Science and Evidence

@Gloomy the spirits are my friends, companions, lovers. They are continually with me. It matters not to me whether anybody else can see or hear them

@Gloomy [quote]you don't have evidence for the supernatural and what one religion accepts as truth is refuted and heavily negated by another. [/quote]

As for having evidence for the supernatural I do have it. To say that there isn't evidence for it is much like saying the same for the flying spegetti monster. The point is that having evidence of something doesn't make it real, true or valid, the same as not having evidence of it doesn't make it not those things. So people who use having or not having evidence as significant are either lying or stupid.

[quote]the cultural background has much less baring on the concept of truth.[/quote]

What's your evidence of that? (see above) That you live in a so called "Christian" culture and have to use science as a cudgel against it due to your world view? My advice is to study up on the source of Christianity and disprove it. That's what I did. Science bores me so I wasn't compelled to use the typical atheistic method you employ. That enabled me to see the same weaknesses in both sides of the issue.

[quote]Also since lots of knowlege and realisations are relative to a certain degree science doesn't use the term "truth" very often yet if science depicts nature and reality as closely as possible we can refer to something as true.[/quote]

That seems contradictory to saying the cultural background has much less baring on the concept of truth as you did above. You didn't watch the Jordan Peterson clip on atheism in the other thread, did you? https://similarworlds.com/atheism/4723342-Science-and-faith-do-you-trust-science

"The universe that people like Dawkins and Harris inhabit is so intensely conditioned by mythological presuppositions that they take for granted the ethic that emerges out of that as if it's just a given. A rational given . . . . you don't get it. The ethic that you think is normative is a consequence of its nesting inside this tremendously lengthy history. Much of of which was expressed in mythological formulation. You wipe that out you don't get to keep all the presuppositions and just assume that they're rationally axiomatic. "

[quote]Also since lots of knowlege and realisations are relative to a certain degree science doesn't use the term "truth" very often yet if science depicts nature and reality as closely as possible we can refer to something as true.[/quote]

Correct, but skeptics misuse science as if that weren't the case. I believe the Bible is true. Science doesn't change that and why would it, so why would anyone use scientific evidence against the truth I see in the Bible as if it had any significance at all when 1.) science can't test the supernatural, 2.) science doesn't know the Bible, 3.) science is a method of investigation, not a believe system, and 4.) science is temporal, always evolving? There are only 3 possible reasons. 1.) Sociopolitical frustration of the unbeliever in a believing culture, 2.) overestimation of the intellectual capacity of the unbelieving minority that employs the technique to that effect and 3.) science is misused as an Ideology or world view.

@AkioTsukino I don’t deny the influence of religious culture on the world but science doesn't even have to disprove the supernatural since the burden of proof lies with the people who propose its existence. The christian God is as real as the Easter Bunny. No one denies the influence of ideas and practices on the world but the existence of the beings behind those ideals outside of the human mind.

[quote]science doesn't know the Bible[/quote]

You overestimate the significance of a hostoric document. The Bible has shaped history no doubt (usually made it worse) but we are now at a point where secularism is on the rise and our laws and rules are strictly seperated from religious scripture.

@AkioTsukino You have evidence of the supernatural? Evidence that is detectable, measurable, and can design tests that can be repeated? So why would you withhold it? Settle the issue. It would be more historic than the moon landings.

Because you don’t. But you’re more than willing to lie. The Scientific Method is an idea that isn’t perfect, just the best we have.

@AkioTsukino
[quote] The point is that having evidence of something doesn't make it real, true or valid, the same as not having evidence of it doesn't make it not those things. So people who use having or not having evidence as significant are either lying or stupid. [/quote]
Out of curiosity then, what do you consider the best or most reliable method for determining between fact and fantasy ?
In order to progress in any venture, you will have to evaluate which is more practical, faith without evidence to support it, or something that has be shown to have predictable and consistent results. How long are you going to stand around debating it with yourself, before deciding ?
Granted, people have been known to act upon faith, but even with faith, it the results that decide which way you go.

@DocSavage [quote]Out of curiosity then, what do you consider the best or most reliable method for determining between fact and fantasy ?[/quote]

Knowledge. Science. Just not the biased ignorance of "science" minded skeptics of the Bible.

[quote]In order to progress in any venture, you will have to evaluate which is more practical, faith without evidence to support it, or something that has be shown to have predictable and consistent results. How long are you going to stand around debating it with yourself, before deciding ?[/quote]

There's nothing practical about "faith without evidence." That's your ignorance of faith which you can't successfully support outside of your groupthink. The problem with your thinking is that it isn't. It's ideology. And I debate everything with myself. Always have and always will. Including Jehovah God and my own faith. Which is part of the reason I know, or, if you will, have the science of faith and you don't have the faith in science you appear to have. Again, your being an ideologue, not a skeptic.

@AkioTsukino
You’re not giving us an example of reliable “faith”
Am I supposed to believe in something like a global flood, on faith . When I know that it’s virtually impossible in reality ? Am I supposed to believe in a god, simply on faith and ignore all knowledge that disproves its existence ?
Why ? When I can understand the primitive ignorance that created those gods.

@DocSavage [quote]You’re not giving us an example of reliable “faith”[/quote]

Money, marriage, government, religion and science are some good examples. Nature. Any time you think something is going to happen before it happens in a way you think it will happen, even if the evidence suggests it will happen but it hasn't happened yet, that is faith. For example, God resurrecting, a monogamous spouse, the value of money, the responsibility of government, the reliability of science, the doctrine of religion. You can't know for certain but you have or should have established trust through experience, observation, knowledge, etc. Faith is trust. The dictionary says complete trust, but I think, is there really such a thing? Do you have complete trust in your self?

[quote]Am I supposed to believe in something like a global flood, on faith . [/quote]

Nope. You may have faith in the interpretation of science, or you may have faith in the interpretation of the Bible, or you may come up with your own. Just don't mix them if they aren't compatible. I can give you some examples of my own explorations in regards to faith. Buddha, Job and Samson, Jews, Hebrew, vaccines, pandemics, Trump, talking snakes and donkeys, flaming swords at the gates of Eden, blood transfusions, the Jehovah's Witnesses, 9/11, 7/7, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the gulf of Tonkin, the Holocaust, science and the flood, the immortal soul, trinity, hell, rapture, Jesus dying on a cross to name a few.

[quote]When I know that it’s virtually impossible in reality ?[/quote]

You think science can make that call?

[quote]Am I supposed to believe in a god, simply on faith and ignore all knowledge that disproves its existence ?[/quote]

If you want to. But, again, am I to believe science does that? Or that you have the knowledge to do that? Most skeptics I've talked to can't comprehend the simple concept of gods even if you show them the scientific, historic and linguistic explanation which is not only simple but also irrefutable. You don't want to believe in any god so you won't. You want to believe there isn't any gods so you will believe that instead. Like most people. Your call. Your responsibility.

[quote]Why ? When I can understand the primitive ignorance that created those gods.[/quote]

Well, like I said, you can do what you want for whatever reason, but honestly, I don't think you have anything even approaching mildly plausible speculation and conjecture that is very poorly constructed and extraordinarily biased.

@AkioTsukino
I would have to say, that you have things backwards and you’re taking faith out of context : money, marriage, government, Nature, the reliability of science. To start with.
1) the sun rises each morning. Do you believe this because of faith. Or do you believe it because you [b]know[/b] that the Earth rotates, creating the illusion of the sun rising in the east . That it has done so before, that you other sources that confirm this phenomenon. And that unless something extremely unlikely happens that changes the laws of physics. The same event will continue indefinitely. That is not faith, that is [b]confidence [/b]In an established system. It can be observed, and tested. No faith needed.
2) Marriage: your spouse loves you, and is true to His/her vows.
Again that is not faith. That is based on not only trust built up over time, but experience, and your personal knowledge of that person’s character.
Yes , things change. But you choose to accept the odds, on more than just faith.
3) Money : again, [b]confidence [/b] in system which has remained more or less stable . And will continue to do so unless something radically changes. The same principle applies to government. The structure runs the same as will not change without an unprecedented reason.
You do not simply have faith , you have [b]confidence [/b] in a system which has predictable results. They were made for that reason, It would take something very unlikely to occur to disrupt them.
[quote] you may come up with your own. Just don't mix them if they aren't compatible. I can give you some examples of my own explorations in regards to faith. Buddha, Job and Samson, Jews, Hebrew, vaccines, pandemics, Trump, talking snakes and donkeys, flaming swords at the gates of Eden, blood transfusions, the Jehovah's Witnesses, 9/11, 7/7, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the gulf of Tonkin, the Holocaust, science and the flood, the immortal soul, trinity, hell, rapture, Jesus dying on a cross to name a few.[/quote]
Now this becomes a bit cloudy. As these examples fall under the personal opinion, reference. And probability.
What faith you have in bible events , or historical events would depend on your education, and the source of your reference.
You can have faith that Jesus existed, and he rose from the dead , and that he is god himself. But your faith will , no matter how strong or true, will not make it so. Faith does not win by default.
You can have faith that the flood actually did happen. But so far, the evidence is against it. That evidence is documented and physical. Your faith, will not refute that evidence. Regardless of your faith, the odds are still against you.
As for the weapons of mass destruction, 9-11, blood transfusions. I don’t know if you’re for or against either. But, whatever that belief, your faith would still have to have something more to base the probability on.
Faith usually isn’t blind.
You need some degree of knowledge, and evidence to make the call.
[quote] You think science can make that call? [/quote]
Yes science can make that call. There comes a point when the facts will overwhelm the claim. In the case of the flood, there is too much evidence against it for it to be possible. As I stated before, there would be evidence if it did happen. And if god was trying to make a point, there’s no reason to think he would hide it from us, and keep the story in the book.
Finally, as for what you consider the unreliable science problem. Completely out of context. A common fact pointed out to creationists is even if evolution were some how proven to be wrong, it would not prove creation by a supernatural, omnipresent god real.
So, while you may believe that faith is a valuable tool, without some positive evidence to justify it, it’s just wishful thinking.

@AkioTsukino
[quote] Nature. Any time you think something is going to happen before it happens in a way you think it will happen, even if the evidence suggests it will happen but it hasn't happened yet, that is faith[/quote]
Science, can make predictions before they happen by studying the element involved.
What you describe, if it is not a routine phenomenon, is clairvoyance. Faith doesn’t give you the ability to predict the future.
Like if you know it’s going to rain. You see dark clouds, you smell the damp air, You feel a cool breeze. It’s not faith that tells you it’s going to rain. It’s a quick assessment of conditions leading to a logical conclusion. Deductions from given information and past experiences.
Where is the faith in this ?
What you haven’t shown, is justification for having faith without a tangible reason.

@DocSavage [quote]Science, can make predictions before they happen by studying the element involved.[/quote]

"Element: 1. a part or aspect of something abstract, especially one that is essential or characteristic.

2. each of more than one hundred substances that cannot be chemically interconverted or broken down into simpler substances and are primary constituents of matter. Each element is distinguished by its atomic number, i.e. the number of protons in the nuclei of its atoms."

In the context you used you mean 1. Like when I was a kid and I took my radio apart? Never worked again. Kidding. Sort of.

[quote]What you describe, if it is not a routine phenomenon, is clairvoyance. Faith doesn’t give you the ability to predict the future.[/quote]

Not in the supernatural sense, but events are often foreseeable. I used meteorologists as an example earlier. If someone says if you jump off that cliff you'll die. It doesn't take a genius or god to figure that out, but it is faith. I have faith you'll die if you jump, I trust you will die.

Clairvoyance is an illusion, a magic trick with an emphasis on trick. "The supposed faculty of perceiving things or events in the future or beyond normal sensory contact." Magic is a tricky word. I like tricky words. The British informal expression is wonderful/exciting. It can also be used there and elsewhere hyperbolically. "It didn't disappear like magic!" Then there's "the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces." The emphasis on apparently. Performance art, illusionist. It's not real, it just appears real.

Many people, even Christians, think that God and demons can see into the future, but that isn't the case. The future doesn't exist. When God foretells something it means he either can see it happen from a logical perspective or that he is going to make it happen. So, fortune telling and that sort of thing was punishable by death because there is a supernatural element to it. Demons - according to the Bible now - I say, demons can deceive, manipulate and influence things. Highly intelligent extraterrestrial beings. So, though most witches, fortune tellers "ghosts" etc. are fake, it is possible for demonic influence. According to the Bible which I believe.

I know. You don't give a shit. Maybe someone reading does.

[quote]Like if you know it’s going to rain. You see dark clouds, you smell the damp air, You feel a cool breeze. It’s not faith that tells you it’s going to rain.[/quote]

It is. As I've described it above. Unbelievers tend to have difficulty with some words they imagine, for some reason, is exclusively applied to the supernatural. There isn't anything supernatural about faith. You can have faith (trust) in the supernatural but faith itself isn't a supernatural phenomenon. It simply means trust.

[quote]You see dark clouds, you smell the damp air, You feel a cool breeze. It’s not faith that tells you it’s going to rain. It’s a quick assessment of conditions leading to a logical conclusion. Deductions from given information and past experiences.[/quote]

Right, but you don't know for certain that it's going to rain. You can have faith in your experience and observations and logic but you can't be sure it will rain until it rains. As Paul said at Hebrews 11:1 – “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Comparing translations descriptions of faith involve hope, evidence, conviction, assurance etc. https://biblehub.com/hebrews/11-1.htm

[quote]Where is the faith in this ?[/quote]

It's just trust. Doesn't necessarily have anything to do with all those silly things you hate. God, religion, supernatural, etc.

[quote]What you haven’t shown, is justification for having faith without a tangible reason.[/quote]

Your apparent confusion regarding the secular or natural possibilities, insisting on faith being supernatural or religious is causing that confusion. It's just trust. Confidence.

@AkioTsukino
Again I have to ask. What is the point you are trying to make between science and faith ? Each of the examples you cited have nothing to do with faith, nor for that matter demonstrate science as being unreliable. .
[quote] For now. We evolved. There was no flood. We are not religious because we don't believe there are any gods. We believe there are no gods. We have no way of knowing what a god is.[/quote]
Another definition of faith, is belief in something, despite overwhelming evidence against it. Or if you prefer trust in something untrustworthy.