857 replies to this topic

[J. K.]

According to the dictionary:

Definition of EMPIRICAL
1  originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2  relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3  capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
4  of or relating to empiricism

------

Experience is a valid way of gathering evidence.

But the real question is: in the Christian belief, God exists in a dimension higher than our three-d world.  How could we gather evidence for something we can't fully observe?

[Paranoid Android]

Beckys_Mom, on 25 January 2012 - 12:19 PM, said:

[b]I can prove to you that my tom cat Wallie exists.. in fact I would go further and send the little bugger over to you

Actually, you can't prove that. If you sent a tomcat over to someone all it would prove is that a tomcat exists. It would not prove it was YOUR tomcat (you might have stolen it from your neighbour or caught a stray). Neither would it prove that its name was Wallie, you might be lying to us. If the cat was registered with whatever agency registers cats in Ireland then a microchip implant might lend credence to your statement but it would still not be proof (maybe the cat was stolen and the vet was paid to chip a cat that you did not own). You could probably prove in a court of law that the cat was named Wallie and that it is indeed your cat, beyond reasonable doubt. But scientifically you could only prove that a tomcat exists.

My point - there are some things that simply can't be scientifically proven. Such as the existence of a supernatural deity (yay, I related this to the OP). I can't scientifically prove God. But then again, I never claimed I could do such a thing. Which kind of makes the challenge made by the thread starter to be rather redundant. I'm certain he already knew this hence the reason he made a $10k offer in the first place. He could have made it a million dollars and had no fear of losing the wager.

~ Regards,

[Englishgent]

Paranoid Android, on 25 January 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

Actually, you can't prove that. If you sent a tomcat over to someone all it would prove is that a tomcat exists. It would not prove it was YOUR tomcat (you might have stolen it from your neighbour or caught a stray). Neither would it prove that its name was Wallie, you might be lying to us. If the cat was registered with whatever agency registers cats in Ireland then a microchip implant might lend credence to your statement but it would still not be proof (maybe the cat was stolen and the vet was paid to chip a cat that you did not own). You could probably prove in a court of law that the cat was named Wallie and that it is indeed your cat, beyond reasonable doubt. But scientifically you could only prove that a tomcat exists.

My point - there are some things that simply can't be scientifically proven. Such as the existence of a supernatural deity (yay, I related this to the OP). I can't scientifically prove God. But then again, I never claimed I could do such a thing. Which kind of makes the challenge made by the thread starter to be rather redundant. I'm certain he already knew this hence the reason he made a $10k offer in the first place. He could have made it a million dollars and had no fear of losing the wager.

~ Regards,

You dont know Ireland. They would stick the cat in the witnesses box and ask it!
(and it would probably reply too lol)

[Alienated Being]

J. K., on 25 January 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

Experience is a valid way of gathering evidence.

Not if you can't prove that the "experience" was the result of divine intervention. Just because an individual cannot explain an occurrence, that doesn't, under any circumstances, confirm the existence of a deity.

[J. K.]

Alienated Being, on 25 January 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

Not if you can't prove that the "experience" was the result of divine intervention. Just because an individual cannot explain an occurrence, that doesn't, under any circumstances, confirm the existence of a deity.

That statement was made regarding the dictionary definition that I quoted.  I said nothing about proving; I merely stated that according to the dictionary definition, experience is a method of gathering evidence.  There was no implication of analyzing said evidence.

However, I would imagine that any evidence that is gathered through experience is likely to be processed through the observer's bias, and would be considered unreliable by those of an opposing bias.

[Paranoid Android]

Englishgent, on 25 January 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

You dont know Ireland. They would stick the cat in the witnesses box and ask it!
(and it would probably reply too lol)

Haha, I thought that was the English - fast-forward to 16:10, the scene goes until approximate 17:30 in the time-code:



Or is it the entire United Kingdom that likes to put animals on the witness stand

Edited by Paranoid Android, 25 January 2012 - 04:29 PM.

[Biff Wellington]

Paranoid Android, on 25 January 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

Haha, I thought that was the English - fast-forward to 16:10, the scene goes until approximate 17:30 in the time-code:



Or is it the entire United Kingdom that likes to put animals on the witness stand

It was a nay my sir, but I don't believe a word of it.  

[Spock_the_Future]

Paranoid Android, on 25 January 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

Actually, you can't prove that. If you sent a tomcat over to someone all it would prove is that a tomcat exists. It would not prove it was YOUR tomcat (you might have stolen it from your neighbour or caught a stray). Neither would it prove that its name was Wallie, you might be lying to us. If the cat was registered with whatever agency registers cats in Ireland then a microchip implant might lend credence to your statement but it would still not be proof (maybe the cat was stolen and the vet was paid to chip a cat that you did not own). You could probably prove in a court of law that the cat was named Wallie and that it is indeed your cat, beyond reasonable doubt. But scientifically you could only prove that a tomcat exists.

My point - there are some things that simply can't be scientifically proven. Such as the existence of a supernatural deity (yay, I related this to the OP). I can't scientifically prove God. But then again, I never claimed I could do such a thing. Which kind of makes the challenge made by the thread starter to be rather redundant. I'm certain he already knew this hence the reason he made a $10k offer in the first place. He could have made it a million dollars and had no fear of losing the wager.

~ Regards,

I second PA, Written assurances prove nothing. Storybooks (you are free to call it Bible or Vedas or something else) written long ago do neither.

I've met GOD based people asking me to prove otherwise all my life, was not able to provide a single tangable proof. Now I say can we converse hypothetical ? They don't reply.

Spock the Future

[Daughter of the Nine Moons]

Alienated Being, on 25 January 2012 - 01:13 PM, said:

Then what's the point in in investing belief in a God if you can't gather evidence of its existence? Using that logic, you may as well just invest believe in unicorns, dragons, leprechauns, faeries, etc.

Are you a blind believer?

This is a rather ironic post from someone who has spent as much time as you requesting readings in the psychic forum.

Just saying.

[Godsnmbr1]

So have the types of proof that would be deemed acceptable already been listed?  I'm always curious what a person would accept as proof of God.

[Beckys_Mom]

Paranoid Android, on 25 January 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

Actually, you can't prove that. If you sent a tomcat over to someone all it would prove is that a tomcat exists.(SNIP )

I'd still get rid of the bugger

Quote

   My point - there are some things that simply can't be scientifically proven                

What can science prove PA?   Since you think science would not be able to prove a cat can exist........ then why don't you explain to me what you know about science and what they can actually prove?  ... Thanks

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 25 January 2012 - 07:18 PM.

[Beckys_Mom]

Antilles, on 25 January 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

Will your cat take $10 500 if it can prove anyone exists?

Never mind my joke about my useless cat... Can you explain  why you feel science cannot prove living things?

[Alienated Being]

Daughter of the Nine Moons, on 25 January 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

This is a rather ironic post from someone who has spent as much time as you requesting readings in the psychic forum.

Just saying.

The difference between a belief in the psychic phenomenon and a belief in an omniscient, all-powerful deity is that the belief in the deity has NO evidential premises on which claims are based (other than a silly book), while psychic phenomenon has been deemed as a possibility by scientists. Telepathic experiments have been conducted by the military, as well, and have produced some intriguing results.

Humans are also known to be highly intuitive.

Conclusively, I think the psychic phenomenon is an interesting concept to ponder; at least it has more of an evidential foundation than what God does.

[J. K.]

Alienated Being, on 25 January 2012 - 07:34 PM, said:

The difference between a belief in the psychic phenomenon and a belief in an omniscient, all-powerful deity is that the belief in the deity has NO evidential premises on which claims are based

So what specifically would you consider to be evidence?  I've personally experienced many things in my life attributable to spiritual activity, far too many to be considered coincidence.

[Beckys_Mom]

Englishgent, on 25 January 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

You dont know Ireland. They would stick the cat in the witnesses box and ask it!
(and it would probably reply too lol)

Is this supposed to be some sort of  mockery of the Irish? ..... In case it isn't  I am  just curious..Why would you say this?

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 25 January 2012 - 08:16 PM.