Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
hereticspl

How much proof is enough?

949 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Black Red Devil
Posted (edited)
On 3/18/2019 at 10:11 AM, hereticspl said:

Hi again all you um forum folk I have a question for you. With flat earthers getting some media attention of late I wanted to delve into your collective psyche and try to understand a basic question. How much evidence is enough? What kind of proof do you need to be presented with before you will accept new information? With climate change nipping at our ankles I dont think there has ever been a more pertinent time to explore the difference between belief and willful ignorance.

Scientific proof seems to be the most relevant and the only source of information to me because it seems to be making gigantic strides of common sense, through analytical evidence, into areas that religion has claimed for millenniums based on something written by who knows who at the time when Gods chosen creatures were little more advanced than a bunch of Cro Magnon's.  While science is giving us some answers, religious believers, claiming a God is behind it all, give us no proof. 

We've advanced past the point of just going off blind faith, we've become curious and want evidential certainties.

Edited by Black Red Devil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
2 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

Scientific proof seems to be the most relevant and the only source of information to me because it seems to be making gigantic strides of common sense, through analytical evidence, into areas that religion has claimed for millenniums based on something written by who knows who at the time when Gods chosen creatures were little more advanced than a bunch of Cro Magnon's.  While science is giving us some answers, religious believers, claiming a God is behind it all, give us no proof. 

We've advanced past the point of just going off blind faith, we've become curious and want evidential certainties.

Not all information is open source. You may wonder whether the mystery woman next door is a fabulous lover, but there is only way to find out, and that is if she allows you to discover it. There will be no randomized scientific study. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
9 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Not all information is open source. You may wonder whether the mystery woman next door is a fabulous lover, but there is only way to find out, and that is if she allows you to discover it. There will be no randomized scientific study. 

Hmmm, so God allows us to disprove some of his theories but withholds the ultimate answer.  Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
9 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

Hmmm, so God allows us to disprove some of his theories but withholds the ultimate answer.  Why?

But what would be the proof that convinces ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
24 minutes ago, Habitat said:

But what would be the proof that convinces ? 

Concrete evidence, not blind belief.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
4 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

Concrete evidence, not blind belief.

such as ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
5 minutes ago, Habitat said:

such as ?

Such as evidence from thousands all proving evidential theories against a book written by who knows who thousands of years ago.  What's your view on how old the Earth is and the rotation of stars and planets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
4 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

Such as evidence from thousands all proving evidential theories against a book written by who knows who thousands of years ago.  What's your view on how old the Earth is and the rotation of stars and planets?

I'm not sure what you mean there, and no, I am not a biblical creationist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I'm not sure what you mean there, and no, I am not a biblical creationist.

You wanted some examples of concrete evidence and I've already mentioned I believe in science, therefore I asked you for your swing on two contradicting views by evolutionists and creationists but now you claim you're not one.  So what do you believe in?

Edited by Black Red Devil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
1 minute ago, Black Red Devil said:

You wanted some examples of concrete evidence and I've already mentioned I believe in science, therefore I asked you for your swing on two contradicting views by evolutionists and creationists but now you claim you're not one.  So what do you believe in?

I believe in accepting the truth, but I am not seeing any example of this concrete evidence you want ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hereticspl
1 minute ago, Habitat said:

I believe in accepting the truth, but I am not seeing any example of this concrete evidence you want ?

If were talking about concrete evidence against bible scripture you can really take your pick of a thousand different examples. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
2 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I believe in accepting the truth, but I am not seeing any example of this concrete evidence you want ?

What specific thing convinces you and makes you accept this truth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
Just now, hereticspl said:

If were talking about concrete evidence against bible scripture you can really take your pick of a thousand different examples. 

That wasn't what I thought he meant, I thought he wanted "proof" of God, and I asked what would satisfy that requirement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
1 minute ago, Black Red Devil said:

What specific thing convinces you and makes you accept this truth?

I go on what I see and hear, and I have seen more than enough to convince me that an afterlife does exist, and that really means, for me, that all bets are off as to whether the ultimate reality in bland materialism. It is not. In the absence of such demonstrations, I'd simply say I just don't know. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I go on what I see and hear, and I have seen more than enough to convince me that an afterlife does exist, and that really means, for me, that all bets are off as to whether the ultimate reality in bland materialism. It is not. In the absence of such demonstrations, I'd simply say I just don't know. 

Ah OK, now I finally get where you're coming from although I wouldn't attach myself to religion in the quest to find spirituality.  I'm not sure you do (rely on religion for your beliefs) but in my view the best chances to find out if there is life after death and a spiritual essence is initially through theoretical science.  Of course, there is no science until there is evidence but one can still keep an open mind.

Edited by Black Red Devil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
1 minute ago, Black Red Devil said:

Ah OK, now I finally get where you're coming from although I wouldn't attach myself to religion in the quest to find spirituality.  I'm not sure if you do but in my view the best chances to find out if there is life after death and a spiritual essence is initially through theoretical science.  Of course, there is no science until there is evidence but one can still keep an open mind.

The open mind certainly is the way to go. I doubt that scientific evidence will ever be seen, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
Posted (edited)

Somewhere in this topic, someone stated that they knew the truth of their deistic beliefs due to personal knowledge/experiences. But they cannot demonstrate this truth, they can only refer to it as the cause for their beliefs.

So, if one has a personal reason to believe something, but cannot demonstrate the reason, or provide evidences of it, then does this reason matter to anyone but the believer herself? And, if someone believes another's claim regarding "X", does that mean that they believe in "X", or do they believe the claimant?

EXAMPLE:  It is reported that Moses went up the mountain for 40 days, and received the tablets of law from Yahweh and returned to his people with them.  Many people are said to have accepted his report of god writing this tablets. BUT, did they really believe a being of a higher order wrote them? Or did they merely believe in Moses as their leader?

Edited by Jodie.Lynne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
3 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Somewhere in this topic, someone stated that they knew the truth of their deistic beliefs due to personal knowledge/experiences. But they cannot demonstrate this truth, they can only refer to it as the cause for their beliefs.

So, if one has a personal reason to believe something, but cannot demonstrate the reason, or provide evidences of it, then does this reason matter to anyone but the believer herself? And, if someone believes another's claim regarding "X", does that mean that they believe in "X", or do they believe the claimant?

EXAMPLE:  It is reported that Moses went up the mountain for 40 days, and received the tablets of law from Yahweh and returned to his people with them.  Many people are said to have accepted his report of god writing this tablets. BUT, did they really believe a being of a higher order wrote them? Or did they merely believe in Moses as their leader?

I'd say that if such an example happened with me personally, I'd simply be content in knowing what others don't know And not even bother trying to convince other people since it'd be unreasonable for me to even expect other people to believe it based on my personal testimony alone.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Habitat said:

The open mind certainly is the way to go. I doubt that scientific evidence will ever be seen, though.

Look at the progression of science and technology.  Starting from the Greeks it took practically two and a half thousand years to get to where we are and realistically only in the last hundred have we gone leaps and bounds.  Despite this we still don't have the answers to two of the most basic questions, what's the universe and what are we doing in it.  With this progression (despite all the negative opinions from doomsdayers) who knows what we'll understand in a thousand years.

Edited by Black Red Devil
despite all the negative opinions from doomsdayers
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hereticspl
4 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

Look at the progression of science and technology.  Starting from the Greeks it took practically two and a half thousand years to get to where we are and realistically only in the last hundred have we gone leaps and bounds.  Despite this we still don't have the answers to two of the most basic questions, what's the universe and what are we doing in it.  With this progression who knows what we'll understand in a thousand years.

Is there a point at which it becomes logically reasonable to say no something does not exist? For example people have been trying to prove the existence of gods and afterlife for so long with no real progress would it be reasonable at this point to say no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
1 minute ago, Black Red Devil said:

what's the universe and what are we doing in it. 

What if the answer to the second half of your statement simply "natural causes"?

We, as a species, seem to have a burning obsession with knowing 'why' something happens, or exists. We apply this question to everything from A to Z. "Why did the plane crash?" "Why did the tsunami hit?" "Why did he kill those people?"

Sometimes we can discover the 'why', sometimes we cannot. Sometimes we simply do not have enough data, or knowledge, or technology to determine 'why'. Yet. Or it maybe that the answer to some questions are never to be known, simply because we haven't enough data, and never will to be able to positively state a reason.

And it is 100% OK to say "We don't know".

But for some people, that is not a comfortable answer. They cannot stand "I don't know", so, they create an answer that satisfies this itch to know. For some, its "god" or 'gods'. Or universe creating pixies, or whatever concept allows them to sleep easy, "knowing" that there is a reason.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
3 minutes ago, hereticspl said:

Is there a point at which it becomes logically reasonable to say no something does not exist? For example people have been trying to prove the existence of gods and afterlife for so long with no real progress would it be reasonable at this point to say no?

Nope, it would not be logical at all, it being an unfalsifiable proposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
4 minutes ago, hereticspl said:

Is there a point at which it becomes logically reasonable to say no something does not exist? For example people have been trying to prove the existence of gods and afterlife for so long with no real progress would it be reasonable at this point to say no?

The ancients used to think it was impossible for man to fly and yet we worked around it by building vehicles to allow us to fly.  I don't think we can discard any possibility until we know enough.  Personally that doesn't mean I believe in either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hereticspl
Just now, Habitat said:

Nope, it would not be logical at all, it being an unfalsifiable proposition.

So theres no point at which something becomes so statistically unlikely that you are within reason to say no it's not going to happen? Think carefully about your answer.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
2 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Nope, it would not be logical at all, it being an unfalsifiable proposition.

So you are claiming that the existence of gods is a falsifiable proposition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.