Show us the evidence

[floo]

deleted

[Shaker]

Typically because they mistakenly believe that there's such a thing as supernatural evidence, whereas that's a contradiction in terms.

[Leonard James]

Some Christians claim they have evidence that the deity and an afterlife exist. However, when asked to reveal it, they fail to do so. WHY?

I think the reality is that they have "evidence" that convinces them, but the rest of us don't find it so.

[jeremyp]

Some Christians claim they have evidence that the deity and an afterlife exist. However, when asked to reveal it, they fail to do so. WHY?

Because there isn't any. 

[Hope]

Some Christians claim they have evidence that the deity and an afterlife exist. However, when asked to reveal it, they fail to do so. WHY?

Because there isn't any.

Sorry, there is evidence, just not evidence that fits a scientific definition of evidence - but then, of course, that applies for several other aspects of life.

[Shaker]

Can you say what this evidence is in your opinion?

[Hope]

Typically because they mistakenly believe that there's such a thing as supernatural evidence, whereas that's a contradiction in terms.

No, Shaker, they don't believe that there's such a thing as supernatural evidence.  They just believe that a scientific definition of evidence isn't the only legitimate definition of the word.

[Shaker]

Better check with Alien to see if he'd agree with you there.

[Hope]

Can you say what this evidence is in your opinion?

I can, but as it won't fit into a scientific definition, why bothe since the likes of you have made it clear that they only accepted explanations that fit into a scientific definition.

May I remind you that no-one has yet managed to provide me with any evidence for the existence of emotions - all they have done is point to chemical actions that are the result of or symptoms of such things - not the things themselves.

[Hope]

Better check with Alien to see if he'd agree with you there.

In a previous discussion, he seemd to agree with me.

[jeremyp]

Sorry, there is evidence, just not evidence that fits a scientific definition of evidence

What other kind of evidence is there?

[Shaker]

I can, but as it won't fit into a scientific definition, why bothe since the likes of you have made it clear that they only accepted explanations that fit into a scientific definition.

Indeed, but I'm interested to see what you regard as evidence.

[Hope]

Sorry, there is evidence, just not evidence that fits a scientific definition of evidence

What other kind of evidence is there?

OK, jeremy, what evidence is there for human emotions?  I am not referring to the symptoms which result from them - ie, the chemical reactions.

[Shaker]

It's looking that way.

[Leonard James]

May I remind you that no-one has yet managed to provide me with any evidence for the existence of emotions - all they have done is point to chemical actions that are the result of or symptoms of such things - not the things themselves.

I'm not sure what exactly you are asking for, Hope. There is a mass of evidence for the existence of these emotions.

[Hope]

I'm not sure what exactly you are asking for, Hope. There is a mass of evidence for the existence of these emotions.

Go on then, what are they?  The only evidence put forward by anyone here when I posed a very similar question about 'love' a couple of months ago, was from Horsethorn (iirc) and referred to the chemical reactions/actions that are a 'symptom' of love, not love itself.

[Hope]

A cop out on the part of Hope!

Why would you suggest that, floo?  Perhaps you can give us the benefit of your wisdom - something you failed to do last time this came up in discussion a couple of months back.

[Shaker]

Why would you suggest that, floo?

Because you've been asked to state what in your opinion constitutes evidence and have failed to do so (despite claiming that you can do so, before sharply swerving into a burden-of-proof-shifting, discussion-derailing and wholly irrelevant point about emotions).

[jeremyp]

Sorry, there is evidence, just not evidence that fits a scientific definition of evidence

What other kind of evidence is there?

OK, jeremy, what evidence is there for human emotions?  I am not referring to the symptoms which result from them - ie, the chemical reactions.

That is a totally nonsensical response to my challenge. 

Me: "show me your non scientific evidence"

You: "well there's no evidence for emotions"

You're supposed to be providing examples of non scientific evidence, not telling me there is no evidence for some stuff.

Incidentally, as well as actually answering my question, you can also have a shot at telling me why the physical symptoms of emotions are not scientific evidence for emotions.

[Maeght]

I'm not sure what exactly you are asking for, Hope. There is a mass of evidence for the existence of these emotions.

Go on then, what are they?  The only evidence put forward by anyone here when I posed a very similar question about 'love' a couple of months ago, was from Horsethorn (iirc) and referred to the chemical reactions/actions that are a 'symptom' of love, not love itself.

Why should love be anything more than the effect of chemical reactions/activity on our brain and nervous system?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Typically because they mistakenly believe that there's such a thing as supernatural evidence, whereas that's a contradiction in terms.

Gratitude to Shaker for reminding us that his definition of evidence is very much rooted in philosophical naturalism.......for which there is no evidence which would satisfy that definition.

Ciao.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Evidence has to be scientifically verifiable, which clearly theirs isn't!

There you go. Is philosophical naturalism scientifically verifiable? er, nope.

[ProfessorDavey]

Sorry, there is evidence, just not evidence that fits a scientific definition of evidence

What other kind of evidence is there?

OK, jeremy, what evidence is there for human emotions?  I am not referring to the symptoms which result from them - ie, the chemical reactions.

You've got it the wrong way around Hope. The chemical reactions are the cause, what we describe as emotions are effectively 'symptoms' of those chemical reactions. So the point is that what we describe as our human emotions are just that - the manifestations of responses to a series of complex chemical reactions. That is the evidence.

That we find those symptoms of those particular chemical reactions so powerful and important is a product of our underlying physiology (including neurology) and evolution. But all is effectively complex chemistry.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm not sure what exactly you are asking for, Hope. There is a mass of evidence for the existence of these emotions.

Go on then, what are they?  The only evidence put forward by anyone here when I posed a very similar question about 'love' a couple of months ago, was from Horsethorn (iirc) and referred to the chemical reactions/actions that are a 'symptom' of love, not love itself.

Why should love be anything more than the effect of chemical reactions/activity on our brain and nervous system?

And there are, of course, all sorts of substances that are used to alter those chemical reactions and in doing so alter our emotion.

Some are mind altering drugs used for thousands of years, without (until recently) an understanding of how they actually function. Others are more modern therapeutic drugs - a good example being selective seratonin reuptake inhibitors used to treat depression.

[Shaker]

Hope seems to think that the definition of emotion is something separate to the signs of emotion - that there's an extra link in the chain. I don't get this at all - it seems obvious to me that emotion is inseparable from the signs of emotion, and that it makes sense to regard that as what emotion means.

That said, it's quite clear that we're only discussing this at all since Hope introduced it into the thread as as diversion from having to produce evidence of his own.