Christian Evidence

[njaohnt]

Why are you even here?

Okay, more so, it would have to be very extraordinary. Nothing like what we see today.

 

Sorry, imatfaal, but I haven't found anything I haven't replied to.

[Arete]

I think you misunderstood me. "You can't just decide for yourself what constitutes proof, evidence, or fact." Yes I can, and I did. It's not like I would think that you would (doesn't seem like you take anything as proof, evidence, or fact.) take it as anything.

 

When you want to equate a belief in Bible stories with the acceptance of a scientific theory, you need equatable evidence. Science has a rather specific definition of evidence. In this sense, if you want to say, compare acceptance of evolutionary theory with Biblical creation, or suggest that belief in God is the same as acceptance of the theory of gravity, you don't get to choose the definition of evidence, as the evidence supporting these scientific theories is precisely defined.

 

It would be helpful in understanding this if you read through this article and understood the below diagram:

http://www.dur.ac.uk...dence/cofev.htm

Edited August 2, 2012 by Arete

[njaohnt]

I take it as blatantly ignoring the scientific method and our rules.

 

Consider where you are, please. You came to a SCIENCE forum. You need to comply with the rules and methodology given by science. Otherwise, go debate in a theology forum, I'm sure you'll have a lot more consensus.

 

 

I don't understand, you're quoting something you didn't say?

 

Okay, now everyone all mixed up.

 

I did say that. Not here though. This all got started when ydoaPs quoted that from my signature.

 

When you want to equate a belief in Bible stories with the acceptance of a scientific theory, you need equatable evidence. Science has a rather specific definition of evidence. In this sense, if you want to say, compare acceptance of evolutionary theory with Biblical creation, or suggest that belief in God is the same as acceptance of the theory of gravity, you don't get to choose the definition of evidence, as the evidence supporting these scientific theories is precisely defined.

 

It would be helpful in understanding this if you read through this article and understood the below diagram:

http://www.dur.ac.uk...dence/cofev.htm

I consider everything where I said

Evidence

evidence. Sorry if you don't. That image is kind of crazy, and where it says "Evidence" I would say that that should say extraordinary evidence.

 

I'll give you an example. Dark matter. What evidence is there of that?

 

There is one thing that I said that would comply as evidence according to the chart. The healer at my church, and John of God. You can compare miracle with miracle, and they agree with each other.

Edited August 2, 2012 by njaohnt

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'll give you an example. Dark matter. What evidence is there of that?

Buttloads.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence

 

(Those would be metric buttloads. A common scientific unit.)

 

There's a lot less evidence to say what it is, but evidence of its existence is hardly lacking.

[njaohnt]

Anyone who can watch this series of videos, there are more than 15 of them, and still believe in the New Testament.... Well they do have faith.... but no idea what evidence consists of..

 

Sorry, I'm not going to watch the whole series until you watch my videos.

 

If you want, you can point out certain parts in it, but I'm not risking my time on watching all those. Maybe I would if you watch mine.

[Moontanman]

 

Dark matter is known due to it's gravitational influence njaohnt, yes that means there is actual evidence it exists, what it is exactly is contested if i understadn it correctly but it's existence is derived from the effects of it's gravity.

 

There is one thing that I said that would comply as evidence according to the chart. The healer at my church, and John of God. You can compare miracle with miracle, and they agree with each other.

 

 

The healer at your church is no better than any other faith healer. Does he regrow severed limbs? Restore eyes? If you were to look into it secretly you would find out he is a charlatan... No faith healer has ever healed anyone at a rate any higher than natural recovery and yes people do recover naturally from things even cancer.

 

Njoahnt you are being mislead by these people, you don't have to stop believing in god but faith healers are charlatans, it's a win win for them every time they try to heal, if it works then god healed them, if it doesn't work then the person didn't believe strongly enough. They can't loose, it's like the casinos in Vegas, he always wins because he is fake and doesn't have to heal everyone to prove it to people who want to believe so badly.

 

These "faith" healers are quite frankly the worst of the worst, lying in the name of god, if the god of the bible exists he must have a very special hot place for faith healers...

 

You are young, your exploration here at least shows you are questioning what you are being told, continue to do so, do not simply believe because some one told you it was true. Investigate it your self and finding that the things that fundamentalists say have to be true for god to be true is false. They worship a book written by men about the myths of their favorite gods.

 

You do not have to give up believing in god to understand that natural processes can account for the universe we see today. think of it as science discovering how god really did it... Don't worship a book njaohnt, you can still believe in God and understand that science has the answers and the book these people worship does not. It is demonstrably wrong about it's description of the natural world and how it works.

 

To believe in the validity of science doesn't mean you are an atheist no matter how many times they claim it to be the case...

 

Sorry, I'm not going to watch the whole series until you watch my videos.

 

If you want, you can point out certain parts in it, but I'm not risking my time on watching all those. Maybe I would if you watch mine.

 

 

I did watch your videos njaohnt, if i am part of a discussion I always look at the evidence presented...

[njaohnt]

Buttloads.

 

http://en.wikipedia....tional_evidence

 

(Those would be metric buttloads. A common scientific unit.)

 

There's a lot less evidence to say what it is, but evidence of its existence is hardly lacking.

Take a different perspective. Put together atheism and theism, and look at the evidence.

Our earth's existence has so much evidence.

Our earth is a lot like dark matter. Just make a little change to your statement.

 

"There's a lot less evidence to say what it is, but evidence of its existence is hardly lacking."

to

There's a lot less evidence to say what made it, but evidence of its existence is hardly lacking.

 

That's true, no?

 

According to the chart "Comparison with other data" leads to evidence.

Where's the comparison in dark matter? What are you to believe?

If you get picky, there is no comparison. All this dark matter is, is just distortions when looking into out space.

Tell me if I'm wrong.

 

There so is that chart right?

[Arete]

That image is kind of crazy, and where it says "Evidence" I would say that that should say extraordinary evidence.

 

All scientific theories require evidence meeting those criteria. I'm feeling like a broken record, but If you want to compare Biblical accounts with scientific theories, or equate your beliefs with the acceptance of scientific theories, you need equatable evidence.

 

There is one thing that I said that would comply as evidence according to the chart. The healer at my church, and John of God. You can compare miracle with miracle, and they agree with each other.

 

No, a single miracle performed by your healer, under controlled conditions would represent a single data point. Many experimentally controlled miracles by him would represent data. A statistical correlation with, say an controlled prayer experiment would provide you with a correlation - which would constitute some evidence. Multiple studies showing the same correlation in independent communities would constitute scientific evidence supporting miracle healing.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Arete

[njaohnt]

The healer at your church is no better than any other faith healer. Does he regrow severed limbs? Restore eyes? If you were to look into it secretly you would find out he is a charlatan... No faith healer has ever healed anyone at a rate any higher than natural recovery and yes people do recover naturally from things even cancer.

 

Njoahnt you are being mislead by these people, you don't have to stop believing in god but faith healers are charlatans, it's a win win for them every time they try to heal, if it works then god healed them, if it doesn't work then the person didn't believe strongly enough. They can't loose, it's like the casinos in Vegas, he always wins because he is fake and doesn't have to heal everyone to prove it to people who want to believe so badly.

 

These "faith" healers are quite frankly the worst of the worst, lying in the name of god, if the god of the bible exists he must have a very special hot place for faith healers...

 

You are young, your exploration here at least shows you are questioning what you are being told, continue to do so, do not simply believe because some one told you it was true. Investigate it your self and finding that the things that fundamentalists say have to be true for god to be true is false. They worship a book written by men about the myths of their favorite gods.

 

You do not have to give up believing in god to understand that natural processes can account for the universe we see today. think of it as science discovering how god really did it... Don't worship a book njaohnt, you can still believe in God and understand that science has the answers and the book these people worship does not. It is demonstrably wrong about it's description of the natural world and how it works.

 

To believe in the validity of science doesn't mean you are an atheist no matter how many times they claim it to be the case...

You're predetermining things again...

Amazing things have happened through these people.

I'll go back to the back example. There was a car crash, and her back hurt. It was getting worse, and then BAM! She was healed. Do you really think that that is common? That would be ridiculous.

I did watch your videos njaohnt, if i am part of a discussion I always look at the evidence presented...

Did you watch all of the Case for a Creator videos? And all the Archeology ones, too?

 

Indeed. I think there's an even better example from the New Testament: who saw Jesus after he died, and in what order?

 

Write down the order of events as given by each of the four Gospels and see what you get.

 

Alternately: Give a timeline of the places Joseph and Mary lived. Include Bethlehem, Nazareth, etc. Do this for each gospel independently. Now compare.

Nothing that says that God isn't real.

Edited August 2, 2012 by njaohnt

[mooeypoo]

 

I did say that. Not here though. This all got started when ydoaPs quoted that from my signature.

If you said that, and that's your definition of "fact" then we really don't have much to discuss here do we?

 

 

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

According to the chart "Comparison with other data" leads to evidence.

Where's the comparison in dark matter? What are you to believe?

If you get picky, there is no comparison. All this dark matter is, is just distortions when looking into out space.

Tell me if I'm wrong.

There's plenty of comparison. One may compare a prediction of the dark matter hypothesis to the observational evidence collected by telescopes -- those distortions. Those distortions are accounted for by the hypothesis.

 

Don't try to discount the evidence by saying it's just "distortions". Everything you observe is just distortions in the cells comprising your nervous system. That doesn't stop you from believing in the existence of your chair.

[njaohnt]

All scientific theories require evidence meeting those criteria. I'm feeling like a broken record, but If you want to compare Biblical accounts with scientific theories, or equate your beliefs with the acceptance of scientific theories, you need equatable evidence.

I'm just saying that it's ridiculous.

No, a single miracle performed by your healer, under controlled conditions would represent a single data point. Many experimentally controlled miracles by him would represent data. A statistical correlation with, say an controlled prayer experiment would provide you with a correlation - which would constitute some evidence. Multiple studies showing the same correlation in independent communities would constitute scientific evidence supporting miracle healing.

And that hasn't happened?

 

There's plenty of comparison. One may compare a prediction of the dark matter hypothesis to the observational evidence collected by telescopes -- those distortions. Those distortions are accounted for by the hypothesis.

 

Don't try to discount the evidence by saying it's just "distortions". Everything you observe is just distortions in the cells comprising your nervous system. That doesn't stop you from believing in the existence of your chair.

If I couldn't feel my chair, and I needed an extremely strong telescope to see it, I would skeptical that it actually exists.

Edited August 2, 2012 by njaohnt

[Moontanman]

You're predetermining things again...

Amazing things have happened through these people.

I'll go back to the back example. There was a car crash, and her back hurt. It was getting worse, and then BAM! She was healed. Do you really think that that is common? That would be ridiculous.

 

It's commonality is not the issue here njaohnt, the fact remains that people get better, atheists, Hindus, murderers, saints, pagans and, everyone else gets better sometimes. the faith healer is just taking advantage of this.

 

Did you watch all of the Case for a Creator videos? And all the Archeology ones, too?

 

yes, I was totally unimpressed by their lack of real evidence, much of it was hype, misinformation, argument from incredulity, straw man after straw man, and just plain horse feathers, in places even the videos even admitted to not being able to prove their points...

 

 

Nothing that says that God isn't real.

 

The burden of proof is on someone who asserts something as true, not on the people who do not believe him...

[njaohnt]

If you said that, and that's your definition of "fact" then we really don't have much to discuss here do we?

Oh, you don't understand...

 

That's my signature. If I said that here, then you're right.

[Arete]

I'm just saying that it's ridiculous.

 

It's ridiculous that you need similar levels of evidence to compare the acceptance of two things, or equate them?

 

And that hasn't happened?

 

No. Your observations of miracles are single data points, and given they aren't experimentally controlled or verified, they are biased and unusable for comparison.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Arete

[njaohnt]

It's commonality is not the issue here njaohnt, the fact remains that people get better, atheists, Hindus, murderers, saints, pagans and, everyone else gets better sometimes. the faith healer is just taking advantage of this.

That's a predetermination! What makes you so sure of that? If he did something in between the two... let's say he healed someone who was blind by sticking a stick up their nose. Is that evidence? Would he then be a faith healer?

yes, I was totally unimpressed by their lack of real evidence, much of it was hype, misinformation, argument from incredulity, straw man after straw man, and just plain horse feathers, in places even the videos even admitted to not being able to prove their points...

No, I mean all of them. I think you're just thinking I'm talking about the ones I posted. I'm talking about Proving the Bible through Archeology 1 through 10. I just post #1.

[Moontanman]

That's a predetermination! What makes you so sure of that? If he did something in between the two... let's say he healed someone who was blind by sticking a stick up their nose. Is that evidence? Would he then be a faith healer?

 

Njoahnt, if he could really heal people why is he not employed by a hospital?

 

No, I mean all of them. I think you're just thinking I'm talking about the ones I posted. I'm talking about Proving the Bible through Archeology 1 through 10. I just post #1.

 

yes i suffered through the entire mess, it was nonsense all the way through...

Edited August 2, 2012 by Moontanman

[mooeypoo]

I'm just saying that it's ridiculous.

And that hasn't happened?

 

 

If I couldn't feel my chair, and I needed an extremely strong telescope to see it, I would skeptical that it actually exists.

 

Well, according to this definition, seeing as you don't feel your brain, and you would need a powerful saw (and a Doctor, preferably) to see it, you should be skeptical it exists.

 

Is this the case, or have I finally demonstrated why your arguments are inconsistent?

[njaohnt]

Njoahnt, if he could really heal people why is he not employed by a hospital?

I don't think it works on non-Christians. A church would be a better place. It's not like he should get credit for it, it's really God doing the healing.

yes i suffered through the entire mess, it was nonsense all the way through...

Really? Alright, but I'd prefer you to show me places that you think fit the purpose best. I watch 'em when I have time. Why didn't you tell me that the whole series was nonsense?

 

It's ridiculous that you need similar levels of evidence to compare the acceptance of two things, or equate them?

Yes, same with science. Sorry if that doesn't answer your question. It's worded oddly.

No. Your observations of miracles are single data points, and given they aren't experimentally controlled or verified, they are biased and unusable for comparison.

Really? Why? Of the thousands that God has healed through John of God, they're all biased, and unusable for comparison? Do you even know what he has done?

[Arete]

Yes, same with science. Sorry if that doesn't answer your question. It's worded oddly.

 

Ok say we're walking in the woods, and we come across a huge poop. I say it's probably bear poop. Moontanman says he's 100% certain it's Sasquatch poop. I thoroughly inpect the poop, find it's comprised of fish and berries (bear food) and has bear DNA in it. Moontanman says it's still Sasquatch poop. His dad told him they live in these woods.

 

Do you understand how one position is supported by more evidence than the other? Do you understand how my acceptance that it's probably a bear poop and Moontanman's assertion that he believes it's Sasquatch poop are not equatable? One is an acceptance of a probability based on what is observed and the other is a belief.

 

Really? Why? Of the thousands that God has healed through John of God, they're all biased, and unusable for comparison? Do you even know what he has done?

 

Were the healings done under controlled conditions? Did you have a control group of sick people who didn't get healed spiritually to compare to the test group?

 

If not, how do you know that people being healed by your healer aren't getting better at the same rate as the general population? How do you know they aren't also seeking other medical solutions to their ailments and those are the reason they are getting better?

[Phi for All]

Ok say we're walking in the woods, and we come across a huge poop. I say it's probably bear poop. Moontanman says he's 100% certain it's Sasquatch poop. I thoroughly inpect the poop, find it's comprised of fish and berries (bear food) and has bear DNA in it. Moontanman says it's still Sasquatch poop. His dad told him they live in these woods.

 

Do you understand how one position is supported by more evidence than the other? Do you understand how my acceptance that it's probably a bear poop and Moontanman's assertion that he believes it's Sasquatch poop are not equatable? One is an acceptance of a probability based on what is observed and the other is a belief.

We shared your findings with the scientific community and they demanded more evidence. So we brought in a team of experts and also determined there is bear hair stuck in the bark of the nearest trees, the tracks around the area are from a bear and the tracks lead to a nearby stream that has berry bushes along its banks and the remains of fish that have been caught and eaten near the bear tracks. One of the experts heard a roar, set up some recording equipment and was able to record another roar that all of our experts agree was made by a bear.

 

Moontanman's dad claims that Sasquatch sound just like that, and he still says the experts are wrong.

[Moontanman]

You dare express doubt in my expertise of bigfooot excrement? My pappy can even tell the individual bigfoot by the smell of his excrement.

[Phi for All]

You dare express doubt in my expertise of bigfooot excrement?

Maybe it was just some old shoe polish.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[/greatest straight line EVER]

[mooeypoo]

I don't think it works on non-Christians. A church would be a better place. It's not like he should get credit for it, it's really God doing the healing.

So let me get this straight.

 

God will readily help this christian guy:

 

 

But not these non-christian children:

 

 

 

Now that's some almighty God.

 

 

 

Really? Alright, but I'd prefer you to show me places that you think fit the purpose best. I watch 'em when I have time. Why didn't you tell me that the whole series was nonsense?

Te point was to show you that without proper CONSISTENT tools, you can't discern between nonsense and non-nonsense. Not that it'll help. I feel like we're all talking to a thick wall.

Yes, same with science. Sorry if that doesn't answer your question. It's worded oddly.

Dude, seriously, I refer you back to the picture initially posted by iNow, which I can't find at the moment and I'm sure he could help remind you of.

 

Lalalala is an understatement by now. You're clearly not even remotely interested to listen to any sort of claim from anyone. Why are you here, then? Preach? If so, it seems you need some practice.

 

~mooey

 

 

[iNow]

Dude, seriously, I refer you back to the picture initially posted by iNow, which I can't find at the moment and I'm sure he could help remind you of.