Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mangala)
    evidenceˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/noun
    1. 1.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

    Give me information which indicates that a belief in god is true. I literally cannot be more specific without actually giving evidence myself.

    And if you think a "first-hand account" is evidence, then I would refer you back to my point about UFOs.
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mangala)
    evidenceˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/noun
    1. 1.the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

    Give me information which indicates that a belief in god is true. I literally cannot be more specific without actually giving evidence myself.

    And if you think a "first-hand account" is evidence, then I would refer you back to my point about UFOs.
    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
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    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.
    If someone told you that they saw a dragon, would you believe them? No, exactly, you'd want evidence.

    Give me evidence or get to **** pal
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mangala)
    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
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    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
    welcome back
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    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
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Note that 0^0 = 1
    But 0^0 = 0^(1-1) = 0^1 * 0^(-1) = 0/0
    Hence 0/0 = 1; subtracting 0/0 from both sides we have 0/0 - 0/0 = 1 - 0/0 = 1 - 1 = 0. But 0/0 - 0/0 = (0-0)/0 = 0/0.
    Hence we have 0/0 = 0, 0/0 = 1, so 1 = 0.


    Now, either there is a god or there is not a god.
    If there is a god, then there is a god.
    If there is not a god, then there are 0 gods. But 1 = 0, so there is a god.
    Hence whether or not there is a god, there is a god. Thus the existence of a god is a tautology.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mangala)
    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
    Here's the problem with the conversation so far:

    "Give me evidence of God."
    "Sure. Here are first-hand accounts of people who claim to have spoken to God."
    "First-hand evidence isn't evidence!"
    "Okay. What will you accept as evidence?"
    "EVIDENCE!"
    "First-hand evidence is evidence."
    "NOT FIRST HAND EVIDENCE!"
    "Okay, what will you accept as evidence?"
    "EVIDENCE!"
    "You've already dismissed an entire primary source of evidence. Are there any other primary sources you'll dismiss?"
    "I JUST WANT EVIDENCE!"
    "You're just going around in circles now. You want evidence, then dismiss the largest source of evidence courts accept. I'd love to help but until you actually define what you will accept as evidence it's just going to be frustrating you to talk to us. Could you please tell us what type of evidence you will accept?"
    "EEEEEHHHHHVIIIIIIIIDEEEEEEEEEEN CE!!!!!"

    So, for the twelfth time, I will ask: What type of evidence will you accept? Please be specific.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mangala)
    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
    Or that you've got a manager who will actually sort out your championship level central midfielders.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    "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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    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.
    You have stated first person evidence is unacceptable. I understand that. You have removed an entire class of evidence, however, and it bears repeating - We do not know what evidence he(Or you, for that matter) would find acceptable.

    So, for the thirteenth time, what evidence would you accept? Please be specific. Repeating that you don't accept first person evidence ad nauseum gets us no closer to finding out what evidence you would accept. You can continue to say "Evidence." followed by "Not first person." which will only result in the number of times I repeat, "What evidence will you accept?" increasing.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mangala)
    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
    Lol I'm arguing testimony is a form of evidence

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    So, for the thirteenth time, what evidence would you accept? Please be specific.
    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.

    Perhaps you should turn your attention to matter such as why prayers (the success of which are hypothesised as being a benefit of worshipping your god) do not work. I am quite sure many people prayed for the safety of people in Syria, yet they continue to die and suffer in large numbers. If prayers are valid why don't they work? Why do religious people continue to pray, in the face of this ineffectiveness?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    Lol I'm arguing testimony is a form of evidence

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    And it is. But it isn't sound scientific evidence. Are you arguing that it is?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    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.

    Otherwise, for a fourteenth time, I will ask: What evidence will you accept?

    Obviously, if we're talking about 'God', then claiming you need repeatable claims is irrelevant and silly. By that definition of 'Scientific'(That is - Following the scientific method - Being able to, in a controlled environment, recreate God or His actions), you do not exist, either. You cannot prove to me using the exact same standard by which you ask we prove God exists.

    The only purpose to requesting scientific proof of a specific person, place or things existence to one who has not experienced it is to either:

    A) Want to repeat 'That's not scientific evidence' again and again.
    B) Ask for something which is silly and obviously unsupportable.

    Maybe I'm simply being too obtuse, so I counter with an offer:

    Please prove to me that you exist scientifically in a way that I cannot explain away by saying "I could be sick or mad. Or someone with an agenda might be pretending that you exist to push the idea of your existence on to me."

    When I see your methodology for proving you exist, that will probably give me a better understanding of what you want from this thread.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Post 172 of this thread.
    And here was my response to that, which was never addressed:

    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    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.

    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    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.
    That is not evidence you exist. I'm still unsure of what is wanted from this thread. If you could please prove that you exist, I will endeavor to use the same methodology to prove God's existence.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 13, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.