Turn on thread page Beta

scientific reasons for believing in god? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    And it is. But it isn't sound scientific evidence. Are you arguing that it is?
    No. Its not scientific evidence primarily because science seeks to explain natural pehonomena that follow laws. To take an example from the thread, soap floats in water because of natural laws, the make up of water and the soap.

    Testimony is concerned with specific events.

    But no, I just wanted to argue that testimony is good reliable evidence mainly because it's is starting to get popular to dismiss it.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    I just wanted to argue that testimony is good reliable evidence mainly because it's is starting to get popular to dismiss it.
    It is entirely dependent on the motivation and honesty, the physical and mental well-being, and the point of view of the claimant, as well as ambient conditions at the time of the observation.

    Eye witness evidence in court is notorious as being the least reliable form of evidence.

    Relying on it is folly.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mangala)
    scientific, logical evidence which points towards the existence of god

    convert me from atheism
    A scientific reason for believing in god would be the face that you have been diagnosed as clinically insane.

    Spoiler:
    Show
    Couldn't help myself.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    It is entirely dependent on the motivation and honesty, the physical and mental well-being, and the point of view of the claimant, as well as ambient conditions at the time of the observation.

    Eye witness evidence in court is notorious as being the least reliable form of evidence.

    Relying on it is folly.
    All you have done is point out that there are environments which make testimony unreliable. Similarly, there are environmental which make testimony very reliable. Whether it's science, history, law or sociology - you sift the poor evidence for the good.

    And your example about testimony in court as being "notoriously" unreliable shows the bad impression that seems to have popped up about testimony. There are reasons why courts rely so heavily on them. Most cases of mistaken testimony are involved in murder cases, it is known that when a weapon is present a person's perspective is drastically focused on the weapon and so miss out on loads of obvious details, getting them completely wrong even.

    On the other hand, the time between giving testimony and the event can help the testimony to be either very reliable or unreliable. Policeman are trained to ask questions which don't suggest a certain recall etc.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    All you have done is point out that there are environments which make testimony unreliable. Similarly, there are environmental which make testimony very reliable. Whether it's science, history, law or sociology - you sift the poor evidence for the good.
    You do. In terms of the existence of deities, reliance on testimony is never going to work as there are far too many variables and vested interests and too many proven cases of fraud for them to be believable.

    In court, the jury has the opportunity to see the witness and to make a judgement of his evidence, and to weigh it against other witnesses.

    In history, eye witness evidence is often taken as being more valuable than a secondary source, but that does not mean that it is necessarily unbiased and accurate, and it has to be weighed against other direct evidence and the evidence of other witnesses (if there are any).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You do. In terms of the existence of deities, reliance on testimony is never going to work as there are far too many variables and vested interests and too many proven cases of fraud for them to be believable.

    In court, the jury has the opportunity to see the witness and to make a judgement of his evidence, and to weigh it against other witnesses.

    In history, eye witness evidence is often taken as being more valuable than a secondary source, but that does not mean that it is necessarily unbiased and accurate, and it has to be weighed against other direct evidence and the evidence of other witnesses (if there are any).
    But I'm not arguing that someone's testimony that they have experienced God is good evidence of God. I'm simply defending testimony as reliable evidence in general

    Of course, I agree with court cases. With history I would say that being biased isn't really a problem, as that is taken into account in determining how trustworthy and accurate the testimony is, and this can be done confidently even without other evidence or eye witness testimony (of course that helps a lot and multiplies confidence in historical facts). Its back to seeing the environment of the testimony which guides factors in accurate testimony.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    I'm simply defending testimony as reliable evidence in general
    I know you are. And you are wrong; it is notoriously bad.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    I know you are. And you are wrong; it is notoriously bad.
    Perhaps for someone who reads the odd article that testimony in a murder case was inaccurate.

    For the courts, historians and even memory researchers, testimony can be very reliable evidence and often is.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    I know you are. And you are wrong; it is notoriously bad.
    That's all well and good. You have deigned to say yet again that first hand accounts are not acceptable proof and yet haven't said what acceptable proof is.

    I will ask for a fifteenth time: What proofs would you find acceptable? Please be specific.

    Alternately, I am more than willing to use the methodology you would use to prove that you exist. You say eye witness accounts are unreliable because witnesses could be mad, sick or have an agenda involving religion.

    So, I ask you to show me proper scientific methodology in a case like this and simply prove that you exist in a way that cannot be explained away by me being mad, sick or someone having an agenda to prove that you exist. As you are right there in the room with yourself, this should be relatively simple. You wouldn't be arguing for scientific proof of God if you couldn't even provide acceptable scientific proof of yourself within the constraints of the argument you're demanding. That would be silly.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ellie0497)
    I bet someone will mention the anthropic principle
    I never understood what it was supposed to prove, it just always seems a circular argument. :confused:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    For the courts, historians and even memory researchers, testimony can be very reliable evidence and often is.
    If by that you really mean Eye witnesses are sometimes accurate, then I agree.

    I suggest you start your learning on the subject here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewit...ny#Reliability

    There are many links to research on the matter.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I never understood what it was supposed to prove, it just always seems a circular argument. :confused:
    well there is no way we can think in a non-human way...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    If by that you really mean Eye witnesses are sometimes accurate, then I agree.

    I suggest you start your learning on the subject here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewit...ny#Reliability

    There are many links to research on the matter.
    So you're suggesting that first-person testimony is unreliable. Perfect. So that we can advance, please answer my previous question:

    How would you go about proving that you exist scientifically using the constraints you have put upon the discussion about God? Use whatever methodology you would use in that case, show your work and I'll use the same methodology to prove God.

    You and Mangala have repeated ad nauseum that you don't accept first person testimonies but have yet to reveal what proof you would accept.

    So for a 16th time: What proofs would you find acceptable? Please be specific.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    There's no 'empirical proof' on the matter but there are certain things which can lead you to the conclusion of a creator. For example the beginning of the universe, before the universe existed there was truly nothing, no time, no space, so how could a universe arise from absolutely nothing? Some people point at 'quantum fluctuations' but how could there be defined laws of physics before the universe came into existence if there was truly nothing. In abrahamic religions God is said to have existed 'forever', we can deduce that this agrees with what was there before the universe, since time is only a property of this universe, then if something existed in a realm with no time, in a sense it existed forever. So just my two cents, I don't think the universe could arise from absolutely nothing by itself, because if we point fingers at physical laws and strings in the space-time continuum creating particles and whatnot, we can always ask where they came from, and so on and on. But with the Abrahamic definition of God, we can stop asking what came before that or how that arose because God predates time and thus there is nothing 'before'.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    If by that you really mean Eye witnesses are sometimes accurate, then I agree.

    I suggest you start your learning on the subject here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewit...ny#Reliability

    There are many links to research on the matter.
    Have you learnt much about the subject?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KyleBroflovski)
    how could a universe arise from absolutely nothing?
    We don't know, of course. But you need to state how a deity could have existed without needing to be created.

    It seems to me that if we can define a deity as something that needs no creation then we can also define a universe as something that needs no creation.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    Have you learnt much about the subject?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I don't know. Have you?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KyleBroflovski)
    There's no 'empirical proof' on the matter but there are certain things which can lead you to the conclusion of a creator. For example the beginning of the universe, before the universe existed there was truly nothing, no time, no space, so how could a universe arise from absolutely nothing? Some people point at 'quantum fluctuations' but how could there be defined laws of physics before the universe came into existence if there was truly nothing. In abrahamic religions God is said to have existed 'forever', we can deduce that this agrees with what was there before the universe, since time is only a property of this universe, then if something existed in a realm with no time, in a sense it existed forever. So just my two cents, I don't think the universe could arise from absolutely nothing by itself, because if we point fingers at physical laws and strings in the space-time continuum creating particles and whatnot, we can always ask where they came from, and so on and on. But with the Abrahamic definition of God, we can stop asking what came before that or how that arose because God predates time and thus there is nothing 'before'.
    I made a reply to this several pages ago, go and check that out.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    We don't know, of course. But you need to state how a deity could have existed without needing to be created.

    It seems to me that if we can define a deity as something that needs no creation then we can also define a universe as something that needs no creation.
    And it seems that if you can't even prove your own existence within the confines of the parameters you've set for this conversation, it would be silly to try to prove God's.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    I don't know. Have you?
    You don't know? Then why suggest a wiki page? Do you know much about Elizabeth Loftus' work on eye witness testimony as reliable evidence in a court of law? I'm familiar with some of her work.

    Some environments can make eye witness testimony severely prone to various changes.

    Some environments can make eye witness testimony very accurate with excellent recall.

    I mean, i was wondering if you paint historical testimony the same as that in the courts, considering that the majority of crimes that are testified to are rather short, quick events (with weapons present and pressured situations which affect how much someone takes in). This is hardly analogous to the the majority of historical testimony.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.