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

scientific reasons for believing in god? Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    What didn't escape my attention was that the post you replied to asked for evidence, no specific type of evidence.
    Yes. The context is important though. It was in a thread specifically looking for scientific reasons to believe in deities, though, wasn't it? I think the default sort of useful evidence would be scientific, don't you? I'm not sure eyewitness evidence cuts it in that scenario.

    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    Eye witness testimony is certainly reliable in history, with some testimony more reliable than others,
    So, not very reliable at all, unless corroborated, then? Or from an unimpeachable source, one with a proven record of telling the truth and not being mistaken? The key question being how to discriminate between contradictory sources.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VV Cephei A)
    the universe had a definitive beginning.
    That has not been proved at all.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    That has not been proved at all.
    From what we know of cosmology, it is at least more probable than not. Most physicists would agree that the universe is likely not past-eternal.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    It is impossible to be specific: you can only characterise the evidence.
    That actually isn't true. In science, if you come up with a question, you establish a methodology for proving one way or the other and establish a thesis. He could state that he wants 'Classical logical evidence', 'Anecdotal evidence', even 'Natural evidence'(Which I'm assuming that he doesn't want as he stated he wants evidence and not simply 'Something that science hasn't proven yet').

    I want to know by which methodology he will accept the proof. At that point, we would establish a baseline - Things that we both agree are probably true - And then we would need to build upon what we know to be true together.


    And so, I will ask for a ninth time: What evidence will he accept?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    Perfect! Then you accept first person testimonies and the thread is solved. Welcome to your newfound faith.

    Unless, of course, you're suggesting that you need specific types of evidence, in which case I'll ask you for a seventh time: What evidence will you accept? Please be specific.
    just gonna assume you're trolling at this point
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    So how does the multiverse create our universe?
    not a clue, not even sure scientists really know
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mangala)
    just gonna assume you're trolling at this point
    I actually would suggest you're the one for trolling. You're demanding evidence but refusing to be specific as to the type of evidence you will accept: You ask a question, then move the goalposts when the question is answered, then accuse others of 'Trolling' when they ask for specifics of what you're looking for. If you are, indeed, curious and not trolling, then I will ask for a tenth time:

    What evidence are you looking for? Please be specfic.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mangala)
    not a clue, not even sure scientists really know
    Lol so I don't understand what your point was. There are many other universes... Okay?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Are you trolling? Scientific reasons for believing in God are....0. I'll take my atheism marinaded in science thank you.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    I actually would suggest you're the one for trolling. You're demanding evidence but refusing to be specific as to the type of evidence you will accept: You ask a question, then move the goalposts when the question is answered, then accuse others of 'Trolling' when they ask for specifics of what you're looking for. If you are, indeed, curious and not trolling, then I will ask for a tenth time:

    What evidence are you looking for? Please be specfic.
    Scientific evidence, have you not seen the thread title or something?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    I want to know by which methodology he will accept the proof. At that point, we would establish a baseline - Things that we both agree are probably true -
    Things you both agree are probably true. Is that a firm base for a scientific enquiry?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Things you both agree are probably true. Is that a firm base for a scientific enquiry?
    Well, we've already established that using a 'scientific inquiry' isn't a sound basis for proving or disproving a being's existence. It's absurd.

    If he wants natural evidence, I would probably start with something we both believe is probably true, like the big bang, and build from there.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    Well, we've already established that using a 'scientific inquiry' isn't a sound basis for proving or disproving a being's existence. It's absurd.

    If he wants natural evidence, I would probably start with something we both believe is probably true, like the big bang, and build from there.
    So, unable to meet his requirement for scientific evidence, you intend to palm him off with the usual illogical, self-referential and superstitious nonsense?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    So, unable to meet his requirement for scientific evidence, you intend to palm him off with the usual illogical, self-referential and superstitious nonsense?

    Is that what you got out of this?

    (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.

    And so, to stop dancing, I will ask him again for the 11th time: What evidence will he accept? Please be specific.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Yes. The context is important though. It was in a thread specifically looking for scientific reasons to believe in deities, though, wasn't it? I think the default sort of useful evidence would be scientific, don't you? I'm not sure eyewitness evidence cuts it in that scenario.



    So, not very reliable at all, unless corroborated, then? Or from an unimpeachable source, one with a proven record of telling the truth and not being mistaken? The key question being how to discriminate between contradictory sources.
    Well if you've been on TSR for more than a week, you'll know that threads hardly stick closely to the title heading.

    No. You don't assume eye witness testimony is unreliable if it isn't corroborated, just that it's not as strong evidence as testimony that is. Though you can gave general approaches to testimony, it really does depend on when and where the testimony was taken. Its context can create an environment which inclines either towards or away from reliability. You're example of an unimpeachable source. Perhaps the person's education and upbringing make it improbable that he would be mistaken. Say, the testimony of a doctor of the wounds which caused a man's death. Or a professional historian retelling an event he has investigated.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    You're example of an unimpeachable source. Perhaps the person's education and upbringing make it improbable that he would be mistaken. Say, the testimony of a doctor of the wounds which caused a man's death. Or a professional historian retelling an event he has investigated.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm assuming you're going to use the fact that the Apostles included both a historian and a doctor. I would have followed up with discussions of the Patrologia. But until we discover what the original poster actually will accept by evidence, it's meaningless. Hopefully, he will respond with what he will accept.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    I'm assuming you're going to use the fact that the Apostles included both a historian and a doctor. I would have followed up with discussions of the Patrologia. But until we discover what the original poster actually will accept by evidence, it's meaningless. Hopefully, he will respond with what he will accept.
    Well I never intended that, I was literally just thinking of examples which make some eye witness testimony reliable in its own right without other corroborating testimony.

    But to be specific, I find the Gospel of Luke and Acts to have much historical accuracy.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Science rules out the divine at a disciplinary level. Metaphysical reasons for believing in God would be a better title.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    I actually would suggest you're the one for trolling. You're demanding evidence but refusing to be specific as to the type of evidence you will accept: You ask a question, then move the goalposts when the question is answered, then accuse others of 'Trolling' when they ask for specifics of what you're looking for. If you are, indeed, curious and not trolling, then I will ask for a tenth time:

    What evidence are you looking for? Please be specfic.
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by librarygirl)
    Are you trolling? Scientific reasons for believing in God are....0. I'll take my atheism marinaded in science thank you.
    alright library girl
 
 
 
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
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    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

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