Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Subjective Evidence of Gods
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 21 of 468 (624439)
07-17-2011 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by GDR
07-17-2011 10:08 PM


Subjective evidence and other nonsense
Sure, but all you are describing is how things happened which we can find objective evidence for. What you describe looks to me subjectively like something that was extremely well thought out ahead of time.
If you wish to pursue that line of reasoning it would be appropriate to provide some kind of evidence for this critter that caused things to be "well thought out."
And see below:
I agree that subjectively you can also make the case that we are the beneficiaries of very fortuitous non-intelligent natural forces. We can look at the same evidence and subjectively come to different conclusions which goes back to the question in the OP.
Not all interpretations are of equal value. When you have a lot of evidence supporting one interpretation and minimal-to-no evidence supporting the other, it is incorrect to place them on equal footing. This is where "teach the controversy" (an attempt by creationists to gain some traction after ID was shot down) failed. The "controversy" was generated by creationists, not by scientists, and as such had no standing within science. But they knew that, they just wanted their creationism taught, and that was the next trick they tried.
So no, not all interpretations are of equal value. Some are more supported by empirical evidence than others. And some are supported only by subjective evidence (i.e., wishful thinking).
But then if you had empirical evidence you wouldn't have to grasp at the straws of subjective evidence, would you?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by GDR, posted 07-17-2011 10:08 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by GDR, posted 07-17-2011 10:51 PM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 23 of 468 (624441)
07-17-2011 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by GDR
07-17-2011 10:51 PM


Re: Subjective evidence and other nonsense
Coyote writes:
But then if you had empirical evidence you wouldn't have to grasp at the straws of subjective evidence, would you?
What empirical evidence do you have for a non-intelligent first cause, or more simply why is there something instead of nothing?
I have none, but that doesn't just leave the door open for any subjective ideas that happen to float by. You know how much LDS was going around in Berkeley in the old days. ;-)
Scientists who have some knowledge of the subject have some decent working ideas, and that is surely better than subjective evidence any day.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by GDR, posted 07-17-2011 10:51 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by AZPaul3, posted 07-17-2011 11:35 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied
 Message 25 by GDR, posted 07-17-2011 11:54 PM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 26 of 468 (624444)
07-18-2011 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by GDR
07-17-2011 11:54 PM


Re: Subjective evidence and other nonsense
Thank heavens I was a child of the late fifities and early sixties and didn't have to deal with that. I could get in enough trouble drivin' out on the prairies with a couple a guys and a case of beer.
I can relate to that! (But with mountains, as we didn't have prairies.)
What would be the most obvious one of those decent working ideas?
You will have to check with the cosmology folks for the details, I'm just a simple archaeologist.
But be assured, they will not be relying on woo and shamanistic ideas for their inspiration. They'll be coming up with the best ideas that can explain the observations. Those ideas may be right, or they may eventually be shown to be wrong, but those folks won't be relying on superstition and other nonsense in their research.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by GDR, posted 07-17-2011 11:54 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by GDR, posted 07-18-2011 12:15 AM Coyote has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024