Evidence of God

[Outrider]

You need a supernatural methodology for it to be evidence of a supernatural claim.

You don't get methodology with supernatural claims - that's a) what makes them supernatural and b) why they can't be proven or disproven.  Such a hypothetically improbably event - to have a noiseless signal in natural phenomenon - even before you consider the information arising from interpretation of the data would be beyond credibility to discount I'd think... which is why I don't believe we'll never see such a thing outside of the cinema.

O.

[Sebastian Toe]

If an asteroid crashed into the moon and the debris spelt out the word God in every human language would you believe in God or would you require more evidence?

If that did happen, to take one set of responses for example....
Your nearest Muslim neighbours would probably be rejoicing that the message is confirmation that Mohammed was correct all along, he was visited by an angel, he is the last prophet. Jesus was a prophet, a man and certainty not devine.

Would they be correct though?

[Nearly Sane]

You don't get methodology with supernatural claims - that's a) what makes them supernatural and b) why they can't be proven or disproven.  Such a hypothetically improbably event - to have a noiseless signal in natural phenomenon - even before you consider the information arising from interpretation of the data would be beyond credibility to discount I'd think... which is why I don't believe we'll never see such a thing outside of the cinema.

O.

To discount for what? The point of Vlad's hypothetical is as evidence for god - and that's a supernatural claim. As you havd agreed that cannot be evidence. 

[Nearly Sane]

For me, it would tip the scales a bit in God's favour. Of course I would also have to be convinced it wasn't an illusion or magic trick.

How can it be evidence for supernatural claim in the absence of a supernatural methodology? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremy,

For me, it would tip the scales a bit in God's favour. Of course I would also have to be convinced it wasn't an illusion or magic trick.

But why "God" rather than, "any other possible non-naturalistic entity"? There'd still be a 100% burden of proof to demonstrate an argument for "God" rather than just against our current understanding of physics. The OP is just basic god of the gaps/argument from personal incredulity/shifting the burden of proof stuff.   

[Nearly Sane]

jeremy,

But why "God" rather than, "any other possible non-naturalistic entity"? There'd still be a 100% burden of proof to demonstrate an argument for "God" rather than just against our current understanding of physics. The OP is just basic god of the gaps/argument from personal incredulity/shifting the burden of proof stuff.   

Why anything non-naturalistic at all?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Why anything non-naturalistic at all?

I covered this a couple of posts back, but why indeed?

It's such an old trope isn't it - "You can't explain X, therefore it must be Y". The cheat of course is that's there's no argument for Y there at all.   

[ippy]

If an asteroid crashed into the moon and the debris spelt out the word God in every human language would you believe in God or would you require more evidence?

Assuming this idea of yours really did happen and after some investigation it was found to actually be a solid piece of evidence supporting this god idea of yours Vlad and then assuming it became accepted as the truth world wide, it would also be the first time the world had seen any viable evidence that supports this god idea.

Not very likely is it Vlad?

[ProfessorDavey]

If an asteroid crashed into the moon and the debris spelt out the word God in every human language would you believe in God or would you require more evidence?

If it was absolutely clear this was the case - rather than if you squint you can pretend that the shapes just might say something like god - then perhaps so. However were that to happen it would provide no evidence whatsoever for the christian god, rather it would be evidence for some extraterrestrial intelligence.

And actually it wouldn't necessarily be evidence of an actual god. Were a extraterrestrial super-intelligent race want to make their presence known in a manner which would subdue the population of the earth, what better way would there be than trying to make out your are a god - knowing that humans are likely to revere gods.

But isn't this example, in reality, nothing more than Jesus' face in a slice of toast.

https://www.livescience.com/45414-brain-face-pareidolia.html

Human psychology is such that it tends to see known shapes and patterns and ascribe anthropomorphised meaning to those patterns, where none actually exists.

[jeremyp]

How can it be evidence for supernatural claim in the absence of a supernatural methodology?

We have evidence for a claim. I' not going to prejudge it by putting it in a box.

[jeremyp]

jeremy,

But why "God" rather than, "any other possible non-naturalistic entity"? There'd still be a 100% burden of proof to demonstrate an argument for "God" rather than just against our current understanding of physics. The OP is just basic god of the gaps/argument from personal incredulity/shifting the burden of proof stuff.   

Why indeed?

[BeRational]

If an asteroid crashed into the moon and the debris spelt out the word God in every human language would you believe in God or would you require more evidence?

How do we rule out advanced aliens?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How do we rule out advanced aliens?

Would they be a preferable explanation to God? If so why?

[Nearly Sane]

We have evidence for a claim. I' not going to prejudge it by putting it in a box.

No, you don't. To have something regarded  as 'evidence' for a supernatural claim, you need a methodology that supports what 'evidence' means. If you don't have that, you are talking nonsense.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If it was absolutely clear this was the case - rather than if you squint you can pretend that the shapes just might say something like god - then perhaps so. However were that to happen it would provide no evidence whatsoever for the christian god, rather it would be evidence for some extraterrestrial intelligence.

And actually it wouldn't necessarily be evidence of an actual god. Were a extraterrestrial super-intelligent race want to make their presence known in a manner which would subdue the population of the earth, what better way would there be than trying to make out your are a god - knowing that humans are likely to revere gods.

But isn't this example, in reality, nothing more than Jesus' face in a slice of toast.

https://www.livescience.com/45414-brain-face-pareidolia.html

Human psychology is such that it tends to see known shapes and patterns and ascribe anthropomorphised meaning to those patterns, where none actually exists.

Interesting so the debris arrangement would empirically spell the name of god and you would think it a case of seeing patterns where there are none.

In this hypothetical scenario wouldn't it be more a case of you seeing chaos where there was a pattern.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, you don't. To have something regarded  as 'evidence' for a supernatural claim, you need a methodology that supports what 'evidence' means. If you don't have that, you are talking nonsense.

How are you defining supernatural here? Are you defining every material event as natural?

[Nearly Sane]

How are you defining supernatural here? Are you defining every material event as natural?

I'll go with

'The supernatural encompasses all entities, places and events that fall outside the scope of scientific understanding of the laws of nature'

That doesn't mean that all events, or indeed any of them, are natural. Just that we investigate them using methodological naturalism. I don't know why you qualified events with 'material'  since I  not only don't know if there is such a thing as a non material event, I am unsure if the concept makes any sense.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'll go with

'The supernatural encompasses all entities, places and events that fall outside the scope of scientific understanding of the laws of nature'

That doesn't mean that all events, or indeed any of them, are natural. Just that we investigate them using methodological naturalism. I don't know why you qualified events with 'material'  since I  not only don't know if there is such a thing as a non material event, I am unsure if the concept makes any sense.

Thanks. I come from an angle where the supernatural.....awful word, has occasional material consequences ranging from belief to the miraculous. The experience therefore of my branch of the supernatural is one of involvement rather than just observation. An arbitrary decision to be the dispassionate observer of reality actually in imposes certain conclusions which become reality

A methodology then becomes not only a philosophy but a modus vivendi with value and virtue.

[Nearly Sane]

Thanks. I come from an angle where the supernatural.....awful word, has occasional material consequences ranging from belief to the miraculous. The experience therefore of my branch of the supernatural is one of involvement rather than just observation. An arbitrary decision to be the dispassionate observer of reality actually in imposes certain conclusions which become reality

A methodology then becomes not only a philosophy but a modus vivendi with value and virtue.

Sorry, no idea what you are trying to say here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sorry, no idea what you are trying to say here.

Probably that you are yourself the detecting instrument for things supernatural.
One usually either responds positively or negatively to it, neutrality could indicate disrepair..

I can understand a lot of those who suggest they might be swayed.
Those who insist on sticking stentorially to their atheist guns seem unfeasibly pious and disciplined if not doctrinaire.

[Nearly Sane]

Probably that you are yourself the detecting instrument for things supernatural.
One usually either responds positively or negatively to it, neutrality could indicate disrepair..

I can understand a lot of those who suggest they might be swayed.
Those who insist on sticking stentorially to their atheist guns seem unfeasibly pious and disciplined if not doctrinaire.

That's clearer, however, it's unargued, badly defined assertion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's clearer, however, it's unargued, badly defined assertion.

I can’t see how a statement,that in terms of the supernatural it is experienced rather than intellectually argued or scientifically observed, can be turned into the type of argument that stimulates atheism’s corporate intellectual clitoris.

[Nearly Sane]

I can’t see how a statement,that in terms of the supernatural it is experienced rather than intellectually argued or scientifically observed, can be turned into the type of argument that stimulates atheism’s corporate intellectual clitoris.

That's just it, it is merely asserted statement. Just as me saying that you were completely and utterly wrong, would be just an asserted statement. And they would both be worth exactly the same.

Your approach is worthless in terms of any discussion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's just it, it is merely asserted statement. Just as me saying that you were completely and utterly wrong, would be just an asserted statement. And they would both be worth exactly the same.

Your approach is worthless in terms of any discussion.

My approach has led to highly active and contributed to threads on this forum just look at the stats so you can stuff yer missy humeian shite regarding the worth of my posts.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Pidge,

My approach has led to highly active and contributed to threads on this forum just look at the stats so you can stuff yer missy humeian shite regarding the worth of my posts.

Your "approach" is to be the house troll. You're here to pollute, no to contribute.