What Is Evidence / How Do We Know What Is Real?

[walterpthefirst]

13 minutes ago, aik said:

 Let us start with what i said about the smoke and fire. I was not offering consider the same as a proof to itself. I was telling that the smoke is a proof of fire. Just as an example. And if you see smoke you do not need to prove it is smoke oir not, you see it. And if you see the changed behaviour in similar situation of the same person it is a proof of his faith being changed and what faith is in him.

 

No, let us not start with that.

 

You have just shifted the goalposts.

 

Here is your accusation that I was twisting meanings.

 

  1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Your interpretation of what constitutes hard evidence is not accepted by us.

 

This is.

 

 

If you can't meet the burden of proof as described here, citing evidence that is relevant to us and that is more reliable than your word, then we are not obliged to believe you.

You are not ibliged to believe anybody and anything ever, my friend. But when you twist meaning of things, it is against you and those who follow you with shut eyes. 

 

 

You see?   There is nothing there about smoke and fire.

 

Instead this has to do with what a court will accept as evidence.

 

A different subject altogether.

 

And a subject which we agree on.

 

You agreed that witness B would be more likely to be believed by a court of law.

 

Since we agree about that, how can I be twisting meanings to do with that?

 

 

[aik]

10 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

No, let us not start with that.

 

You have just shifted the goalposts.

 

Here is your accusation that I was twisting meanings.

 

  1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Your interpretation of what constitutes hard evidence is not accepted by us.

 

This is.

 

 

If you can't meet the burden of proof as described here, citing evidence that is relevant to us and that is more reliable than your word, then we are not obliged to believe you.

You are not ibliged to believe anybody and anything ever, my friend. But when you twist meaning of things, it is against you and those who follow you with shut eyes. 

 

 

You see?   There is nothing there about smoke and fire.

 

Instead this has to do with what a court will accept as evidence.

 

A different subject altogether.

 

And a subject which we agree on.

 

You agreed that witness B would be more likely to be believed by a court of law.

 

Since we agree about that, how can I be twisting meanings to do with that?

 

 

So here I meant that when you want youi call it an evidence and when you don't want you don't call it so. So there are things that do not fit to your phylosophy or atheology and you reject to accept them as evidences.

[walterpthefirst]

4 minutes ago, aik said:

So here I meant that when you want youi call it an evidence and when you don't want you don't call it so. So there are things that do not fit to your phylosophy or atheology and you reject to accept them as evidences.

 

And yet you agreed that witness B was more likely to be believed by the court.

 

So you agree with the philosophy used by the court.

 

I happen to agree with their philosophy when it comes to admissible evidence.

 

And you did too.

 

 

Are you now saying that you don't think that witness B was more likely to be believed by the court? 

[walterpthefirst]

5 minutes ago, aik said:

So here I meant that when you want youi call it an evidence and when you don't want you don't call it so. So there are things that do not fit to your phylosophy or atheology and you reject to accept them as evidences.

 

You are shifting the goalposts again, aik.

 

Today in this thread I have said nothing about my personal philosophy.

 

Nor have I said anything about what I personally accept as evidence.

 

Our discussion has been about two things.

 

What is acceptable evidence in a court of law.

 

What is acceptable evidence in this forum.

 

 

[aik]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

His three points about evidence being seen can only be accepted by us here, in this forum, by faith.

 

Here in this forum we cannot see them because we do not have any faith.

 

And the bible itself tells us that things NOT SEEN with our eyes must be accepted by faith.

 

Hebrews 11 : 1

 

Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

 

Here in this forum we do not see any of aik's three points because we do not have any faith.

 

And that is why we continue to ask him for evidence that we can see.

 

So far he hasn't presented any.

@walterpthefirst I have to say you are lying .

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, aik said:

@walterpthefirst I have to say you are lying .

 

I'm logging off now, aik.

 

When I return I expect to see some evidence from you to support you accusation that I am lying.

 

To do that you would have to show us where you have posted evidence that we can see.

 

 

 

I also expect to see your answers to my two questions.

 

 

You agreed that witness B would be more likely to be believed by a court of law.

Since we agree about that, how can I be twisting meanings to do with that?

 

 

Are you now saying that you don't think that witness B was more likely to be believed by the court? 

[aik]

2 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I'm logging off now, aik.

 

When I return I expect to see some evidence from you to support you accusation that I am lying.

 

To do that you would have to show us where you have posted evidence that we can see.

 

 

 

I also expect to see your answers to my two questions.

 

 

You agreed that witness B would be more likely to be believed by a court of law.

Since we agree about that, how can I be twisting meanings to do with that?

 

 

Are you now saying that you don't think that witness B was more likely to be believed by the court? 

When I say you are lying, it does not mean that you should ask questions Walter. You first go back to the post I attached to my phrase and see what you said there. And correct yourself somehow if you are a man enough, than come back and ask a question. 

[Joshpantera]

6 hours ago, aik said:

EVIDENCE

 

If you pay attention, then evidence contains the word VID which means what can be seen, visual. So evidence is something that we can see. 

 

So if some of you think that we can see only what we can touch, or artefacts, or laboratory results, such  people are limiting the meaning of the word, therefore they limit themselves and close their mind for seeing evidences from God in fullness.

 

1) We can see also evidneces of the Holy Spirit. His work inside us in unvisible to others, but outcome of this work becomes visible to everyone. It happens because  God brought a new faith in us, not what we had before, and newness of the faith comes out as new behaviour. 

 

2) As well we can see the work of the Holy Spirit in miracle. Visible power of God. Saying miracle I do not mean that we pray and wait for healing while having medicines along with it. I mean miracle which cannot be explained by today's most developed scientific knowledge. You can say, well we do not know it yet, but we will reach it some time in the future and get known how it happens... Yes. sure. But the fact of knowing how it happens does not humiliate the power of God who does that miracle. If we find out that there was a strong wind by the p ower of which the Red Sea was split for Moses and Israelites, it does not mean that there was no miracle happened. 

 

3) Also we can visualise prophecies, another work of the Holy Spirit taday. There are prophecies in the Bible which happened, also we have prophecies today in churches. If a church denies such things or just does not practice it because of doctrinal issues or lack of faith etc. then it does not mean that there are no prophecies in churches. In this item i have to notice that false prophecies overflow today. Our brotherhood also is aware of false prophecies and we are strict in this issue. We also suffer lack of prophetic actions now, but it is. Prophecies about healings, about daily issues of believers, and about churches globally. 

 

These are evidences also. Spiritual evidences, but one cannot deny a miraculous healing when it happens in front of him. That is why many surgeons believe that there is some greater power in heaven, because they saw much. 

 

@Hierophant @Weezer @DarkBishop @Joshpantera @pantheory @TABA and others  please comment it. 

 

The issue here, aik, is that any possible miracle or mind blowing anything that you can point to - if we just lay back and grant that it's true - is explaining by a Conscious Universe. 

 

1) A Conscious Universe is a Naturalist Theory. Watch the video. There's no reason or need to employ supernaturalism for anything to do with PSI Phenomenon, magick, prayer, mysticism, or anything remotely related. All mysterious whatever, is consumed by the "Conscious Universe" explanation.

 

2) Religious myths can't be anything more than metaphorical of something like a "Conscious Universe." If someone heals someone else, what's happening is that one aspect of a primary, omnipresent Conscious Field is interacting with another aspect of ITSELF. There is only one thing in existence, always interacting with ITSELF, from within ITSELF. 

 

3) If people are tempted to call Nature with quality of Awareness "God," well be my guest. But that means that everything in existence, all of it, is "God." Every religion is both true and false. True as metaphorical of what actually does exist, false as not literally describing what does exist through personification and anthropomorphizing. 

 

This is what I mean. Older generations will likely not get any of this. And die off not knowing and not being able to wrap their heads around it. Meanwhile, younger generations have a better chance at seeing it.

[aik]

19 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

 

Thanks for the video. I have watched it from start till the end. What have you understood from it for yourself?

[Joshpantera]

10 minutes ago, aik said:

Thanks for the video. I have watched it from start till the end. What have you understood from it for yourself?

 

The issue here, aik, is that any possible miracle or mind blowing anything that you can point to - if we just lay back and grant that it's true - is fully explained by a Conscious Universe. 

 

1) A Conscious Universe is a Naturalist Theory. Watch the video. There's no reason or need to employ supernaturalism for anything to do with PSI Phenomenon, magick, prayer, mysticism, or anything remotely related. All mysterious whatever, is consumed by the "Conscious Universe" explanation.

 

2) Religious myths can't be anything more than metaphorical of something like a "Conscious Universe." If someone heals someone else, what's happening is that one aspect of a primary, omnipresent Conscious Field is interacting with another aspect of ITSELF. There is only one thing in existence, always interacting with ITSELF, from within ITSELF. 

 

3) If people are tempted to call Nature with quality of Awareness "God," well be my guest. But that means that everything in existence, all of it, is "God." Every religion is both true and false. True as metaphorical of what actually does exist, false as not literally describing what does exist through personification and anthropomorphizing. The Bible is never literal any of this. And miracles haven't the ability to change that. They are always explained this other way. 

 

This is what I mean. Older generations will likely not get any of this. And die off not knowing and not being able to wrap their heads around it. Meanwhile, younger generations have a better chance at seeing that pointing at archaic mythology hasn't the ability to explain anything in a literal sense. 

[aik]

3 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

The issue here, aik, is that any possible miracle or mind blowing anything that you can point to - if we just lay back and grant that it's true - is explaining by a Conscious Universe. 

 

1) A Conscious Universe is a Naturalist Theory. Watch the video. There's no reason or need to employ supernaturalism for anything to do with PSI Phenomenon, magick, prayer, mysticism, or anything remotely related. All mysterious whatever, is consumed by the "Conscious Universe" explanation.

 

2) Religious myths can't be anything more than metaphorical of something like a "Conscious Universe." If someone heals someone else, what's happening is that one aspect of a primary, omnipresent Conscious Field is interacting with another aspect of ITSELF. There is only one thing in existence, always interacting with ITSELF, from within ITSELF. 

 

3) If people are tempted to call Nature with quality of Awareness "God," well be my guest. But that means that everything in existence, all of it, is "God." Every religion is both true and false. True as metaphorical of what actually does exist, false as not literally describing what does exist through personification and anthropomorphizing. 

 

This is what I mean. Older generations will likely not get any of this. And die off not knowing and not being able to wrap their heads around it. Meanwhile, younger generations have a better chance at seeing it.

The biblical power of God is more logical than this atheological one. 

 

Let me ask you. If you meet a miracle that cannot be explained even according to this Conscious Universe theory, you will say that the miracle never happened possibly it was a lie. Am I right? 

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, aik said:

When I say you are lying, it does not mean that you should ask questions Walter. You first go back to the post I attached to my phrase and see what you said there. And correct yourself somehow if you are a man enough, than come back and ask a question. 

 

Who are you to tell me what I should or shouldn't do?

 

 

Please cite the post attached to your phrase so that I can see what you mean.

 

 

Did you notice that I asked you politely?

 

I didn't tell you what to do.

 

That's because I have no authority or over you.

 

And you have no authority over me.

 

We are equals in this forum.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

And I have chronological precedence over you, aik.

 

I asked you this question...

 

Are you now saying that you don't think that witness B was more likely to be believed by the court? 

 

...before you accused me of lying.

 

Therefore, please answer the question.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

If one person cured of cancer is proof irrefutable of the existence of god, how many people dying of cancer, despite prayers, laying on of hands, anointing with oil, and all the rest of it, would constitute proof irrefutable of the non-existence of god?  One?  Ten?  Two hundred thousand seven hundred and forty-six?

 

Or is the ratio 1:1?  If only one proves, then it only needs one to disprove. 

 

I'm very glad your mom got better; but her remission simply is not evidence for god.

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

If one person cured of cancer is proof irrefutable of the existence of god, how many people dying of cancer, despite prayers, laying on of hands, anointing with oil, and all the rest of it, would constitute proof irrefutable of the non-existence of god?  One?  Ten?  Two hundred thousand seven hundred and forty-six?

 

Or is the ratio 1:1?  If only one proves, then it only needs one to disprove. 

 

I'm very glad your mom got better; but her remission simply is not evidence for god.

 

It is to aik, because he sees this evidence through the eyes of faith.

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

@aik

Maybe the subject of evidence deserves its own thread. I'd be willing to start one up as a reply to you if that's ok? Unless you and @Hierophant are done with your discussion. Then I'll just post my reply here. 

 

DB

 

Ps- I am at work. So it may take some time for me to reply. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

I left the forum last night to get some sleep, and do not care to read all the above, but if it has not been explained above, I will explain what I mean by "hard" evidence.  It is evidence that can be seen, heard or touched.  you cannot have god stand in front of us and have him talk to us.  when he appears to all of us and declares himself, then I will believe.  

 

 i am not continuing this endless circle of conversation.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

Actually I guess this thread is about evidence so I will just make my reply here. I didn't expect trying to get aik to show proof would result in a two page free for all.  

[aik]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

If one person cured of cancer is proof irrefutable of the existence of god, how many people dying of cancer, despite prayers, laying on of hands, anointing with oil, and all the rest of it, would constitute proof irrefutable of the non-existence of god?  One?  Ten?  Two hundred thousand seven hundred and forty-six?

 

Or is the ratio 1:1?  If only one proves, then it only needs one to disprove. 

 

I'm very glad your mom got better; but her remission simply is not evidence for god.

That is a very good question. Because many here think like you have stated here. And i consider this to be useful fo manies. 

 

The point is not just a fact of being healed or remission. Please notice, the  point is a miracle happenned, by the reason of which a man or a woman is healed. Miracle is what cannot be explained and reasoned scientifically. Very often today we can explain a chemistry or physics of a miracle. But it is impossible to explain what forced it to an action. Which force has brought it to an action. So when we being educated get know about the process of healing it still does not disprove God. One should explain why has this happenned right now and right here and accurate with the given person.

 

The second case you mention. Sure we jave theological explenations about reasons why this or that prayer is not answered by God. And we know the reasons. For example Paul who laid his hands on many people and they were healed, but when he asked about himself God refused to heal him. Did it make Paul dissapointed in. GOD? No. God is still good. But we want to be like Paul and pray for othrrs and miracle happens. First of all we do not live a life like Paul did. We as believers are far from being like any of the apostles. Though Jesus said that we will do even more deedsthan him, but do we live according to the standards of Jesus now? No. So why shall we expect that God's  spirit acts in us as in the apostles? Besides that Paul did not go every day and everywhere doing a miracle. He knew the voice of God better than anyond of us. He knew what God wanted from him. Because he lived according to biblical standards. But not me andmaybe not you. You decide. So it is the reason why many pastors pray and nothing happens. There are more reasons. These i brought only as an example to motivate you to think about faith deeper. 

 

That is why i spoke about miracles that God made among us. Miracles. This is a clear evidence of God. But a non believer will continue deny even if he sees tons of miracles. Because he is atheologically indoctrinated.

 

 

[aik]

7 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Actually I guess this thread is about evidence so I will just make my reply here. I didn't expect trying to get aik to show proof would result in a two page free for all.  

 the two pages here at most part are of walters. So you can pass it by. 

[walterpthefirst]

21 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Actually I guess this thread is about evidence so I will just make my reply here. I didn't expect trying to get aik to show proof would result in a two page free for all.  

 

DB,

 

The issue of evidence in this thread comes down to this.

 

Aik says that he has shown us evidence of god.  But he views that evidence through the eyes of faith.  To him it is evidence of god.

 

We have seen the evidence he has shown us.  But we do not view that evidence through the eyes of faith.  To us it is not evidence of god.

 

So, when aik says that he shown us evidence of god he believes that he is telling us the truth.

 

When we say that he has not shown us evidence of god we believe that we are telling the truth.

 

You may like to factor this into your reply to him.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

22 minutes ago, aik said:

 the two pages here at most part are of walters. So you can pass it by. 

 

Who are you to tell DarkBishop what he can or cannot do?

 

You have no authority over him to do that.

 

Nor does your belief that you have the truth give you any authority here.

 

We are all equals here.

 

At best, you can politely advise him of what you think he should do.

 

But that is all.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

35 minutes ago, Weezer said:

I left the forum last night to get some sleep, and do not care to read all the above, but if it has not been explained above, I will explain what I mean by "hard" evidence.  It is evidence that can be seen, heard or touched.  you cannot have god stand in front of us and have him talk to us.  when he appears to all of us and declares himself, then I will believe.  

 

 i am not continuing this endless circle of conversation.

 

Weezer, 

 

Please refer to my message to DarkBishop.

 

That might help you understand why aik cannot meet our standard of "hard" evidence.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

4 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

The issue here, aik, is that any possible miracle or mind blowing anything that you can point to - if we just lay back and grant that it's true - is explaining by a Conscious Universe. 

 

1) A Conscious Universe is a Naturalist Theory. Watch the video. There's no reason or need to employ supernaturalism for anything to do with PSI Phenomenon, magick, prayer, mysticism, or anything remotely related. All mysterious whatever, is consumed by the "Conscious Universe" explanation.

 

2) Religious myths can't be anything more than metaphorical of something like a "Conscious Universe." If someone heals someone else, what's happening is that one aspect of a primary, omnipresent Conscious Field is interacting with another aspect of ITSELF. There is only one thing in existence, always interacting with ITSELF, from within ITSELF. 

 

3) If people are tempted to call Nature with quality of Awareness "God," well be my guest. But that means that everything in existence, all of it, is "God." Every religion is both true and false. True as metaphorical of what actually does exist, false as not literally describing what does exist through personification and anthropomorphizing. 

 

This is what I mean. Older generations will likely not get any of this. And die off not knowing and not being able to wrap their heads around it. Meanwhile, younger generations have a better chance at seeing it.

 

Yes Josh, Many in science make mistakes, both the religious and non-religious.  Forget about Einstein's idea of space-time. It  must be understood from a particular perspective. Space is absolutely fundamental and time is absolutely fundamental. Space-time as a unity is a perspective, just like the statement that humans are fundamental, which is another perspective that is not either correct or incorrect. These are simply ways of looking at things from different points of view. And my perspective is that everything is simple to understand if one has all the relevant information.

 

Reductionism is still valid. Looking for ever smaller entities will always be a valid quest IMO. Physics is a math- dominated science. Calculated determinations and predictions are its goal. A physicist's theory about the "why" or "how" questions concerning his understandings of reality are rarely better than pure speculation with nothing to back it up.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, aik said:

That is a very good question. Because many here think like you have stated here. And i consider this to be useful fo manies. 

 

The point is not just a fact of being healed or remission. Please notice, the  point is a miracle happenned, by the reason of which a man or a woman is healed. Miracle is what cannot be explained and reasoned scientifically. Very often today we can explain a chemistry or physics of a miracle. But it is impossible to explain what forced it to an action. Which force has brought it to an action. So when we being educated get know about the process of healing it still does not disprove God. One should explain why has this happenned right now and right here and accurate with the given person.

 

The second case you mention. Sure we jave theological explenations about reasons why this or that prayer is not answered by God. And we know the reasons. For example Paul who laid his hands on many people and they were healed, but when he asked about himself God refused to heal him. Did it make Paul dissapointed in. GOD? No. God is still good. But we want to be like Paul and pray for othrrs and miracle happens. First of all we do not live a life like Paul did. We as believers are far from being like any of the apostles. Though Jesus said that we will do even more deedsthan him, but do we live according to the standards of Jesus now? No. So why shall we expect that God's  spirit acts in us as in the apostles? Besides that Paul did not go every day and everywhere doing a miracle. He knew the voice of God better than anyond of us. He knew what God wanted from him. Because he lived according to biblical standards. But not me andmaybe not you. You decide. So it is the reason why many pastors pray and nothing happens. There are more reasons. These i brought only as an example to motivate you to think about faith deeper. 

 

That is why i spoke about miracles that God made among us. Miracles. This is a clear evidence of God. But a non believer will continue deny even if he sees tons of miracles. Because he is atheologically indoctrinated.

 

 

I'm not disputing that your mom's cancer went away.  I wasn't there and I have no way of knowing if you're telling the truth or not. 

 

This issue here is consistency.  In order to qualify as "hard" evidence, as Weezer calls it, the evidence needs to be both consistent in itself, and applied consistently. 

 

What I mean by consistent evidence is, imagine there is a little shop down the street that serves very good shawarma.  One day you go and discover that the meat is rancid.  Is this consistent evidence that the shawarma shop serves bad food?  No.  It only occurred one time.  What if every Tuesday you discover rancid meat; but on Mondays and Wednesdays, the meat is fine?  Is this consistent evidence that the shawarma shop sells bad food?  It is certainly consistent enough to make a decision that you're not going to eat there on Tuesdays. 

 

Miracles are not themselves consistent.  Sometimes they happen; but most times they do not.  As a result of their unreliability, they do not constitute legitimate "hard" evidence. 

 

Evidence also needs to be applied consistently.  If fingerprints are found on a gun lying next to a person who's been shot, those fingerprints need to be traced out to find the potential shooter.  The police aren't going to ignore or explain away the fingerprints just because the victim lived.

 

Miracles are not applied consistently.  People pray everyday for miracles that never happen.  But then, out of the 100 million unanswered prayers, suddenly somebody's cancer goes away.  Now you have to explain away all the miracles that didn't happen in order to use the one that did as evidence.  "Oh, it wasn't god's will."  "Well, he just didn't have enough faith."  "There must have been hidden sin in her life."

 

Surely there's a reason that miracles do not happen.

 

Or, more specifically, miracles do not happen any more often than statistical probability and coincidence would explain.