Why is there no verifiable evidence?

[Gordon]

Yet this isn't the only way in which a lake can exist in the desert, Stephen.  Wadis that have been dry for decades can suddenly be filled to overflowing by an unexpected and torrential rain storm.  It may only last for a very short time, but is so torrential as to provide enough water to refill aquifers and wells.

That wasn't the point Stephen was making though - his point is that even where reality can be deceptive: such as is this a lake or is it a mirage, both possible scenarios have naturalistic explanations whereas certain Christian claims about God/Jesus don't.

Your rather concrete digression into the wetness or otherwise of the Sahara completely misses the point.

[Hope]

I think you are probably right but it would be very interesting if there was a different way of determining if things supernatural (whatever they might be) did exist.

I know Hope and Vlad won't believe it but it is genuinely true that I am intersted.

I know that you are interested, Stephen, but you and others seem to want to limit the verification system to the physical alone.  I believe that over the centuries, people have understood matters - such as the relevance of 'blood and water' to confirming whether or not someone is dead - without having a scientific basis to that understanding.  They have simply observed phenomena and come to conclusions based on the totaility of thosee experienced/observed phenomena.

[Hope]

That wasn't the point Stephen was making though - his point is that even where reality can be deceptive: such as is this a lake or is it a mirage, both possible scenarios have naturalistic explanations whereas certain Christian claims about God/Jesus don't.

Your rather concrete digression into the wetness or otherwise of the Sahara completely misses the point.

Except that there are those who assume that wetness in a desert must necessarily be a mirage.

[Gordon]

Except that there are those who assume that wetness in a desert must necessarily be a mirage.

Who are 'those', and even if there are some who aren't quite up to speed on all things Saharan what does that matter in relation to the point Stephen was making via this example?

[Hope]

Who are 'those', and even if there are some who aren't quite up to speed on all things Saharan what does that matter in relation to the point Stephen was making via this example?

'Thoise' doesn't refer to anyone here, as far as I'm aware, Gordon - but I do remember having a geography teacher who liked to insist that there was never any rainfall in deserts!!  The relevance to Stephen's point is that, in reality, the message one's eyes are sending to the brain is sometimes correct.  He seems to be concentrating purely on the occasions when it isn't

[Gordon]

I know that you are interested, Stephen, but you and others seem to want to limit the verification system to the physical alone.

What alternative verification systems are there?

I believe that over the centuries, people have understood matters - such as the relevance of 'blood and water' to confirming whether or not someone is dead - without having a scientific basis to that understanding.

The you'd be wrong, since not only is 'blood and water' gloriously imprecise you haven't excluded the possibility that the 'blood and water' claim is true - and even if this did signify death back in antiquity it is surely the kind of thing people would say if they wanted to claim someone was dead when they weren't: this is a risk, since people can tell lies, so have have you excluded this risk?

They have simply observed phenomena and come to conclusions based on the totaility of thosee experienced/observed phenomena.

They may say that, and you might believe them personally, but, and again, how have you dealt with the risk that they were wrong or lying?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

'Thoise' doesn't refer to anyone here, as far as I'm aware, Gordon - but I do remember having a geography teacher who liked to insist that there was never any rainfall in deserts!!  The relevance to Stephen's point is that, in reality, the message one's eyes are sending to the brain is sometimes correct.  He seems to be concentrating purely on the occasions when it isn't

You completely miss the point.

There may or may not be a lake there. We don't have to trust our eyes or our experience we can confirm it one way or another using a methodology.

What is the methodology for supernatural claims? The God experience you have may be due to an actual God or it may not. How can you confirm it one way or another?

[Gordon]

The relevance to Stephen's point is that, in reality, the message one's eyes are sending to the brain is sometimes correct.  He seems to be concentrating purely on the occasions when it isn't

Don't think so, and no doubt Stephen will correct me if I'm wrong.

It seemed to me that the point he was making is that although the mirage of a lake isn't the same thing as an actual lake/wadi, which you've been at pains to stress is a possibility even in the Sahara, it is the case that both the optical illusion or the possibility of actual water options have naturalistic explanations - in other words, that something is uncertain doesn't mean there is an absence of naturalistic options that would decide matters.

Contrast that with claims of divine intervention for which there is not only no naturalistic explanation but no non-naturalistic ones either (unless you guys are keeping it to yourselves).

 

[Shaker]

They do seem remarkably coy about sharing it, don't they?

[Brownie]

What's all this "they", Shaker?  Aren't we all one big happy family  ?
Belief in God and the afterlife cannot be proved, we've established that.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Don't think so, and no doubt Stephen will correct me if I'm wrong.

It seemed to me that the point he was making is that although the mirage of a lake isn't the same thing as an actual lake/wadi, which you've been at pains to stress is a possibility even in the Sahara, it is the case that both the optical illusion or the possibility of actual water options have naturalistic explanations - in other words, that something is uncertain doesn't mean there is an absence of naturalistic options that would decide matters.

Contrast that with claims of divine intervention for which there is not only no naturalistic explanation but no non-naturalistic ones either (unless you guys are keeping it to yourselves).

Gordon,

No correcting required.

I don't think Hope fails to get it either but as always is reluctant to engage with the important point of a lack of means (naturalistic or non naturalistic) to verify supernatural phenomena.

[Brownie]

How can anyone verify supernatural phenomena?

[ippy]

He's sounding more like you, ippy, than like me 

The standard Mandy Rice Davis answer Hope, no surprises there.

ippy

[Shaker]

How can anyone verify supernatural phenomena?

We keep asking that!

[Shaker]

What's all this "they", Shaker?  Aren't we all one big happy family  ?
Belief in God and the afterlife cannot be proved, we've established that.

Hope claims not only that there's an appropriate methodology for evaluating supernatural claims but that he has provided this alleged methodology elsewhere which has "flummoxed" believers and non-believers alike. (I can well imagine why ...). He seems to be inordinately reluctant to share this so-called methodology here, though ...

[Brownie]

The standard Mandy Rice Davis answer Hope, no surprises there.

ippy

Well he would, wouldn't he?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

How can anyone verify supernatural phenomena?

Don't know but as Shaker has already pointed out it is Hope that has claimed that can be.

A genuine question; so what do you do in order to jump the gap from possibly true to probably true? Is it not important? is it faith, and if so what does faith mean to you?

Again, a genuine question.

[Owlswing]

What's all this "they", Shaker?  Aren't we all one big happy family  ?
Belief in God and the afterlife cannot be proved, we've established that.

Please show me posts from Sassy, Hope, and OMW and the other Christians on here where they agree that "the afterlife cannot be proved"! You are the only one that I have seen to day this!

The afterlife is one of the very cornerstones of their belief and one of the things that are denying those of us who are not followers of their god! 

[Owlswing]

How can anyone verify supernatural phenomena?

Don't ask us - ask Hope - he is the one stating that it is possible.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

How can anyone verify supernatural phenomena?

Hello again,

Further to my last reply to you I also notice the on another thread you say that God is a fact to you. I find this really interesting, supernatural can't be verified but at the same time God is fact. Not trying to trip you up or anything but this is interesting and something I would like to understand more. In the way I would use language they seem contradictory to me but maybe we are using language differently. Would love to explore more.

[Nearly Sane]

Hello again,

Further to my last reply to you I also notice the on another thread you say that God is a fact to you. I find this really interesting, supernatural can't be verified but at the same time God is fact. Not trying to trip you up or anything but this is interesting and something I would like to understand more. In the way I would use language they seem contradictory to me but maybe we are using language differently. Would love to explore more.

Apologies to Brownie, I'm not seeking to answer this on their behalf but just to try and expand the discussion. If we were all to agree that what we see as 'facts' have to be generated off a common method that we use to determone them, and we can manage to carry that out then we have a way of stating what those facts are according to the methodology. But even with say a method, we make assumptions that allow is to state facts which are not 'facts' themselves by the method. So we cannot establsih that there are any other humans and we are not in the matrix but we proceed as if these are facts.

We also use a bit of an argumentum ad populum here, and wjile we can say science works, t works if we ignore the issue of hard solispsim, and use other's (who are not facts) perceptions (which are subjective) as the guide. Thus in your lake in the desert. say after you saw it, you jumped into it, felt it to be wey, and felt yourseld swimming 0 you may suffer pause if other's told you it wasn't true, but you might well nowm and while you might be deluded, so might they, and here the common methodology would just be broken.

When theists say their god is a fact, it seems to me they are expressing something clearly about their experiemces, that they feel is so clear to them, that denying it that status would mean that nothing could be argued as a fact because they, as do we. use experience as the guide of any methodology. Im addition, they aren't the only ones who say they feel the god equivalent of wet. swimmimg etc, there are lots of others too, There's a level of experience where using the phrase 'true for me' just means 'true and factual' as far as i can see within the limits we all have. Just as we cannot break out of the matrix and so assume at base that perception is fact, so does a theist but their perceptions are different.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Apologies to Brownie, I'm not seeking to answer this on their behalf but just to try and expand the discussion. If we were all to agree that what we see as 'facts' have to be generated off a common method that we use to determone them, and we can manage to carry that out then we have a way of stating what those facts are according to the methodology. But even with say a method, we make assumptions that allow is to state facts which are not 'facts' themselves by the method. So we cannot establsih that there are any other humans and we are not in the matrix but we proceed as if these are facts.

We also use a bit of an argumentum ad populum here, and wjile we can say science works, t works if we ignore the issue of hard solispsim, and use other's (who are not facts) perceptions (which are subjective) as the guide. Thus in your lake in the desert. say after you saw it, you jumped into it, felt it to be wey, and felt yourseld swimming 0 you may suffer pause if other's told you it wasn't true, but you might well nowm and while you might be deluded, so might they, and here the common methodology would just be broken.

When theists say their god is a fact, it seems to me they are expressing something clearly about their experiemces, that they feel is so clear to them, that denying it that status would mean that nothing could be argued as a fact because they, as do we. use experience as the guide of any methodology. Im addition, they aren't the only ones who say they feel the god equivalent of wet. swimmimg etc, there are lots of others too, There's a level of experience where using the phrase 'true for me' just means 'true and factual' as far as i can see within the limits we all have. Just as we cannot break out of the matrix and so assume at base that perception is fact, so does a theist but their perceptions are different.

Hi,

Thanks for the engagement.

Were you tying on a mobile or tablet as some of the spelling seems a little out. I have a similar problem and put it down to fat fingers

However, I think I can make out your points.

I agree with hard solipsism how would we know. However, it is a kind of forced assumption that we assume there is an external reality. How would we proceed, and how would it help theistic claims?

I disagree on the lake issue as we could make objective measures of it's wetness which do not depend on peoples experience. I just used swimming in it as a trivial example to show that some test could be made.

I also disagree about using experience as a guide to supporting a methodology. I am a scientist and am considered an expert in my, admittedly narrow, field. I am constantly asked to advise on the best way forwards to design programmes of research going forwards. the relevant experimental work is then carried out. I haven't done it but you could work out the value of my experience because there is a validation step i.e. you could put a percentage success rate to my predicitons. No such evaluation could be made of theistic experience because there is no validation step,

[floo]

There are a lot of reasonable, moderate Christians who will admit that they cannot prove the existence of god etc, and that whilst the faith works for them, there has to be an element of doubt.

[Nearly Sane]

Hi,

Thanks for the engagement.

Were you tying on a mobile or tablet as some of the spelling seems a little out. I have a similar problem and put it down to fat fingers

However, I think I can make out your points.

I agree with hard solipsism how would we know. However, it is a kind of forced assumption that we assume there is an external reality. How would we proceed, and how would it help theistic claims?

I disagree on the lake issue as we could make objective measures of it's wetness which do not depend on peoples experience. I just used swimming in it as a trivial example to show that some test could be made.

I also disagree about using experience as a guide to supporting a methodology. I am a scientist and am considered an expert in my, admittedly narrow, field. I am constantly asked to advise on the best way forwards to design programmes of research going forwards. the relevant experimental work is then carried out. I haven't done it but you could work out the value of my experience because there is a validation step i.e. you could put a percentage success rate to my predicitons. No such evaluation could be made of theistic experience because there is no validation step,

On a phone, previously. I should add I'm not a theist, nor at any point did I make an argument that it could be justified. The validation step you add, is defeated by hard solipsism unless you accept the validation step. All predictions are validated by perception since you cannot move beyond.

[Nearly Sane]

And surely any measurements of being wet etc are perceptions. What happens if you have lots of people they agree with you that you are swimming, and that by their measurement you are wet?

Besides we are talking about the use of language here not just science, and I use  language to talk about facts in not solely a scientific way. I accept the existence of other people as sentient beings but without the assumption of breaking hard solipsism it isn't an objective fact. Indeed even with scientific facts they exist only with a subjective assumption of an axiom.