Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Empirical Evidence and God?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 79 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 7, 2012 11:01:18 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 7, 2012 11:03:33 PM PDT
"Re Vasquez, 5-7 8:59 PM: Your sources are defective."

so check them.

Verify them.

Look at the historical consensus of modern day academia.

Don't just state it. Verify if the critical non christian scholars actually agree that the events took place. Check if Jesus really was a type of prophetic figure, if he was known for teaching to the poor if people genuinely believed they saw Him resurrected. Check what happened right after he died and check the time period in which it all took place.

Check the sources historically. Check all 10 events against critical scholarship.

Check the prophecies and check the interpretations and when they came into play.

In reply to an earlier post on May 7, 2012 11:13:37 PM PDT
Re Vasquez, above: "so check them." This has been done, in detail. See:
Loftus, ed., The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails.

In reply to an earlier post on May 7, 2012 11:21:08 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 7, 2012 11:26:29 PM PDT
Re Vasquez, above: "so check them." This has been done, in detail. See:
Loftus, ed., The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails.

_________

That has nothing to do with checking the prophecies in historical context. Its purely a theological argument that question the morality of the biblical Deity and poorly so. Without any notion of what certain actions meant in Judaic contexts and probably no knowledge of ancient Judeo historical language or even any type of historical reasoning of what certain events actually meant when it came to this Deities responses to one's actions.

Its has absolutely nothing to do with checking the sources I discuss. What I am talking about is something rarely checked and almost always scoffed at without attempting to verify.

I know the arguments against Him. I checked them and crosschecked and studied the other deities in depth. I did my homework quite thoroughly.

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 6:13:09 AM PDT
Re Vasquez, above: It is obvious from this post that you have NOT examined the reference in question. Therefore, your opinion on it is worthless.

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 9:01:18 AM PDT
<<I Propose that if these conditions were met you have met the criterion for Empirical evidence for God.>>

How does proving that a prophecy occurred also proves the existence of a god? Wouldn't this only prove that a prophecy occurred?

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 10:15:51 AM PDT
Re Gandalf, above: If a correct prophecy which involved a god actually occurred, it would be a reasonable inference that this demonstrated the existence of said god. Of course, Vasquez has shown nothing of the sort.

Posted on May 8, 2012 10:29:31 AM PDT
A. Caplan says:
Historical evidence that can be interpreted to have different meanings, especially to predict an event that has already happened, is not empirical evidence in any sense of the word.

Belief in G-d is just that: a belief. It cannot be studied scientifically and, contrary to certain creationists, believers in intelligent design, and scientists, the existence of G-d can be neither proven nor disproven by science. In fact, science does not even address the issue.

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 1:24:53 PM PDT
The problem with the concept of a god is even if a being claims that he is a god, how could it prove it? A god itself can't prove to us that he is one. He could be a powerful being from another world or an inter-dimensional being. We would have no way of finding out whether it was a "normal" being or a god. Even if he were to move the moon in space or perform what we could call a miracle, it could be a technological trick or a powerful illusion.

I would ask to someone who believes in a god: how can we tell the difference between a god and an advanced being if we don't know the possibilities that our brains or technology can unleash. This can't be answered and thus a god can't be identified as such. To prove a god we would have to know about these possibilities, but we don't and probably never will. Thus the quest of proving a god is rather futile.

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 5:07:05 PM PDT
Re Gandalf, above: Exactly -- and this is the same argument that I have made to show that a proof of the existence of any god is impossible. Similarly, it can be shown that no thesis involving a god can convey any information, which makes believing in one irrelevant.

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2012 7:20:44 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 8, 2012 7:25:30 PM PDT
"How does proving that a prophecy occurred also proves the existence of a god? Wouldn't this only prove that a prophecy occurred?"

I never said it PROVED anything.

Prophecy does not prove God exists. It only gives EVIDENCE that God exists due to the specific claims that this prophecy comes from God. It would be evidence that the supernatural existed and eliminate reasonable doubt for the existence of God while adding weight to His probable existence.

Empirical Data is not meant to PROVE anything. Its meant to establish valid evidence and eliminate reasonable doubt. There will always be doubt but empirical evidence eliminates logical reason for it.

Posted on May 8, 2012 8:31:14 PM PDT
D. Thomas says:
It's a nonsensical, frivolous question, and I'm not going to waste a second more...

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 3:13:48 AM PDT
Blu Boy says:
If it is so nonsensical... why take the time to post?

I have often wondered why so many people take the time to say that something is not worth their time. Just sos yall know, this topic is stupid and anyone who talks about it is stupid. I am therefore not stupid for pointing that out....

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 4:36:25 AM PDT
<<It only gives EVIDENCE that God exists due to the specific claims that this prophecy comes from God.>>

It only provides evidence that a prophecy occurred. That the prophecy comes from a god must have it's own evidence. One does not corroborate to the other. The person who made the prophecy may have lied or may believe that it came from a god, but evidence that the prophecy is actually related to a god has to be provided.

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 5:15:56 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 9, 2012 5:17:09 AM PDT
Ambulocetus says:
Elias,

Prophecies are seldom written to be taken literally. This means that nearly every prophecy must first be INTERPRETED, then evaluated (e.g., are the "sevens" in Daniel 9 periods of 7 days, 7 weeks, 7 years?). By what "empirical" means can you possibly interpret prophecy in a non-question-begging, rigorous, consistent, and historically responsible way?

You might also want to examine some of the attempts at refutation presented on this webpage--you know, to ensure intersubjective validity, empirical rigor, and whatever whatever whatever:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.html

For example, here is an oft-cited problem in scriptural geneaologies of Christ:
"The genealogies in Matthew and Luke contradict each other and the Hebrew scriptures. Was Jesus' grandfather on Joseph's side Jacob (Matthew 1:16) or Eli (Luke 3:23)? Was Shealtiel's father Jeconiah (1 Chronicles 3:17, Matthew 1:12) or Neri (Luke 3:27)? Matthew 1:11 omits Jehoiakim. . . between Josiah and Jeconiah (1 Chronicles 3:15 and Matthew 1:4 omits Admin between Ram and Amminadab (Luke 3:33). Finally, Matthew 1:13 says that Abiud is the son of Zerubbabel, Luke 3:27 says that Rhesa is the son of Zerubbabel, but 1 Chronicles 3:19-20 lists neither as sons of Zerubbabel."

If you want "empirical", I would suggest that you avoid the use of cobbled-together collections of ancient folklore.

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 7:03:19 AM PDT
D. Thomas says:
BB wrote: "If it is so nonsensical... why take the time to post?"

To make known my opinion of the question.

For that matter, why should anyone care what you have "often wondered"?

In reply to an earlier post on May 10, 2012 2:36:15 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 10, 2012 7:20:55 PM PDT
Blu Boy says:
But if your opinion is that the topic isn't worth your time? Why take the time to say so?

I don't want to type one sentence on this topic because it isn't worth my time. (Ironic eh)

-"For that matter, why should anyone care what you have "often wondered"?"

To make known my opinion of the topic.

In reply to an earlier post on May 10, 2012 7:13:50 AM PDT
I suggest you read "The Gospel in the Stars" by Duane E. Spencer, it shows how the constellations and their stars told the essential story of the New Testament ever since the Stars were visible by man. I am sure there are other titles that could prove worth your time but I haven't read those ones. If you would like them just let me know.

In reply to an earlier post on May 10, 2012 10:50:11 PM PDT
"The person who made the prophecy may have lied or may believe that it came from a god, but evidence that the prophecy is actually related to a god has to be provided."

The person would have no reason to lie. If he was going to lie he would have said it came from him by his own power. Giving credit to another adds to the credibility by demonstrating a sense of humility.

That would be what you would call internal evidence of a documents contents. Its part of the critical method of checking a document, similar to the criterion o embarrassment.

There is no indication the person lied. The opposite is true. Doubt in this case would not be justified as it was not just one person who made accurate prophetic claims. There were several at different points in time.

In reply to an earlier post on May 10, 2012 10:53:29 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 10, 2012 10:55:09 PM PDT
"Prophecies are seldom written to be taken literally. "

Which is the reason I made a point to pick prophecies that were specifically intended to be taken literally in ancient Judaism.

"By what "empirical" means can you possibly interpret prophecy in a non-question-begging, rigorous, consistent, and historically responsible way?"

By establishing a prophecy CRITERIA. One that allows for the prophecy to be scrutinized under the empirical method. I made a point to establish 6 major requirements for this exact purpose. Its in the very first post. The interpretation issue is also discussed.

Its in my very first post. The opening post was meant to respond to this exact issue.

And I am not discussing anything about the New testament. I am basing this entirely on Old Testament accounts and historical data from non religious, non christian documents in agreement with critical historical record.

In reply to an earlier post on May 10, 2012 10:55:28 PM PDT
Eric Pyle says:
<<That would be what you would call internal evidence of a documents contents. Its part of the critical method of checking a document, similar to the criterion o embarrassment.>>

Internal documentary evidence is not empirical evidence.

If your "empirical" evidence rests on documentary evidence, you need to move this thread from Amazon to Failblog.com.

In reply to an earlier post on May 10, 2012 11:05:41 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 10, 2012 11:25:37 PM PDT
"If your "empirical" evidence rests on documentary evidence, you need to move this thread from Amazon to Failblog.com."

The empirical method for validating prophecy the existence of God due to the fulfillment of prophecies I presented in my criteria which are attributed to God. There is no reason to doubt the author of those prophecies as all criteria are met.

That one chooses to maintain doubt about His existence is a personal choice but the doubt is no longer reasonable.

This is a different issue that discusses the integrity of the author and ignores the authors supernatural knowledge. It ignores that something impossible just took place. It ignores that something we call supernatural has taken place.

In reply to an earlier post on May 10, 2012 11:31:02 PM PDT
Eric Pyle says:
<<There is no reason to doubt the author of those prophecies as all criteria are met.>>

In other words, you are relying on documentary evidence, not empirical evidence.

If you trust an ancient document, that is not empirical evidence.

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 7:01:23 AM PDT
Ambulocetus says:
Not much point in generating novel arguments when existing arguments are so challenging for the OPer to meet:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html

CTRL + F and look for the phrase "specific details". This is where all arguments from prophecy tend to bite the dust, hard.

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 7:25:55 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 11, 2012 7:37:19 AM PDT
Charles says:
Empirical Evidence in Scientific Research

Scientific evidence is considered empirical when it can be observed by many people and all will agree as to what they observed. An example would be reading a thermometer. No matter who observes the thermometer, it still displays the same temperature. The counterexample to this is physically sensing warmth or coolness. Observer A might sense that a room is warm, while observer B senses that the same room is cool. These observations differ depending on the observer, and are therefore considered subjective. Evidence that is not dependent on the observer (i.e., is objective), that appears the same no matter who observes the evidence, is considered to be empirical evidence.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_empirical_evidence#ixzz1uZS21vud

Using a fictional book can only prove there a writing style called fiction. You might as well be quoting from Harry Potter.

"No man has seen God" From the book you quote. There goes your empirical evidence. Get real and keep your religion in your homes.

In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 9:59:11 AM PDT
"The person would have no reason to lie. If he was going to lie he would have said it came from him by his own power. Giving credit to another adds to the credibility by demonstrating a sense of humility."

On the contrary, claiming to speak in the name of a god brings some perks that regular folks don't get.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Religion forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  16
Total posts:  79
Initial post:  May 5, 2012
Latest post:  May 12, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions