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

Habitat
9 minutes ago, hereticspl said:

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.

There is no hard data, therefore no assignment of probability is possible. The question of "God", is hardly comparable to any other.

Share this post


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

There is no hard data, therefore no assignment of probability is possible. The question of "God", is hardly comparable to any other.

I hope u never get jury duty

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

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.

I agree with the bold part which was the result of the ignorance at the time until science came along and opened up eyes.  The reason science came along was because we are curious creatures.  If we stop asking the whys and hows we won't progress. 

Hard to tell whether we'll have all the answers but one theory I've got is that many times the answer is so simple and right there in front of you. Maybe it's not the time and the right conditions to know the answer to certain questions.  What would people living in the Roman times done with Einstein's equation E=MC2?

Edited by Black Red Devil

Share this post


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

I hope u never get jury duty

You would have God "guilty" of non-existence, presumably, without any evidence. And I have good reason to believe you would be wrong, so I'd consider you unsuitable for jury service.

Share this post


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

There is no hard data, therefore no assignment of probability is possible. The question of "God", is hardly comparable to any other.

Yet you believe in an afterlife, and presumably a deity. 

Quote

The question of "God", is hardly comparable to any other.

Substitute another word in the place of 'god', and see if it holds true.

"unicorn"

"dragon"

"Atlantis"

"Time Travel"

You can apply any word symbol, assigning it a meaning, and then claim that the word symbol is incomparable to any other word symbol by virtue of the meaning assigned. this does not prove the validity, or legitimacy of the word symbol.

Share this post


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

You would have God "guilty" of non-existence,

Actually, to be accurate, it would be "Not Guilty" of existence, since there is no evidence of his existence.

 

Nice attempt at twisting the dialogue though!.

Share this post


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

Yet you believe in an afterlife, and presumably a deity. 

Substitute another word in the place of 'god', and see if it holds true.

"unicorn"

"dragon"

"Atlantis"

"Time Travel"

You can apply any word symbol, assigning it a meaning, and then claim that the word symbol is incomparable to any other word symbol by virtue of the meaning assigned. this does not prove the validity, or legitimacy of the word symbol.

We know that the word "God" is used to represent the blank that can be called "the riddle of existence", we know no human construct will rationally fill that blank, including any science, even in theory, so it very much is a unique and incomparable "problem".

Share this post


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

Actually, to be accurate, it would be "Not Guilty" of existence, since there is no evidence of his existence.

 

Nice attempt at twisting the dialogue though!.

No, he wants us to reach the logical conclusion of God being non-existent, therefore the case proven, and proven=guilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
14 hours ago, Habitat said:

Line-ball who would be the sillier, the flat-earther (who might believe it, or is just wanting to get a rise out of someone, but that doesn't make much difference) or the person arguing with them. No, come to the think of it, the latter are the sillier ! Very few people would be that silly. But very many people are keen to downplay the possibilities of Gods, or afterlives, or miracles, which immediately lends itself to the interpretation they really are not so sure, although they don't concede that. Probably because they are not really that conscious that they do have doubts. But those comfortably convinced they don't have any skin in the "supernatural" game, treat miracles like the flat Earth. With total disinterest.

You say this often, yet I find your thoughts endlessly bewildering here. 

How on earth do you come to this conclusion??? 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I agree with the bold part which was the result of the ignorance at the time until science came along and opened up eyes.  The reason science came along was because we are curious creatures.  If we stop asking the whys and hows we won't progress. 

Truth!

But I have to issue a caveat about science "opening eyes". 

All too often, people will accept science and it's answers, to a certain point, then no further.

Ya know, those that will accept microwaves, and Internet and jet planes; heart transplants and laser eye surgery. But will draw the line at things like evolution, cloning, stem cell research, etc., as "being against god's will", or 'delving into things Man was not meant to know".

It's irrational behavior. Like the Amish, who accept iron working, the wheel and other 18th century technology, but will reject electricity or electrically powered devices, and the internal combustion engine as "too much"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GoldenWolf
34 minutes ago, Habitat said:

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

Therefore making believers unfalsifiable also?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
3 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

You say this often, yet I find your thoughts endlessly bewildering here. 

How on earth do you come to this conclusion??? 

It seems pretty obvious, I think.

Share this post


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

There is no hard data, therefore no assignment of probability is possible. The question of "God", is hardly comparable to any other.

The thing with God is the onus is on Him/Her/It and followers to prove the existence, not for non believers to disprove the existence otherwise we're back to blind beliefs and here's why. 

You can't say the Bible is proof because theories in it have been found to be flawed and if God is omnipotent like many believers say, then there can't be imperfections in it and if the response to this claim is that many imperfections in the Bible are done by man then it's credibility as the word of God goes down the drain and all that's really left for believers is just blind faith.  Hardly a convincing theory.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Therefore making believers unfalsifiable also?

Depends what they claim to believe in.

Share this post


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

It's irrational behavior. Like the Amish, who accept iron working, the wheel and other 18th century technology, but will reject electricity or electrically powered devices, and the internal combustion engine as "too much"

Not all of them. They just believe hard work is healthy. Which isn't untrue. They use chainsaws and tractors when they log. I've logged with them

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Depends what they claim to believe in.

God.  You know what I meant.

Share this post


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

The thing with God is the onus is on Him/Her/It and followers to prove the existence, not for non believers to disprove the existence otherwise we're back to blind beliefs and here's why. 

You can't say the Bible is proof because theories in it have been found to be flawed and if God is omnipotent like many believers say, then there can't be imperfections in it and if the response to this claim is that many imperfections in the Bible are done by man then it's credibility as the word of God goes down the drain and all that's really left for believers is just blind faith.  Hardly a convincing theory.

I am not interested in convincing anyone, and never talk about the bible.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You would have God "guilty" of non-existence, presumably, without any evidence. And I have good reason to believe you would be wrong, so I'd consider you unsuitable for jury service.

I dont know where your from but Australian criminal justice operates under the standard of "proof beyond reasonable doubt". Your argument implicates that there is no beyond reasonable doubt. By your reckoning if I were to stand trial for murder as long as I came up with a defence that could not be definitively proven i would walk away a free man regardless of how obvious it was that I was guilty. Also remember I'm not trying to offend you I'm just encouraging discussion and the sharing of ideas.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

God.  You know what I meant.

No, I don't know what you interpret "God" to mean.

Share this post


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

We know that the word "God" is used to represent the blank that can be called "the riddle of existence", we know no human construct will rationally fill that blank, including any science, even in theory, so it very much is a unique and incomparable "problem".

You know this for a fact, do you? Humans will never, gain enough knowledge to answer the 'riddle of existence'?

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
3 minutes ago, Habitat said:

It seems pretty obvious, I think.

Not at all. It's very illogical. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GoldenWolf
49 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?

 

40 minutes ago, Habitat said:

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

DUT9A2ZWsAESPCe.jpg

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
Just now, Jodie.Lynne said:

You know this for a fact, do you? Humans will never, gain enough knowledge to answer the 'riddle of existence'?

Not rationally. But you can try and invent one, and it will be like all religious Gods. It won't answer the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
4 minutes ago, Piney said:

They use chainsaws and tractors when they log. I've logged with them

I did not know this. Thank you for broadening my knowledge base. :)

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 

 

Yep, no one can say there is no God, it could be hiding no matter how many places you look.

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.