EnviroLink Forum

No, just one particular thing and not necessarily everywhere.



There is no available evidence, therefore you cannot conclude and thus, it is a belief.



Probably not. There’s a level of trust I have where I simply accept something based on faith, assuming, of course, that it doesn’t run counter to science.



If it caused anything we haven’t observed before of similar magnitude, I’m sure a lot of folks might agree with you. How would you know it was done by a god and didn’t just happen by chance?



Again, that depends on the nature of its interest in humanity. Testing faith might be its primary interest, in which case I’d say we have the perfect world.



Hardly.



If nothing can mean anything, that’s pretty variable.



I’m not saying it would be a bad piece of evidence, I’m simply asking how you’d know that it was evidence.



Yeah, and you’re making assumptions, believing things about something in which you don’t believe. It’s strange. I would say it’s giving you away as a true believer in a state of denial, but I know better.



You believe in things for which there is scientific evidence, or is it more along the lines of trusting that others have followed the scientific method?



Yes, you have chosen science to substantiate that in which you believe. You don’t need science for that, but your beliefs are your prerogative.

Did I not already give you the last word?

_________________
TANG SOO!

Why not? If there is no evidence to disprove one must assume everything exists everywhere if one is scientific.



There is no available evidence to support the existence so you cannot conclude the non-existence through any logical conclusion process over time? Yet, you just said you do not assume everything exists everywhere because there is no way to provide evidence of non-existence.



How would looking for an invisible earring that operates outside of the realm of nature which you do not know ever existed be scientific?




And the odds against such a thing happening would also indicate something outside of nature, especially if there is no logical explanation for the result.




Testing faith by killing the people off? That would negate the premise of the entity being interested in humanity too.




Killing something is not generally viewed as a positive interest.



Nothing means nothing. That is not variable at all.




It happened therefore it is evidence. Of what it is evidence of would depend on the total circumstances.



What? How does refuting the premise given become an assumption on my part? I do not believe anything which can be refuted and in this case the belief is being refuted.



Good, because I do not understand how you reached that conclusion.



I believe in evidence, so in that respect I am following a belief just not faith, which is the implied definition.



No, I have chosen science to show me what to believe, which is significantly different.



But you took it back .... neener neener neener

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Cite some.

I can't. No one can.

Wayne, I have to run out this morning for a while. I'll respond later today.

_________________
TANG SOO!

Let me ask a different question then.
Why should any one have any belief in any entity for which there is no evidence that anyone can or did produce?
This entity is said by some to have the attributes that it is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenovelent.
What, if there is no evidence that any attributes have been exhibited by the entity for which there is no evidence anyway, is the basis, if any, for a belief in such an entity?

It's the same basis I have for believing in anything else. Given it doesn't run counter to science, sufficient anecdote (personal experience and trust in others) leads me to believe. It's like your daily dinner. You know it's going to be good. You don't need scientific evidence to convince you of that, nor would it even be possible to obtain it. You might however get a world consensus agreeing with you on the matter. If that was the case, I'd too believe that it was most outstanding not having sampled your wife's cooking. That's how my beliefs work, and it started with an implicit trust of my family and friends. It's that simple.

You believe something of the magnitude of curing world hunger is evidence of such an entity. I contend that the ratio of believers to non in the world is of a magnitude that cannot be dismissed either.

_________________
TANG SOO!

How many people do you know who have had an experience with a supernatural entity of this nature? It seems you are using the beliefs of others as evidence of the belief being real, which is only evidence of the existence of the belief.



But his record of previous dinners being good would be acceptable data for such a prediction based on a scientific probability.



Again it seems the beliefs, whether supported by any real evidence or not, are the basis for your evidence of existence.



This is a totally unscientific approach. There are a significant number of people who believe in various conspiracy theories which are countered by real scientific evidence. The fact there are those who hold a belief does nothing to prove the accuracy of said belief. The only thing shown by such evidence is the level of acceptance of the belief.

The belief can still be as strong for the individual, which is the nature of a belief, but the scientific evidence to support others following that belief is lacking.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Please bear with me if the tone of the post below sounds harsh. It isn't intended. I'm cutting and pasting using Word and not inserting smilies strategically.



If one is scientific, yes. Am I scientific all the time? No, I’m not. Am I when it is in my interest to be? Enough to make a pretty good living at it, yes. Do my scientific tendencies clash with that of other believers? All the time. In fact, I can’t think of an instance when I wasn’t in your shoes in a discussion like this. I’m not arguing specifically with regard to the existence of a God, but rather that it is human nature to have beliefs. This is quite obvious, God or not, I’m not going to say that I don’t believe in certain things simply because I am a scientist.



Not if the time frame wasn’t shown to be of some significance.



There’s no way to provide evidence that I love my wife. It is my personal experience that I do, therefore I firmly believe that love exists. Should I assume that everyone loves everyone?



It wouldn’t be. It couldn’t be. I’m not even suggesting that it is.




So low odds and lack of a logical explanation are indicators of things outside nature? You are a believer, aren’t you? You just take a bit more convincing than most.





Is that so? Again, you’re ascribing qualities to that of which you know nothing.




Apparently it means quite a lot. Despite an infinitesimal observational time frame and invalid (nonexistent?) detection methods, it means there is no God, right?



If that’s the case, the universe happened long before humans, therefore it is evidence. That’s a might more profound than a single species on a single planet and the problems it has feeding itself.



You can’t refute existence by ascribing qualities to that whose existence is in question. There’s no way you could know if an omnipotent being would cure world hunger, therefore you cannot say that it doesn’t exist based on the fact that hunger continues.



You can refute that I like peanut M&M’s because you’ve never seen me eat them nor is there any evidence (or ever will be) supporting the notion that I like them. I will continue believing otherwise because, frankly, I like peanut M&M’s. Do you trust me on that or shall we discuss it further?



I’m eating some peanut M&M’s right now. I’ve such a fondness for them. Am I mistaken?



Except when it doesn’t? You know, world hunger…

[/quote]

I did? I thought you jumped back in when I was addressing Boeseker. See, you ARE Boeseker!

_________________
TANG SOO!

But why so many and why a God? Why not just random crap?



Exactly! Any experience of anyone and how they interpreted it just as well. It still doesn’t technically prove anything because we’re going strictly off people’s word. “Good” cannot be scientifically defined. Further, I'm not going to assume everything is good any more than I would assume that everything exists. My experience is too finite.



In this case, yes, due to the fact that there are as many as there are with a common theme. This isn't random chance here.



I don’t believe in that which is countered by scientific evidence. At the same time, I do not ascribe to the notion that nothing constitutes evidence in a pure sense.



Scientifically, no, it doesn’t. Fortunately, not everyone’s a scientist. Could you imagine?



I wouldn’t say it’s the only thing.



I believe it always will be.

_________________
TANG SOO!

I am used to harsh .... not a problem.



Ok, you can believe based on no evidence or the evidence of the beliefs of others if you choose, but you cannot say that someone else should not disbelieve because there is no evidence and you or anyone else chooses to believe because there is no evidence to disprove the belief.



And you are saying centuries are not sufficient periods of time to be significant? It seems to be more of a disagreement over semantics than an actual point.



No, but you probably assume most everyone understands love due to the personal experiences similar to yours. You would not extrapolate the feelings to other animals because there is no evidence to support their having the same type of feeling would you?



But that would be the real comparison to your example and the existence of a supernatural entity, would it not?




No, astronomically low odds and the lack of a logical explanation for the stoppage of starvation would indicate something outside of nature.



Wasn't that a song by the Monkees? I was not that much of a fan of theirs.



You mean by redefinition of the term "positive interest"? I am dealing with the qualities commonly ascribed by the believers. If that is wrong their beliefs must also be questionable and you used those beliefs as evidence of existence.




No, it means there is no available evidence of God. There are those who do not believe in things without evidence so they would not believe in God at this point in time. This would continue until there were some eventual evidence of the existence of God, if that occurs.



Evidence of what? The existence of the universe? Yes. A creator? No, not without evidence of said creator.



If there were some evidence of the connection between the universe being and God, but that is the basic assumption of faith which has no evidence to support it.



But, many of those who claim to believe also claim these attributes as part of their belief. If part of their belief is invalid why do we give any weight to the rest of the belief? The fact is there is lots of points of no positive evidence which combine to indicate the lack of existence as claimed by the believers. Since there is no other evidence than the beliefs of some, and that evidence is now in question, why assume any of the beliefs unsupported by evidence are correct?




You are saying there is no evidence of you liking peanut M&Ms, but you do? There is no record of you ever buying them? No security camera footage, no nothing? I can trust you to tell me that you believe you like peanut M&Ms but that is a bit different than proving peanut M&Ms exist is it not?



You must be as you claimed there was no evidence of you liking them, yet we have documented evidence of a statement made in your name attesting to that fact.



Scientific evidence has shown me that world hunger exists, do you have evidence otherwise?



I did? I thought you jumped back in when I was addressing Boeseker. See, you ARE Boeseker! [/quote]

No, but I may be omniscient except that I am wrong ... but knowing I am wrong makes me right and therefore more omniscient .....

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Later man. Will respond then.

_________________
TANG SOO!

It did start out as random crap and was mutated to monotheism over time. The earliest records indicate the use of gods/beings to explain that which could not be explained at the time. The fact religions generate power and wealth is always a factor in beliefs. It does not disprove them, but does cause the leadership to be questionable over time,



Correct, but there is a general consensus of what good food is and the yardstick being used is unchanged sp there is a consistent unit of measure involved. The claim was not that you or anyone else would like the food.



Good is subjective by nature and existence is not. That is the difference between the two positions.



No there was a concerted effort over many centuries to develop the beliefs so there was little random chance involved. The random chance is which of the organized beliefs to which you would be exposed.



That is your belief, but that is not purely scientific since you do not believe in everything for which there is no evidence of non-existence and you define it.



Things would be a lot more logical and possibly better.



Then what would you say that can be scientifically supported?




Which would mean no evidence to support the belief and no reason for anyone to believe other than an unsupported wish to do so.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Without addressing anything else, I'd have to say this here sums it up quite well. As a scientist, I completely understand your viewpoint. As a believer, all I can say is that I feel it. It's similar to love. I don't consider myself one, but "born again" Christians have described life experiences to which I can relate. I can say the same about another guy I used to work with, an engineer and devout Muslim.

You're just going to have to trust me on this one. If you don't, that's okay too. Like I said, I understand. Creator or not, if it weren't for the biochemical reactions in my brain, I wouldn't feel the way I do, right?

_________________
TANG SOO!

I do trust you to believe in whatever you wish to based on whatever criteria you choose. You do not have to have a reason, scientific or otherwise, to believe how you choose, but the inverse also holds true if someone does not wish to believe in anything for which they can be given no evidence other than the belief of another.

I am unsure of the whole situation, but I do know that I have never seen any evidence to indicate anything conclusively supernatural. I have seen things I cannot explain, but my inability does not make it supernatural. It does not mean any of us are wrong, just that we are using differing criteria to guide us.

I know of several scientists who are religious and reconcile their beliefs with science by merely considering science as God's laws which he created and the universe follows. There is no evidence to support that view, but it is their belief and it works for them.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

I have evidence of the probability that it will be good.
It mostly is and gets served routinely. Thus I have consistent and repeatable evidence based on experience.
I also have experience that Ohm's Law works routinely but I can't be certain that I won't come across a situation that it might be violated tomorrow.

By contrast, you seem to have no consistently repeatable evidence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenovelent entity. Or any evidence at all.