Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence - Religion - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence (1485 Views)
Archaeology: Evidence Of Jonah And The Whale Found In Jerusalem (Photos) / Shield Of Faith Assembly Inc. (evidence Is The End Of Argument) / Man Withdraws Support For Apostle Suleman After Alleged New Evidence Emerges (2) (3) (4)
| Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by akintom(m): 11:34am On Mar 09, 2017 |
Absence of Evidence Is Evidence of Absence By Victor Stenger Even the most pious believer has to admit that there is no scientific evidence for God or anything else supernatural. If there were, it would be in the textbooks along with the evidence for electricity, gravity, neutrinos, and DNA. This doesn’t bother most believers because they have heard many times that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” However, just repeating a statement over and over again does not make it true. I can think of many cases where absence of evidence provides robust evidence of absence. The key question is whether evidence should exist but does not. Elephants have never been seen roaming Yellowstone National Park. If they were, they would not have escaped notice. No matter how secretive, the presence of such huge animals would have been marked by ample physical signs — droppings, crushed vegetation, bones of dead elephants. So we can safely conclude from the absence of evidence that elephants are absent from the park. For thirty years physicists have been searching for a particle called the Higgs boson that hypothetically plays a key role in the universe, so important that it has been referred to (perhaps facetiously) as the “God Particle.” In the standard model of particles and forces put in place in the 1970s and consistent with every observation since, Higgs bosons pervade the universe and generate mass, the very stuff of matter. We have failed to observe them so far because we have lacked the necessary instruments. However, there are good theoretical reasons to believe that the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Geneva, now accumulating its initial data, should provide evidence for the Higgs. If it does not — a prospect most physicists regard as possible — then the Higgs boson would be shown not to exist. That is the situation with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. Until recent times, absence of evidence for his existence has not been sufficient to rule him out. However, we now have enough knowledge that we can identify many places where there should be evidence, but there is not. The absence of that evidence allows us to rule out the existence of this God beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, I am not talking about all conceivable gods. Certainly the deist god who does not interfere in the world is difficult to rule out. However, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, whom I identify with an uppercase G, is believed to play such an active role in the universe that his actions should have been detected, thus confirming his existence. Let me present four examples. I will begin with the origin of the visible universe. Our knowledge today allows us to push back in time to barely a trillionth of a second after the universe began. Extrapolating from there to the origin, we find that the universe began in a tiny (but not infinitesimal) region of space. Now, information only exists when it is embodied in some physical system, and we know that there is a limit to how compact information can be. This tiny region of space could not have contained more than a few bits of information — far too little to specify the universe that evolved from it. As the universe expanded, it could hold more information. This created an environment in which order could emerge — as, over time, through an endless series of random events, it did. But the tiny amount of information contained in the very early universe was not enough to include any plans of some creator at that time. This allows for the possibility of a deist god who set things up, started things going randomly, and then left. It does not allow for some specific plan of creation to be embodied in the universe from the beginning. A God with such a plan can be ruled out beyond a reasonable doubt. Next, consider the claim that the universe was designed. Many people give this as a reason to believe in God. They cannot see how the order of the universe can have come about naturally. However, observations in physics, cosmology, and biology have been scoured for evidence for design in the universe, evidence that should be there if there were a designer God. None has been found. This includes the frequently heard claim that the parameters of physics and cosmology exhibit a fine-tuning for the evolution of life. That subject will be covered in great detail in my next book: The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: How the Universe is not Designed for Us. My conclusion is that the claims of fine-tuning are based on inadequate knowledge of physics. Intelligent design in biology has been thoroughly refuted in recent years, so I need not say much. Everywhere biologists look they find evidence of randomness and haphazard arrangements that would be called incompetent if they were designed. No matter where scientists cast their eyes, the universe they see looks just like it should look if there was no divine design. Third, consider the supposed power of intercessory prayer. Well-executed experiments by reputable institutions such as Harvard, Duke, and the Mayo Clinic have failed to find that prayer improves the recovery of hospital patients. Apologists simply say God did not choose to respond to this test. But you can bet they would have changed their tune if the results had been positive. Trillions of prayers have been tendered over millennia. Of course, most sick people get better anyway, except once. If the God most people worship and pray to does exist, intercessory prayer would have a better batting average than what you would get from the normal operation of the natural world, including luck. It doesn’t. As the final example, the Abrahamic God is believed by his worshipers to talk to people and provide information they otherwise did not know. Nothing could be easier to test scientifically. All you have to do is find a few examples where a truth has been revealed that later was confirmed. This could be something simple, such as a prediction of some future event that turned out to be confirmed. This has never happened. Of course, claims of revelation can be found in all three monotheisms, but none stand up to critical scrutiny. The so-called prophecies in scriptures were all made in the distant past and can’t be tested since the events prophesied have already happened, or, as in the case of Jesus returning in a generation, long been falsified. In all of these examples, evidence for God should have been found, but was not. This absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It refutes the common assertion that science has nothing to say about God. In fact, science can say, beyond any reasonable doubt, that God — the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God — does not exist. 1 Like |
| Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by hopefulLandlord: 12:25pm On Mar 09, 2017 |
IMO absence of evidence might not necessarily be evidence of absence although its usually the case BUT I'm 100% sure absence of evidence is not evidence of presence either I always like to say that absence of evidence is not proof of absence, but it can be evidence. The reason why Christians keep pulling their cliché is because of an overwhelming absence of evidence of their god which cannot be denied. So rather than face up to an inconvenient truth, they shape-shift to this nonsense. It reminds me of a debate I heard when Matt Dillahunty was debating Ten Bruggencate and Ten was so exasperated at the devastating logic that Matt was using and began to ask can you use "logic to prove logic". It was one (in my opinion) of the most desperate attempts I have ever seen from a Christian. If you're using Bayesian Reasoning, absence of evidence is literally evidence of absence. They are indistinguishable. This is especially obvious in a world where there's a lot of evidence and we study the crap out of practically everything. |
| Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by Nobody: 2:51pm On Mar 09, 2017 |
Hmmm.....interesting title. This author Victor Stenger....wonder what his background is? Will have to research him.. |
| Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by akintom(m): 2:56pm On Mar 09, 2017 |
MZLady39:An input on some of the points of his argument, would have been more desirable. |
| Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by dalaman: 3:14pm On Mar 09, 2017 |
MZLady39: He was a professor of Physics. He died some years ago. He authored the book titled "God: A failed hypothesis ". |
| Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by Nobody: 3:17pm On Mar 09, 2017 |
akintom: Oh I'm well aware of that. You want a debate. I disagree with lots of his argument...but of what use is it for me to counteract it? |
| Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by Nobody: 3:20pm On Mar 09, 2017 |
dalaman: Thanks...I figured that much. Scientists go extremely "left" or "right". Either they believe or they don't. |
| Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by akintom(m): 3:28pm On Mar 09, 2017 |
MZLady39:The best motive, is that which stream from a source that offers "use" to general bodies, as against singular self. |
| Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by Nobody: 3:52pm On Mar 09, 2017 |
akintom: Oh...I don't want to confuse folks in here. Everyone's not at the same level in regards to certain topics. I'll be the first to say that some areas I won't touch. So before I delve into a topic like this, I must be very cautious.... I like to know a little about the person to see what has caused his/her worldview. Although I'm hardly afraid, I know how your group works....  But I do think I answered many of your scholar's quote by my post the other day. |
| Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by akintom(m): 5:00pm On Mar 09, 2017 |
MZLady39:I bet you that folks here are as diverse in depth of perceptive understanding, as you can find elsewhere. I have this in mind, when i do some type of writing, comments and posts. I see what i write as drops of knowledge in the minds of folks, these drops soon become ocean that breaks banks. All the same, i feel you. |
| Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by Wilgrea7(m): 5:07pm On Mar 09, 2017 |
Absence of Evidence is not evidence of absence... a couple centuries ago, there was no evidence for other planets... but since we advanced, we were able to find out that other planets exist... so what sayest thou? that those planets existed not? .. my point is, for the fact you've not been able to prove or falsify something doesn't make it non existent... it just means that you are the one who needs to prove it... there are 2 reasons i believe science cannot be used to prove the existence of a figure-like God 1.. science deals with only naturalistic and physical things and theists believe God to be spiritual so saying that because a natural process could not prove a supernatural thing then the supernatural thing doesn't exist is like saying since walking can't make you fly then flying is impossible.. 2. Science deals with physical laws and theists and deists through logical reasoning agree that for an all supreme creator to create all these laws, then it is not bound by the laws.. so using the laws to prove/disprove the existence of God is like using the codes used to write a computer to determine the exact writer of the codes... the codes on a computer are evidence that they were written by someone so also the laws of the universe are evidence that they were put there my point is, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and science(which the OP claims to be the means of all verification) is inadequate when it comes to proving the existence of God |
| Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by akintom(m): 5:18pm On Mar 09, 2017 |
Wilgrea7: The article is simple enough to understand the drift. My question to you is - *. What is spirit or spiritual? |
| Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by Wilgrea7(m): 5:30pm On Mar 09, 2017 |
akintom:a spirit is a supernatural being.. it may or may not have a physical form.. spiritual means something above the physical |
| Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by akintom(m): 6:55pm On Mar 09, 2017 |
Wilgrea7:I couldn't possibly be asking you for the dictionary meaning. Google will do it perfectly. I had asked you, based on your earlier proposition, that the existence of god can be evidenced by "spiritual" method. It's in relation to this, that i asked you, what this "spiritual" method is. |
| Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by Wilgrea7(m): 9:20pm On Mar 09, 2017 |
akintom: you didn't ask spiritual method... u asked for what spiritual is... anyways... the spiritual method unlike the physical method that deals with processes.... all you have to do is get a connection to the spiritual plane.. to be conscious there... different religions have different ways they claim to connect to the spiritual |
| Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by akintom(m): 9:27pm On Mar 09, 2017 |
Wilgrea7:Using the religion that you belong, how do you connect to the spiritual plane? What nature is the consciousness in the spiritual plane? |
| Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by Wilgrea7(m): 8:22am On Mar 10, 2017 |
akintom: I'm a Christian... although liberal... i believe we all have a spiritual nature and we just have to figure out how to use it... things like lucid dreamings are evidence for our spiritual nature... personally i think selfless love has a role to play in our natural intuition into the spiritual plane.. |
| Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by akintom(m): 8:53am On Mar 10, 2017 |
Wilgrea7:Two things here; * you just believe. That's OK, because believe in the Christian religion concept, don't require substantial evidence offering. *but now that you presented "substantial evidence" of lucid dream, you're delving into the irritating acts of most apologists here, who in one instance says it's by faith (no physical and substantial evidence is required) and in the same instance go ahead to argue that such claims by faith must be proved to be false, by atheists. A Google search on the neurophysiology basis of dream, will show you that it has nothing to do with "spiritual plane". |
| Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by akintom(m): 9:09am On Mar 10, 2017 |
Russell's teapot Analogy coined by Bertrand Russell Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy, coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others. Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion.[1] He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong. Russell's teapot is still invoked in discussions concerning the existence of God, and in various other contexts. Origins of the analogy In an article titled "Is There a God?" commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote: Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.[2] In 1958, Russell elaborated on the analogy I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.[3] Similar analogies Other thinkers have posited similar analogies.[improper synthesis?] For example, J. B. Bury notes the following in his 1913 book, History of Freedom of Thought: Some people speak as if we were not justified in rejecting a theological doctrine unless we can prove it false. But the burden of proof does not lie upon the rejecter.... If you were told that in a certain planet revolving around Sirius there is a race of donkeys who speak the English language and spend their time in discussing eugenics, you could not disprove the statement, but would it, on that account, have any claim to be believed? Some minds would be prepared to accept it, if it were reiterated often enough, through the potent force of suggestion.[4] Analysis Chemist Peter Atkins said that the point of Russell's teapot is that there is no burden on anyone to disprove assertions. Occam's razor suggests that the simpler theory with fewer assertions (e.g. a universe with no supernatural beings) should be the starting point in the discussion rather than the more complex theory.[5] Atkins states that this argument does not appeal to religious people because, unlike scientific evidence, religious evidence is said to be experienced through personal revelation that cannot be conveyed or objectively verified. In his books A Devil's Chaplain (2003) and The God Delusion (2006), ethologist Richard Dawkins used the teapot as an analogy of an argument against what he termed "agnostic conciliation", a policy of intellectual appeasement that allows for philosophical domains that concern exclusively religious matters.[6] Science has no way of establishing the existence or non-existence of a god. Therefore, according to the agnostic conciliator, because it is a matter of individual taste, belief and disbelief in a supreme being are deserving of equal respect and attention. Dawkins presents the teapot as a reductio ad absurdum of this position: if agnosticism demands giving equal respect to the belief and disbelief in a supreme being, then it must also give equal respect to belief in an orbiting teapot, since the existence of an orbiting teapot is just as plausible scientifically as the existence of a supreme being.[7] In 2014, philosopher Alvin Plantinga was quoted in The New York Times as challenging the validity of the Russell's Teapot argument: Clearly we have a great deal of evidence against teapotism. For example, as far as we know, the only way a teapot could have gotten into orbit around the sun would be if some country with sufficiently developed space-shot capabilities had shot this pot into orbit. No country with such capabilities is sufficiently frivolous to waste its resources by trying to send a teapot into orbit. Furthermore, if some country had done so, it would have been all over the news; we would certainly have heard about it. But we haven’t. And so on. There is plenty of evidence against teapotism.[8] Parody The concept of Russell's teapot has been extrapolated into more explicitly religion-parodying forms such as the Invisible Pink Unicorn[7] and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.[9] 1960s musician and psychedelic poet Daevid Allen created his Planet Gong Universe and the Flying Teapot Trilogy around the idea of a Flying Teapot and refers to Russell's Teapot in his book Gong Dreaming. 1 Like 1 Share |
| Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by akintom(m): 9:27am On Mar 10, 2017 |
By Cody Reisdorf The word "proof" in English means "a convincing argument". And scientifically speaking, yes, we've proved the gods and goddesses that humans have dreamed up over the ages. We are faced with two hypotheses. In the older one the universe was made for us by a supernatural agent, who gave rules about how to behave, a story about where we and everything else came from, and so on. In the newer hypothesis the universe is the result of natural laws. We have not just a dearth of evidence for the former hypothesis, we have enormous evidence for the latter. Worse, the latter hypothesis doesn't just explain the universe and the evidence for it, it also gives us a good idea about the origins of the first hypothesis itself. For example, humans wrote the holy books at a time when no one had any idea how anything worked. But evolution had shaped them (and all animals) to keep their eyes peeled for agents, and it biased them towards making type I errors (false positives) and against making type II errors (false negatives). This happened because mistaking the breeze for a lion has a relatively low cost, mistaking a lion for the breeze will cost you your life. So early humans were naturally fashioned to look for agency, and when natural phenomena occurred, they misattributed it to a supernatural agent, and they gave these super natural agents very human attributes. Humans can be jealous, and demand worship, and seek revenge. So naturally they assumed that when lighting struck tall objects it must mean the god(s) were angry at you for something. (Now we know it's due to the electrical potential of the atmosphere.) When a volcano erupted, or the earth quaked, or a tsunami wiped out a costal region, or a famine or flood came, it was all interpreted as the wrath of some unimaginably powerful agent. Now we know about plate tectonics and weather, and we know those are entirely natural phenomena now. Consciousness and death have always been mysterious, but after decades of case studies of brain injuries, brain diseases, and brain surgeries, it is clear that the brain is the origin of consciousness, and that when the brain ceases to function, we cease to exist and individuals. Scientifically speaking, we've proven there are no gods or goddesses as imagined by humans, we've proven there is no afterlife, we've proven that humans are one branch of the primate tree and that we are all related to all other known life. People argue with me all the time, using various solipsistic type arguments to suggest we can't know anything besides our own existence, or things like that. I'll admit philosophically that stuff is true, but practically speaking it's worse than useless. And like I said, scientifically speaking this stuff is proven, firmly established. As well as any other scientific conclusion, like the Earth being approximately spherical, or matter being made of atoms. |
| Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by akintom(m): 9:29am On Mar 10, 2017 |
By Frank Fernandez This is your first problem. Atheist don't say that there's no god. Atheists say that they don't believe the claim that God exists. These are two very different things. One is the rejection of a positive claim. The other is a positive claim. Someone who says they don't believe in a God has no need to disprove the God claim. The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. If you claim that a god does exist then it's YOUR job to prove it. It's not the other person's job to prove it false. If someone says the there is no God, they are now making a claim that does carry a burden of proof. But we atheists don't claim that God, in fact, does not exist. We simply reject the claims that one does. So you can toss all the word salads you want. But you're not gonna pin the burden of proof on us. You claim that God is real, then it's your job to prove it. Plain and simple. |
| Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by Wilgrea7(m): 10:28am On Mar 10, 2017 |
akintom: again on the evidence which has to be physical to prove something spiritual... anyways, the best evidence someone can truly have is experience... not actually faith . *but now that you presented "substantial evidence" of lucid dream, you're delving into the irritating acts of most apologists here, who in one instance says it's by faith (no physical and substantial evidence is required) and in the same instance go ahead to argue that such claims by faith must be proved to be false, by atheists. no ... i don't do that “prove its not real" something... the burden of proof is on me... the only way someone can prove the spiritual is either by personal experience (this is the best) or by effects of the spiritual on the physical, defying science(miracles).. when i say miracles i don't mean the hoo haa of i prayed and got the job etc.. that's why i emphasized on defying science.. A Google search on the neurophysiology basis of dream, will show you that it has nothing to do with "spiritual plane". dreams are normal... yes... some dreams can be caused by what we focus our minds on, or what we watch/see or on the other hand, on spiritual factors.. humans sometimes have revelations.. dreams deeper than just everyday thinking.. someone with the experience will attest to it.. someone without experience would probably deny it.. that's why i said experience is the best evidence someone can get of the spiritual |
| Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by akintom(m): 11:09am On Mar 10, 2017 |
Wilgrea7:Experience = Anecdotes, and Anecdotes are mere subliminal phenomenon, that don't establish anything, other electrochemical activities of the brain. There's nothing called religious beliefs outside faith (blind acceptance of claims without and against reasons). It's this mentality, that create whatever experiences that religious folks fool around with. Meaning, god idea and religion, exist only within the sphere of BLIND FAITH . Wilgrea7:Can you please mention just one "miracle" that defies scientific explanation? Wilgrea7:You don't still get it. How could you be claiming that some dreams are based on "spiritual factors"? What's your authority on this claim? |
| Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by Wilgrea7(m): 11:46am On Mar 10, 2017 |
akintom: your opinion.... now contrary to what you said earlier, you seem to be the one wanting to disprove the experience.. There's nothing called religious beliefs outside faith (blind acceptance of claims without and against reasons). no... people can have experiences without faith.. faith is a part of religious beliefs cuz they have no other way to believe what they believe than through faith... blind faith is when you accept regardless of evidence whatsoever and follow it blindly.. there are people that have seen reasons beyond blind faith to continue in their beliefs Can you please mention just one "miracle" that defies scientific explanation?many... being shot without a scratch, being pronounced clinically dead and coming back to life, instantaneous healing.. not the “i had headache and it was gone" type.. I'm talking of critical illnesses vanishing within a second.. not placebo... i mean permanent healing.. religions refer to it as divine healing.... and lots more You don't still get it. How could you be claiming that some dreams are based on "spiritual factors"? my only authority on it is the experience I've had.. I've gotten revelations... I've had dreams concerning many things.. I've felt spirit entities... so my only authority on that is the little experience i had.. |
| Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by akintom(m): 5:20pm On Mar 10, 2017 |
Wilgrea7:It appears you don't have the operative understanding, of the words "proof, prove, existence and experience". What you claimed to be the "proof" of spiritual plane is lucid dream. And what i did to your claim is to call it "empty", because there's nothing to "disprove". You know why? A proof must have substance, for it to qualify as proof. Dream is a substantial proof of one of the many electrochemical activities of the brain. This has been Scientifically been established in the lab. Wilgrea7:This is nauseatingly incoherent. Religious faith is a precursor of religious experience, period! Do you have substantial evidence for the following: *God? *Adam and eve? *original sin? *holy spirit? All the experiences attributed to the above concept are based on faith, nothing more. Wilgrea7: can you repeat the above claims? Under observation? Wilgrea7:Go learn the operative meaning of citing authority. |
| Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by Wilgrea7(m): 6:29pm On Mar 10, 2017 |
akintom: you still don't understand my point.. we are just turning in circles... you need substantial/physical evidence for something spiritual.... it won't work... i gave you examples of revelations and message but i can't give you the physical or scientific evidence... i already told you the best way to get evidence is through experience.. i understand the science part of dreams... but even science cannot and has not fully comprehended dreams... its still one of the top 10 things science can't fully explain This is nauseatingly incoherent. Religious faith is a precursor of religious experience, period! if you mean physical/scientific evidence then no... except God tho... the universe is evidence of a creator All the experiences attributed to the above concept are based on faith, nothing more. apart from God and holy spirit, the rest are doctrines... and yes... their basis is faith.. but i never claimed to have an experience with adam and eve or original sin... those are doctrines formed based on belief.. they are not the foundation or basis of belief per say.. can you repeat the above claims? Under observation? no... cuz I'm not in control of them.. Go learn the operative meaning of citing authority. point taken |
| Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by akintom(m): 8:06pm On Mar 10, 2017 |
Wilgrea7: Dream, vision (eg revelation), trance are all natural neurophysiological activities. They have been induced and studied in labs. These activities are natural, they can't be evidence of "spiritual plane". I can as well tell you that the ability of mosquitoes to suck blood, is an evidence of blood sucking demons. Endeavor to understand the word "substantial evidence". Wilgrea7: You obviously don't understand what science is. Science is a dynamically evolving field of knowledge. You're wrong to have said "... That science CAN'T explain...". Science says "on this subject, we don't yet have FULL explanation". This doesn't mean the same thing as "can't". What science can't explain, is anything that can't be probed. Dream has been probed, and it's been understood to a conclusive level. Science reaches conclusion, based on the extent to which research has delved. Based on the level of research on dream, it's accepted as an established fact, that dream is an electrochemical phenomenon of the brain. There's nothing supernatural about it. Whatever on going research may be looking at, are other factors that might explain the mechanism of dream, in a more easy to understand ways. Wilgrea7:How did you know that the universe was created? In case you want to reply this, kindly Google the operative meaning of "substantial evidence". Wilgrea7: god and Holy Spirit are doctrinal ideas. That's the reason for variance in what they (god and holy Spirit) mean, to different religious groups (even within the Christian religion). Wilgrea7:Then those claimed "miracle" can be Scientifically explained, if the events are subjected to investigation. At best, they are coincidence. |
| Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by Wilgrea7(m): 9:50pm On Mar 10, 2017 |
akintom: you're looking at this issue from your side... and I from mine... so lets face the fact... we won't get anywhere with this... lucid dreaming was just one of the examples i gave... i gave it based on my experience with it... i also gave revelations as an example... also, some messages coming from the spirit plane.. OBEs and astral projections are examples.. all these i gave are proofs of our spiritual nature.. but if you've not experienced nor known anyone who experienced it, there will be no amount of evidence that would be substantial enough for you Endeavor to understand the word "substantial evidence".i know what it is You obviously don't understand what science is. Science is a dynamically evolving field of knowledge. ok... science hasn't reached the capacity to explain it.. i agree... so i should discard it because science can't explain it?? if science explains it properly, as well as many other things termed supernatural, then I'd openly swallow my non-existent pride and accept the truth(not claim) of science What science can't explain, is anything that can't be probed.thank you Dream has been probed, and it's been understood to a conclusive level.not completely... u can look it up on google... science hasn't comprehended dreams 100%.. there is still much they don't know and agree they don't know.. its even there in the link i posted earlier Based on the level of research on dream, it's accepted as an established fact, that dream is an electrochemical phenomenon of the brain. There's nothing supernatural about it.I'll say it again... dreams have not been fully understood by science How did you know that the universe was created?the universe clearly shows it had a beginning.. so it was not uncaused.. i don't have time to start explaining the flaws of the big bang... i don't know how else to simplify it for you... the universe is clear evidence that it didn't come by mistake. god and Holy Spirit are doctrinal ideas.God and the holy spirit are not doctrinal ideas... its their attributes and properties that are doctrinal ideas Then those claimed "miracle" can be Scientifically explained, if the events are subjected to investigation. At best, they are coincidence. and if i may ask how did you arrive at this conclusion... you're running back to the whole “science can explain"...yet you claim its still evolving.... giving you instances won't prove anything cuz they are just instances... there are people with experiences that science can't explain.. the highest they can call them are delusions.. and that's for people who are too proud to admit they don't know... honest science says “i don't know" to things they don't understand |
| Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by hopefulLandlord: 10:00pm On Mar 10, 2017 |
I like both sides of this discussion |
| Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by akintom(m): 10:32pm On Mar 10, 2017 |
Wilgrea7: this will be my last response on this point. I have approached this your "proof" of spiritual plane, from rational, honest and intelligent angles. Whatever you called "proofs" remain empty, as long as they can't be subjected to scientific probe or that science has provided explanations for. Wilgrea7: I never said "science hasn't reached the CAPACITY to explain it....". Do well not to quote me falsely. You are at liberty to hold on to what has no scientific explanation, but you can't push that to me as real or fact. They remain your personal experience, that can't qualify for reference. Wilgrea7: l never said completely. It will be okay for you to slowly read my response and understand my argument before responding. I never said science knows all there's about dream 100%. I said what science knows now, is sufficient for them to conclude that dream is a neurophysiological activity, and not supernatural. Wilgrea7: i never told you that science "fully"understood dream yet. But that which is known about dream now, doesn't suggest it's supernatural phenomenon. Wilgrea7:Am not about to debate any of the proposed theories, of the possible origin of life with you. What i asked you is simple. If you claimed that the universe was created, my question to you is - how did you know that? And if you can't explain the how, by using scientific approach, don't border. As am very familiar with all the circularity dance. Wilgrea7:So far, religious folks have related with mere attributes of god idea. A claim of a personal god is an empty one. Perhaps another name for god created by indoctrination, will be a mythological god. Wilgrea7:Of course, claiming that one hears and sees, what can't be established with the use of sense, is grand delusion. |
| Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by Wilgrea7(m): 11:28pm On Mar 10, 2017 |
akintom: this is why i said we are going in circles.. its no problem sha.. i understand your point I never said "science hasn't reached the CAPACITY to explain it....". Do well not to quote me falsely.ok... sorry if i did so You are at liberty to hold on to what has no scientific explanation, but you can't push that to me as real or fact. They remain your personal experience, that can't qualify for reference. point taken.. you seem to regard science as the supreme body in charge of proving something and anything not proven by science isn't real to you... this is why i said we are going round in circles l never said completely. It will be okay for you to slowly read my response and understand my argument before responding.ok... I'll be waiting till they can explain it 100% so that they can explain revelations, OBEs, lucid dreams properly for me i never told you that science "fully"understood dream yet. But that which is known about dream now, doesn't suggest it's supernatural phenomenon. if science hasn't fully understood it then why should i discard the part that i understood(or for your case, claim to understand) that science hasn't understood... u take science as the general body to prove and disprove and anything not proven by it is false... i don't take science as the overall body in charge of proving and disproving... so you see... we're not approaching the discussion from the same reference point Am not about to debate any of the proposed theories, of the possible origin of life with you. ok... let me try... science has agreed with both of us that the universe has a beginning.... so what caused the beginning... science claims it was caused by the big bang... but it disagrees with so many scientific laws... but I'm not here to discredit the big bang.. I'm here to tell you why the universe was created... please note.. when i say the universe was created, I'm not implying the 6 days abrahamic creation.... the universe might have been created with a big bang.. but the fact remains that it was created.. it didn't just come out of empty space... something caused the universe to come into existence.. for laws to govern the way things take place in the universe, something must have caused the law.. laws don't create themselves.. so theists generally refer to this supreme force responsible for putting the laws, forms etc that caused the beginning of the universe “God" So far, religious folks have related with mere attributes of god idea. A claim of a personal god is an empty one. Perhaps another name for god created by indoctrination, will be a mythological god.my only response to this is that there is so much we don't know.. its ok to presume that personal gods were started from the minds of primitive men who didn't understand the universe... but that's just 10% of the story... there is still so much we don't know Of course, claiming that one hears and sees, what can't be established with the use of sense, is grand delusion. your opinion tho... it was nice having a discission with you.. thanks for your patience and time... it was really nice... |
| Re: Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence by akintom(m): 9:17am On Mar 11, 2017 |
Wilgrea7:Same here brother. |
(1) (Reply)
Why Do Christians And Other Religious Folks Do This. / 33 Reasons To Abstain From Porn / Your Standing Is Wrapped Up In Jesus - Joseph Prince
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 152 |