real world supporting your views. Capisce?
The Bible, the Qur'an, the Book of Buddah, the Book of Mormon etc physically exist. Why aren't they considered evidence.
I'm not aware of any
Book of Buddha, but anyway, I'm surprised at your willingness to consider them evidence since they would be evidence against you.
But they're not evidence because they're just stuff people wrote, not observations. Many religious books do contain legitimate observations in passing, such as of cities and kings and so forth, and since massive amounts of observational evidence exists of Jerusalem and Mecca and Sennacherib and so forth we accept this evidence. But there's every reason to reject as observational evidence the writings that Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha all healed the sick. This is just the standard claims that all religions makes and that we're all familiar with.
Even today faith healers abound, and they're all charlatans. Why do you believe 2000-year-old faith healing was real, especially since it was a time when many more people than today were susceptible to such foolery.
Anyone who catches a virus can pray that it will go away and their prayers will be answered the vast majority of the time, if that's the way they'd like to see it, but make the medical issue a bit more serious and see how often prayers are answered. Isn't it strange that the effectiveness of prayer depends upon the seriousness of the medical problem. Prayer remedies a cold every time, but type 1 diabetes, cystic fibrosis and amputation never.
Nobody contests the belief that Plato, Socrates and others existed because of what we have written about them and they predate Jesus by 400 years.
The recorded observational evidence for Socrates is not strong, that for Plato extremely strong. I don't know why you mention that they predated Jesus because the reasons for considering Jesus a myth have nothing to do with how long ago it was and everything to do with the lack of evidence.
Percy writes:
You can't claim that any words a writer sets to paper are evidence because then you have to do that for everything, not just all the world's religions but even all the world's myths and fantasies.
So what. The first thing you have to do is consider the author's intent.
No, intent is not the first thing. Evidence is the first thing.
If you're reading a book by Agatha Christie then you know that it's not be taken literally.
But she spent a great deal of time in Istanbul, some of her books recording a snapshot of life there at the time and which can be considered with other accounts to judge it as evidence.
If you read Lewis' Narnia series you know that it's not meant to be understood as something that really happened but at the same time know that is also meant as metaphor.
I don't know anything about Narnian metaphor. Fiction about a fictional place contains no evidence, but book one begins with the Blitz in London, which is yet more information to consider about how Londoners experienced it. Fact and fiction between the same covers.
If you read Churchill's "History of the English Speaking People" then it is clear that he intends it as a factual account.
His intent doesn't matter. What matters is the evidence. I haven't read this particular Churchill book, but as with everything else, one should only accept what is supported by evidence. I expect it's very likely that much of the book is supported by evidence.
In the case of the Bible it is all 3.
You mean fact, fiction and metaphor? Sure. Jerusalem has excellent evidential support, Jesus doesn't, and a mustard seed is a metaphor for Heaven.
Of course though, that something that is written to be understood as an actual account of an occurrence isn't necessarily true or even close to true.
Yes, exactly what I've been saying. To judge an account you don't go to the author's intent or any of your other odd ideas. You go to the evidence. Not the scientific evidence, just the evidence, the kind that historians normally record.
Percy writes:
But you've driven some stakes in the ground, like that Jesus was real and there's evidence for it. There isn't.
..and you know that how. Numerous people have written about Jesus over the years and you simply reject what they all wrote.
What does "Numerous people have written about Jesus over the years" mean? Is this a reference to the Bible? Are you rehashing Polycarp and Tacitus and so forth yet again? Are you referring to all the other derivative writings about Jesus over the last 2000 years?
None of that matters. What's your observational evidence?
Percy writes:
Again, there is no difference in nature between everyday evidence and scientific evidence. It's all just observations. Science is just more detailed, instrumented, structured and controlled in gathering its evidence, sort of like the difference between "It got hot" and "It reached a temperature of 147.3°C."
Sadly here's the lead story from CNN today. "Hurricane Ian makes landfall in Florida". Is that evidence on its own that Ian hit Florida?
I meant to say °F above.
You provide no link, but if the article reports observations that can be verified by other reported observations, then yes, it is evidence. And of course anyone following the news knows that Hurricane Ian is all over the news with first hand witness reports, weather maps, weather measurements, radar, video of neighborhoods being flooded, etc., so there's tons of confirmatory observations. Any other stupid questions?
Can we move the discussion forward? You're just fighting a holding action.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2
(1)
