Evidence and the Supernatural
Offline In response to Caposkia's request, I've started this thread in the hopes that the conversation will actually progress somewhere.
The topic of this conversation is very simple.
- show me evidence for the existence of a spiritual world, basically, any world other than this one.
- evidence for the existence of a "soul."
- existence of some "creator" or "higher power."
etc.
I am pretty lenient on what is evidence: refer to a scientific journal with an article discussing evidence for the supernatural (even theist websites are okay, but it better be good. Not AIG), some aspect of nature or life that requires an outside force, valid philosophical argument, and even anecdotal evidence.
Oh, if I start seeing stereotypical, lame arguments like the fine tuning argument, every painting has a painter, appeal to fear or guilt, argument from morality, argument from faith, I'm going to be royally pissed.
I hope I have made this clear.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
- Login to post comments
Offline I know you're talking to BMcD, but I hope you don't mind if I address this point, too. The above is the impasse at which believers and non-believers often find themselves. Evidence is very frequently physically supported, and even if someone "wasn't there", secondary evidence is usually available. Let's say footprints in the snow as evidence of someone walking in the snow.
In fact, believers will usually go for that kind of idea: that we see the footsteps of God/Allah/Thor/Wotan. The fact that we have a whole bunch of different conceptions of these deities is a hint as to how poor an explanation it is. We give the supernatural all sorts of different characteristics depending on where we're born. Now, would that be because each culture has a different way of expressing something that definitely exists? Or might it be that all people have a tendency to want parental protection and love forever? The second (and it's not a dichotomy, there are many other possibilities) just seems more likely. Secondly, the "footprints" are often not physical at all, or have many other explanations available for them that are equally absurd and/or likely. That, again, points to those things not making sense.
What I mean is that "the footsteps of God" is a phrase that contains two questionable elements, and thus loses a lot of meaning.
That's why we have to be careful on how we approach the topic. You can't say draw me a picture of wind when you and I both know wind isn't able to be seen. WE do know however that wind is tangible and measureable and therefore we can use other methods of understanding wind.
No, basically the physical sciences strive to understand the interactions of the elements in the physical world. You'll need to present a "happening" that has no physical explanation before you declare it beyond the explanation of the physical sciences.
seeing an angel... ok.
That's why you'll often hear non-believers say "burden of proof" when you present them with bare assertions of the supernatural. All the supernatural would be is something that doesn't mesh with the rest of the observations of the physical sciences. That's all. Quantum mechanics has a bit of "spooky" in its language, which is often interpreted as supernatural, but is accepted as a description of the natural world because the careful measurement of the physical world often produces chaotic (or statistical) results.
I would just like to point out that I have not coined the term "supernatural" due to its implications.
I like your definition of it however and I agree with you on it.
That's not really the odds problem that's relevant. The problem explodes pretty quickly when you give the "intelligence" a name, language, and behaviour. Now you're talking about a very specific intelligence. Whether or not you're discussing an itelligence doing something is irrelevant: you mean a specific intelligence. Not only that, it's an intelligence you (by the admission of most believers) don't actually understand. So how exactly would you know if an intelligence you don't understand was doing something? Then to assign some probability to it is even more difficult.
To understand God and to know God are 2 different concepts.
As a child, I know my mother, i can identify her in a crowd of people. I may not understand her ways or her strength, but I know who she is and what her personality is like. As an older person, I'd know now that if someone told me my mother did something irratic like shot someone in the head, I'd know they'd be mistaken because my mother doesn't know how to shoot a gun. Due to her personality if she were inclined to kill someone, she'd be more apt to slit their throat versus shoot them.
You have an uphill climb if you want to call your personal experiences anything but personal experiences. I'm sure lots of people have had similar "walks" with God, because we all have similar ranges and patterns of behaviour. That's something else that doesn't point to any external influence.
You seem to think that's the only reason why I believe
- Login to post comments
Offline
If you're mormon you get a whole planet for you and all your wives!
If you're a Jehovah's Witness, you get to own Earth and clean up the mess after the apocolypse!!! WOOT!!!
- Login to post comments
Far as I'm concerned right now, it's the same question as 'what do your socks look like?' I just don't know, and so form no beliefs about it.
Cap, if anything could possibly be immaterial it would be impossible for human senses to detect it. We are not even capable of imagining such a thing. Immaterial musing is 100% fantasy, and no evidence of such is humanly possible.
Atheism Books.
In what imaginary realm do you believe the above to be a serious argument? I can't justify the absence of unicorns, fairies or a host of magical creatures. That doesn't mean I'll make decisions based on the belief that they're actually there. I mean, why would I? There's a long history of believing in magic, so I can see why you would be attracted to it, but to seriously believe it enough for it to guide your life? Are you serious?
Hey, how about the topic of this thread? I know, I know: wild idea.
Oh, y'know, anything that uses some kind of double or triple blind method. Like a proper scientific study. Usually found in journals. There are thousands of journals.
Here's how open my mind is to the topic: I'll grant you the possibility that there is, in fact, ANY kind of creature you can imagine in any form somewhere in the universe. You just have to demonstrate in ANY way that it uniquely identifies your creature.
Okay, let's dance. The point, however, is slippery. What you'd like us to accept is something that hasn't been discovered yet, am I correct? You have something very specific in mind, and you believe in the existence of that thing. I'd call that "supernatural" because it hasn't demonstrated itself as part of the natural world (ie it hasn't shown up). You can call it whatever you like. My contention is that it probably doesn't exist. What I mean is that your conception of something that has never presented itself to you is probably not in actual existence.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I'd like you to reference the quote from me that actually says "there is no evidence" in regards to a spiritual world.
Your view doesn't hold water if your only support is manipulating the words of others to say what you want them to say.
That leaves me open to a thousand different directions. Here's the problem. I don't want to present you "evidence" that you're either not going to believe becasue you weren't there, or aren't going to accept because it can't be physically supported.
I want to make sure the evidence I present to you is actually evidence that you're going to consider. I've taken pages and pages of forums in the past just trying to figure out what the other side will be willing to actually consider and discuss without imediately dismissing it as delusion or otherwise. Granted they have no support for their conclusions, but it doesn't matter because they've already decided on their conclusion.
I apologise. I dont' know how you will react to anything, but I don't want to waste anyone's time. Would you be willing to discuss chains of events and happenings in others lives that you weren't there to see and therefore have to take my word on being true? If so, I'll present you some of it.
Are you one who will only accept the physical sciences? If so, then there's no possible way THROUGH THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES for all of you who might try to change this sentence, that I can show you evidence of spirits or the soul or necessarily spiritual or Godly influence. Basically the physical sciences leave us with unexplained happenings, but lack of evidence and therefore end up being strawman theories due to the fact that no one is willing to look beyond the physical sciences for support.
If you're willing to take a general logic approach, we can talk about odds of things happening on their own vs. odds of things happening due to an inteligent intervention. We can take into consideration mathmatical equations that will clarify odds and happenings through sheer coincidence or inteligent influence. Though the problem with that is opinions can easily be implemented into the odds factors. It's a good support if you take odds as they are, but weak if odds are influenced by opinionated circumstance.
Are you accepting of historical happenings? There are many things written in the Bible that are written in history outside the Bible. One main thing is the existance of Jesus. Some people accept that he was actually a real person, many do not. How about moses? How about Noah's flood? There is a lot of history to support those happenings. I do not have the sources imediately available to me, but I can reference National Geographic and Discovery for covering the history and science behind a lot of Biblical happenings. I haven't read or seen them all, but we can discuss any of it if you're aware of some.
How about the personal support? Again, it would leave you in the sense of taking someone's word over it. If you think I'd lie about anything, it would not be a good discussion because it would get nowhere.
How about taking the scientific Method approach. Me explaining to you the process for which others have gone through to get to where they are today in their walk with God. After the explanation, you go out and try it yourself and report to me your conclusions. The trouble with this approach is 99% of the non-believers I have come across imediately dismiss this as an avoidance and yet do not actually attept to accept the challenge.
Again, I apologise. I don't know you and therefore cannot judge the outcome of anything that I present to you, but I want to make sure we start on a topic you'd be able to consider. Which approach listed above will you accept? I've tried to offer most of them in the past. Most of the time each was presented with the wrong person. You see where I'm coming from? Which person are you?
You suggested an option to present a source. I presented one. I guess that was the wrong approach with you.
Ok, one thing at a time then. How about some friends that were unfortunate enough to get caught in the california wildfires one year. However, for some reason, even though their house was smack dab in the middle of the fires, there was a circle of unburnt ground right around their house. They are believers, and they prayed for protection. Their house ended up without any damage.
Thank you. I'm seeing that you're a serious person about this. It's hard sometimes to tell with all of the fakes I've talked to on here. I'm sorry. I hope you understand my position as far as trying to find out what you're willing to take serious.
Finally someone who's willing to do it right. I will understand. First thing, the wild fires story. First let me know if you accept it, if not, then I'll move onto something else. Also let me know if there's a better topic of discussion that you'd rather follow than personal accounts.
I grew up a catholic, so my memories of knowing God don't start until very late high school and into college.
To make a long story short for now, it took my prayer of saying to God show me or are you only air for him to put some (what i call) True Christians in my life. I never knew true Christians until that point. I wasn't introduced to them until I prayed for it.
It's a long story short. If you want more, I'm willing to share.
Then I have misunderstood you and I apologise. as I explained in my other post. I've come across so many fakes on this site that it's hard to tell who's going to take anything I say seriously or not.
I think we will have a good conversation. The previous post is a small start. We can go from there.
This is the arguement I'm trying to avoid. Of course if it's immaterial it would be impossible for the human senses to detect it. Therefore, we would need to use other approaches to understanding that it exists. It's a strawman to conclude from that above statement that it's fantasy.
How would you assign numbers to the likelihood of things happening with god or without god?
Cap, how can my above statement be a straw man??? I don't even consider it an argument, because we humans are incapable of thinking, feeling, sensing in other than material related ways. Think about it.
Utter a single thought that is not 100% material related. Is our most profound sense of "awe", we all share, rationally hint to anything immaterial? Any attempt to do so is nothing more than common emotional ignorance. Tell us anything of the immaterial .... YOU CAN"T. No one can. It's impossible.
Atheism Books.
Except that each piece of evidence in this case would be, while possibly subjective or circumstantial, supporting and supported by every other piece. You can't present incomplete evidence and expect others to draw the same conclusions you did, because they don't have the same information you did.
Evidence can only be considered in context. If you leave some out, you alter the context of the rest.
We're the ones who choose to read and reply, or not to. We're the ones who'll be deciding how we use our time. You just have to decide if you feel it would waste yours.
I'm not going to lie to you: An inability to demonstrate cause can't be helpful. At the same time, truly inexplicable occurrences are always worth looking into. The real question is: Are you willing to risk someone being able to explain those 'unexplained happenings'?
Well, that runs into a slight difficulty as well: You'd have to demonstrate that the math is correct. For example, what are the odds of life occurring on Earth? It's hard to objectively calculate that, because it requires being able to accurately calculate the odds of the sun's formation at the location and time that it did.
We can certainly look at the odds you're willing to present, but the methodology of deducing those odds will also have to be considered, and evaluated.
Historical happenings, again, would need to be presented and evaluated. Historical events being portrayed in the Bible wouldn't necessarily mean the Bible's interpretation of those events is accurate. To take an example, Noah's flood: This could have been the flood of the Black Sea caused by the collapse of the Bosporus. It may have been caused by Bruce Masse's Indian Ocean Impactor (around 3,000 BC). So, while we're willing to consider historical events, keep in mind that just because a thing happens, doesn't mean the records of the thing accurately depict it.
Again, this sort of evidence would be dependant upon the rest for support, but would be necessary for us to understand the picture completely.
This assumes that many of us haven't already tried those methods. But please, offer them up. Perhaps we can provide you with some insight, as well.
I'm not asking for this approach or that one. I'm asking for all of them. Together. And I'm asking that you be willing to consider that the man who tells you something you don't like may not be telling you something you don't need to hear. Antifreeze tastes sweet, but I'm not going to let a child drink it just because they don't know any better. Which is not to call you a child, mind you... it's just an example.
But you didn't present your evidence. Holding up someone as a source and then telling us you don't agree with everything he says doesn't tell us what should or shouldn't be trusted there, what methods and evidence you're holding up as compelling. It would be like me pointing you at a library and saying 'See! That! That's my evidence... just don't believe all of it.' It doesn't tell us enough to know what it is we're supposed to be evaluating or considering.
That's one piece of information. As I said, it's all got to be considered within the context of the whole. When was this, and where in California?
I do understand it. And no apologies are needed. Just understand that the 'fakes' likely aren't, they're simply individuals who, like yourself, have reached a conclusion.
I accept it as information. So far, it's a)anecdotal, and b)incomplete. Like I said, we'll need everything if we're to really understand.
To quote Freddy Mercury: I want it all.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
A few comments and questions, capioskia.
Could you clarify just what about a person replying to you here marks them as 'fake' to you? It would help me understand where you are coming from.
About your wild fire story. Without wanting to dismiss it out of hand, there are many crucial bits of information we would need before just 'accepting it'. In the absence of actual before and after photographs of the area, we have to rely on people noticing and recalling important details which could easily point to mundane explanations.
What was the actual shape of the burnt/unburnt edge, and its distance from the closest part of the house, what was the vegetation cover on the ground around the house and how did it vary as you got farther from the house?
Had anyone watered the ground around the house recently?
As with 'historical happenings', it's not a matter of us just 'accepting' what you say.
We are fully accepting that you are honestly describing what you experienced and observed.
If we don't accept your interpretation of those experiences, that they could only be due to the influence of God rather than some combination of the workings of chance and the way our brain 'works', then we are not calling you a liar, or trying to attack or disparage you, we just think you are probably mistaken.
We are just pointing out that we think there are other plausible explanations that you may not have adequately considered, maybe because you are not sufficiently aware of just how such things actually can work out.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I know you're talking to BMcD, but I hope you don't mind if I address this point, too. The above is the impasse at which believers and non-believers often find themselves. Evidence is very frequently physically supported, and even if someone "wasn't there", secondary evidence is usually available. Let's say footprints in the snow as evidence of someone walking in the snow.
In fact, believers will usually go for that kind of idea: that we see the footsteps of God/Allah/Thor/Wotan. The fact that we have a whole bunch of different conceptions of these deities is a hint as to how poor an explanation it is. We give the supernatural all sorts of different characteristics depending on where we're born. Now, would that be because each culture has a different way of expressing something that definitely exists? Or might it be that all people have a tendency to want parental protection and love forever? The second (and it's not a dichotomy, there are many other possibilities) just seems more likely. Secondly, the "footprints" are often not physical at all, or have many other explanations available for them that are equally absurd and/or likely. That, again, points to those things not making sense.
What I mean is that "the footsteps of God" is a phrase that contains two questionable elements, and thus loses a lot of meaning.
No, basically the physical sciences strive to understand the interactions of the elements in the physical world. You'll need to present a "happening" that has no physical explanation before you declare it beyond the explanation of the physical sciences. That's why you'll often hear non-believers say "burden of proof" when you present them with bare assertions of the supernatural. All the supernatural would be is something that doesn't mesh with the rest of the observations of the physical sciences. That's all. Quantum mechanics has a bit of "spooky" in its language, which is often interpreted as supernatural, but is accepted as a description of the natural world because the careful measurement of the physical world often produces chaotic (or statistical) results.
That's not really the odds problem that's relevant. The problem explodes pretty quickly when you give the "intelligence" a name, language, and behaviour. Now you're talking about a very specific intelligence. Whether or not you're discussing an itelligence doing something is irrelevant: you mean a specific intelligence. Not only that, it's an intelligence you (by the admission of most believers) don't actually understand. So how exactly would you know if an intelligence you don't understand was doing something? Then to assign some probability to it is even more difficult.
You have an uphill climb if you want to call your personal experiences anything but personal experiences. I'm sure lots of people have had similar "walks" with God, because we all have similar ranges and patterns of behaviour. That's something else that doesn't point to any external influence.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Sigh. After all that typing, Bob said what I was trying to say more succinctly. I'll try not to take it too personally.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
He's pretty good at that, isn't he?
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Is that is what is waiting for us after we die? A boring eternity in the clouds repeatedly kissing the feet of daddy? And if we don't kiss his feet we get tourtured forever? Can I get a refund?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
If you're mormon you get a whole planet for you and all your wives!
ciarin.com
Oh man! Sign me up! A whole planet? I bet I could ... waaaaaitaminit. This is a trick, isn't it? Damn!
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
But just think, Will... whenever you screwed up, you'd have noplace to go, nobody to escape and hang out with... except your wife. And you think they wouldn't be talking to one another? Big ol' internet chat room of 'Oh, you do NOT want to know the stupid thing he did today when I asked him to take out the trash...'?
A whole planet. No friends, just wives.
Hell, man. It's Hell.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Isn't it my Planet Mormon civic duty to beat my imaginary wives into submission? Why aren't they taking out the trash? And get me a beer!
Jeez, I was all feminist until I got sent to Planet Mormon. It doesn't even sound like a nice place to visit.
Wait, when Mormons say "wives", do they mean "hot astrophysicist sluts"? I'm seeing the bright side of Planet Mormon all-of-a-sudden.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Mathematical logic suggests the worse off the odds, the more likely there had to be inteligence behind it. Oopses don't usually happen with low odds
I'm not sure what you'd be looking at, though everything is impossible until you understand how it works.
e.g. It's impossible to send a picture through a wire.
It's impossible to put a man on the moon.
It's impossible to talk to someone half-way across the world directly.
It's impossible to take a trip across the country in a single day.
or is it?
right, I'm willing to work through it step by step, but how much information can I give you at once without losing focus?
I can lay out for you the process of the formation of wind, though I'm sure from that explanation you'd have a laundry list of questions. Those of which might fork in many different directions and have to do with many different topics within themselves. Therefore, instead of getting to that point, I'd walk you through it one step at a time. if we get stuck, then we work through that step.
Ah, in other words, you don't trust me to be honest. This progress could get difficult in this case.
The problem with people "altering the context" is that they 99% of the time will back themselves into a corner and start to contradict themselves. Through the years of talking to people like you as well as other's of contradicting faiths, few have claimed I contradicted myself. Any who have have failed in backing up that claim.
eh, I enjoy the conversation. It's never a waste. It's more meaningful when people want to make progress. I appreciate your effort to do so.
absolutely. Just, the explanations need to better than "delusion" or "you're a liar". You can believe either if you want, but I know what I know.
well, I was thinking of more like odds using tangible stuff like DNA (Just an example, not necessarily the topic). I'd have to research again, but I know there are mathematical odds calculating the complexities of DNA strands.
Understood. If you wanted to take that approach, I know Discovery, Nova and National Geographic all have done extensive coverage of trying to logically explain Biblical stories. You could pull information out of something there and we could discuss it if you wish.
However, We'd also have to keep in mind that though the stories of the Bible are understood to be of God's divine intervention, it is logical to conclude that Gods divine intervention may have used natural methods. Why wouldn't God use his own creation to make things happen? In my experience, God seems to be more about timing than anything else.
yup
This assumes that many of us haven't already tried those methods. But please, offer them up. Perhaps we can provide you with some insight, as well.
Just the people who talk big about their unbelief and are very conclusive in their statements and yet don't present anything to back it up.
On the map I saw, it was a circle (pretty close to perfect)
Distance at the closest point was probably about 30-50 feet. give or take.
it was brush that went up a hill in their back yard. Much of the brush was destroyed except for close to the house from the pictures I saw. From what i was told, their neighbors weren't so lucky.
From the pictures I saw, it was hard to tell the consistency of the brush due to the fact that it was all charred, though it's my understanding that it was all consistent with exception of the lawn and bushes in the immediate property. Their property as far as I understand was not unique to other's property in the same area.
don't know, though others who had still lost their home in these particular fires
understood
We are just pointing out that we think there are other plausible explanations that you may not have adequately considered, maybe because you are not sufficiently aware of just how such things actually can work out.
Sure, it's very possible. There is a lot I don't know.