scientific reasons for believing in god?

Any information that suggests a belief in God is true except first-hand accounts or do you have specific issues? I understand you have a mocking indifference to firsthand accounts(Despite probably believing that Ulan Batuur exists), so I'm trying to understand where you're coming from.

That's literally grouping every type of testimony together, being so incredibly broad as to be meaningless.

Testimony that a car crash happened.

Sorry. Some people claim to have seen a UFO. So your testimony is unreliable.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Testimony that a car crash happened would be grouped together with other evidence - such as the crashed car.

show me the crashed car.

What if the testimony was 30 years old?

Also, let's change it slightly. What about a hit and run?

Your comparison of UFO testimony with all testimony is laughable. You throw the baby out with the bath water, and the only way your analogy makes sense is to be as vague as possible, almost assuming all testimony is uncritically accepted at face value.

Posted from TSR Mobile

What if the testimony was 30 years old?

Also, let's change it slightly. What about a hit and run?

Your comparison of UFO testimony with all testimony is laughable. You throw the baby out with the bath water, and the only way your analogy makes sense is to be as vague as possible, almost assuming all testimony is uncritically accepted at face value.

Posted from TSR Mobile

what the hell are u talking about give me proof of god pal cos so far ur just trying to give a weird definition of evidence

the only reason i can think of for the existence is god is that aguero stays playin for city, why else would he stay if god wasnt working his magic? science cant disprove that

"Sure. Here are first-hand accounts of people who claim to have spoken to God."

Surely you understand why claims of having seen a deity are unsound? The person involved may have been ill or mad. He may have been seeking attention. He may have had an agenda to start a new religion (or boost an existing one). He may even have been trying to earn a living through trickery.

All of these explanations are more likely than the claim itself, which is unsupported by other evidence.

what the hell are u talking about give me proof of god pal cos so far ur just trying to give a weird definition of evidence

So, for the thirteenth time, what evidence would you accept? Please be specific.

Lol I'm arguing testimony is a form of evidence

Posted from TSR Mobile

You have been told several times what characteristics the evidence must have to qualify as being scientifically valid, and you have also been told it is impossible to be specific. Yet you keep trying to pass off unscientific nonsense like personal, unsupported, unrepeatable claims as valid. They aren't. Obviously. It is tedious.

Please quote the place where I have been told what characteristics the evidence must have to qualify as being scientifically valid.

Post 172 of this thread.

That's what I was looking for - Essentially to prove the absurdity of the question. "Dove soap floats" - We know this because a scientist somewhere took Dove soap, pushed it to the bottom of a tub of water, watched as it rode and made a check on a sheet.

He then repeated this, reported his findings and was independently corroborated. This is why we, scientifically, know that this is a fact.

The existence of individuals is much more problematic: Without visiting Outer Mongolia, one has no way of 'proving' that Outer Mongolia exists or that its capital is Ulan Batuur. We accept that it does because people tell us it does and the idea is within our sphere of experience.

God is beyond most people's experiences. If you then discount all first person testimonies as the ravings of madmen and con artists, you have essentially dismissed any acceptable evidence of God. Of course, you have also discounted all evidence of George Washington, any Pharoah in Egypt and the vast majority of the many billions of people here as well.

So the original posters question is either meaningless just as 'Please provide scientific evidence of Julius Caesar's life' would be as a post(Because you cannot recreate in a controlled environment the birth, life and death of Julius Caesar as the Scientific Method requires for the evidence he's looking for) or it is an actively malevolent attempt to simply say 'Not evidence' again and again and again.

Because I do not believe that the original poster is either malevolent or foolish, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt and asking for an 8th time: What evidence will you accept? Please be specific.

And here was my response to that, which was never addressed:




So, since we seem to be at an impasse, please prove that you exist to me scientifically in a way that cannot be explained away by me saying, "I could be sick or mad." or "Someone with an agenda is pretending that you exist."

Again, once I see your methodology for proving such, I will be in a much better position for helping you. Obviously, since you exist and are right there with you in the same room, it should be a cakewalk.

You are attempting to pass from the thread's premise, scientific proof (which may or more likely, may not, be unobtainable), to the realms of philosophy. It is only one more downward step before you reach the bowels of belief systems known as religion or superstition.

And it is. But it isn't sound scientific evidence. Are you arguing that it is?

I just wanted to argue that testimony is good reliable evidence mainly because it's is starting to get popular to dismiss it.