Is belief a choice?

[Justin108]

Christians tell me all the time that atheist deserve hell because they "chose" to reject god by not believing in him. They tell me that of I believe then I will be saved as though I can simply choose what I want to believe. How is belief a choice?

If I offered you $10 000 to believe that I was George Clooney, would you start choosing to believe I'm George Clooney?

[Kenisaw]

People accept and reject evidence all the time. Check your local municipalities legal cases and you will see evidence being accepted or rejected all the time.

You mean eye-witness accounts? That first-person evidence I spoke of? This is nothing like empirical evidence and science...

Evidence does not automatically lead to a specific conclusion. We all weigh the available evidence and make a decision based on the evidence. Our conclusions are choices made based on evidence.

Completely agree. That is why empirical evidence is critical, because that can be studied by all, and tested by all, and conclusions reached by all on the exact same data set. That conclusions differ is completely fine, because everyone knows the same information from where it was reached.

Even empirical evidence is not always accepted. There are many who see the evidence presented for evolution as inconclusive. They reject the evidence as sufficient. This is a choice.

Again, totally fine...assuming they have an understanding of the scientific theory and what it states, understand the research done and the conclusions, and can discuss the topic intelligently. Because there are many who see the evidence presented and haven't a clue what it means. There are individuals on this for example that think the theory of evolution is a tall tale, but who needed about two months of repeated commentary before they fully grasped that the Big Bang and the start of life (abiogenesis) were NOT part of the theory of evolution that they swear cannot be right. So I don't take their "rejection" very seriously.

And what you NEVER see, and I mean never, even by the most learned of humans that reject the theory of evolution, is an alternate explanation for the data that we have. No one ever has a better story for all the fossils, the shared genes in all living things, the ERVs, the morphological studies, the geology, the radiometric dating. They can't explain it, but they reject the theory of evolution as being a rational explanation. Then they claim a god being did it, for which there is zero empirical support for...fantastic.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 140 by Kenisaw]

For those who may be confused empirical evidence is: the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation. The term comes from the Greek word for experience, �μπει�ία (empeiría). The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory and the testimony of others, ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered secondary, or indirect. Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of a claim.

There is a reason I did not use the word empirical when I spoke of evidence. Empirical evidence is a type of evidence. There are many types of evidence available to a person when making a decision. Sometimes that evidence is empirical while other times it is not. When people decide to get married, they do not make this decision based on empirical evidence. Most of the time, they do so based on weak evidence (dating) or the counsel of friends and family. For those atheist who pretend as though every decision needs empirical evidence, they are fooling themselves because the world does not operate in that fashion.

Utter nonsense. There is no empirical evidence that someone loves you? The way they treat you, what they say to do, how they say it, do they stand you up or do they arrive when expected, physical signs of affection, etc...all able to be viewed by others and therefore "empirical". Your decision to marry someone is OBVIOUSLY based on all sorts of empirical evidence. If they stab you, or beat you, or ignore you, etc than there is plenty of empirical evidence they don't love you and you shouldn't marry them (some idiots will do so anyway, but conclusions aren't always reached rationally, are they). Your statement is pure folly I'm afraid.

What you have listed above as empirical evidence for love could be considered secondary or indirect evidence by others. In most cases, the persons dating experience has not been observed by friends or family. In some cases the behavior we are able to observe is actually a pretense for what is really happening in the relationship. You may see a person treating their partner affectionately in public, and in private the person is abusive. What you are able to observe is not a true indication of reality. It is only a true indication of what you were able to observe.

When it is available, we should use empirical evidence to help us make decisions. In the instances it is not available, we make decisions with the evidence available.

Let me ask you a question in response to this statement if I may - What situation exists, when wanting to make a decision, where you CAN'T gather empirical evidence? In other words even if you don't have any empirical evidence at this moment, what possible scenario exists where you can't go out and get some empirical data?

Here's a common decision. Should person X be found guilty of a crime? In many cases, no empirical evidence is available. Circumstantial evidence has been used for many years to generate a conviction. The juror is not able or permitted to go out an get additional evidence. If the only evidence presented is eye witness testimony and a possible motive, this evidence is often deemed sufficient to render a decision.

Evidence:
a) The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
b) Information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court.
c) Signs or indications of something
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/evidence

The word empirical is used as an adjective to specify the type of evidence being presented. Does the way I use the term evidence cheapen the word or meet the actual definition?

You cheapen it I'm afraid, because you misuse it. As I already explained in my earlier post, the existence of something (say the Earth for example) does not constitute proof that any god being created it. It isn't actually evidence of anything related to the source of the Earth.

If someone sees the Earth, and wonders how it got here, and concludes that a god must have done it, they have not reached that conclusion via evidence. What data set shows that to be the case? None that I know of. Their conclusion is not reached rationally.

How have I cheapened the use of the word evidence? Have I altered or stretched the definition? Did I make the assumption that a persons conclusions were rational?

Empirical evidence is not predicated upon data sets. You have added your own meaning to the words, and then get upset with others who do not share your interpretation of the words. Empirical evidence in the context of physical sciences requires more observation and experimentation than other sciences.

It is because words have a slightly different meaning with respect to the physical sciences, many forget to transition back to common language. In the physical sciences, the words belief and hypothesis are not synonymous. Outside of the physical sciences, these words are synonymous.

Many atheist and agnostics have a problem with words such as faith, evidence, or belief because they have a twisted interpretation of what those words mean. For some, the word evidence should only be used when talking about empirical evidence.

There's a good reason for that. First, there is the problem of first-person/second-person. Any first-person can reach any conclusion using their personal experiences. That is what I will call first-person evidence. That evidence is not empirical, however, because it cannot be validated or verified by a second person. The problem is that as soon as another individual is brought in, the second-person has no ability to determine the truthfulness of the claim. The only evidence that BOTH people can use to reach their own conclusion is EMPIRICAL evidence. You need data that anyone can collect in order for any rational discussion to commence. That is why empirical matters.

In a court of law personal testimony can be entered in as evidence. But the fact remains that no one can tell if that person is lying or not. You could have five people tell you the same story. Can you say for sure that they aren't lying? No, you can't. Can you say that their brains worked properly and they processed the information that their input systems received accurately? No, you can't. Eyewitness testimony is a shaky thing. Whole towns in Germany at the end of WWII all said they knew nothing about the concentration camp located outside of their boundaries. Later evidence was found that many worked there and that local papers ran stories on the camp. The WHOLE town lied. Without that empirical evidence, could we have ever known whether or not they were telling the truth? Obviously not.

Empirical evidence is so critical in fact that science cannot progress without it. I don't think you can disagree with how valuable the scientific method has been to humanity and to the knowledge gained through it. Empirical evidence is the bedrock of that value and knowledge.

I am not arguing against empirical evidence. I am aware that it is critical to the physical sciences. When we are having discussions outside of the sciences, we cannot use the same standard for evidence. Imagine if I used the same standards which are used in Alaska to build a house in the Caribbean. The change in venue demands a change in standard. The same is true for conversations outside of the sciences.

The term evidence does not mean the same thing from a legal prospective that it means in science. This discussion is not about the sciences, but about belief. As such, we must use the appropriate definition.

For others the word belief is a derogatory term that should never be used to explain a persons thought process, unless it is used to demean and berate them. Words have meaning, even if you or other atheists don't like the actual meaning.

There are studies in fields like psychology which clearly show the unreliability of the human mind to accurately process data. Our brain filters out all sorts of "extra" info. Your vision actually jerks all over the place when you walk (like if you held a video camera in front of you and taped while you walked), but your brain filters out the jostling and what you "see" is a smooth picture. Your brain will actually change memories over time. Ever hear of the study in a classroom setting where a "robber" runs in, grabs something off the teachers desk, and leaves? When the students describe the person, the description varies all over the place. Height, weight, color of clothing...even gender and race will differ.

If you can't have everyone study the same data, or be able to gather the same data, and compare thoughts and conclusions, in a controlled setting that avoids error sources and information contamination, then there's no way to validate and verify the findings.

Empirical matters. It matters to you in your everyday life, in all the things you use and do. Why would you suddenly throw empirical aside when your belief system comes up? It's an odd double standard...

I agree empirical evidence matters. I do not ask you or anyone to throw empirical evidence aside when a belief system comes up. What I point out is that empirical evidence may not be available.
For example, the bible often speaks about a persons soul and spirit. Neither of these can be empirically observed or studied in an objective manner. We do not have any empirical evidence available, so we are left with secondary evidence.

Empirical evidence deals with what we are able to experience with our physical senses. A construct like the spirit is beyond the physical senses, so by its form, we cannot have empirical evidence of a spirit.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 142 by KingandPriest]

!

[center]
A definition that some of us understand[/center]

For those who may be confused empirical evidence is: the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation. The term comes from the Greek word for experience, �μπει�ία (empeiría). The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory and the testimony of others, ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered secondary, or indirect. Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of a claim.

What you have listed above as empirical evidence for love could be considered secondary or indirect evidence by others. (...) It is only a true indication of what you were able to observe.

"What you were able to observe."
That's what you said was empirical evidence.

Look:

"the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation."

See?

You can observe that definition, too. If we can OBSERVE IT, it's what we call "empirical evidence" >

Thanks for the wonderful definition.

[Talishi]

Empirical evidence deals with what we are able to experience with our physical senses. A construct like the spirit is beyond the physical senses, so by its form, we cannot have empirical evidence of a spirit.

When you say something beyond the physical senses "is" how do you know?

[Bust Nak]

I guess you ignored the part above in bold.

Because it is irrelevant, you can choose to go to church, but you cannot choose to believe in God.

People accept and reject evidence all the time. Check your local municipalities legal cases and you will see evidence being accepted or rejected all the time.

Bait and switch. The law decide what is and isn't "admissible evidence," that is a legal term. It is not people deciding what is and isn't believable.

Evidence does not automatically lead to a specific conclusion.

That depends on how convincing the evidence is. It is a function of the evidence presented, not a choice.

Even empirical evidence is not always accepted. There are many who see the evidence presented for evolution as inconclusive. They reject the evidence as sufficient. This is a choice.

No, it is not a choice. They had no choice but to reject it as insufficient.

I do not conclude that there is no choice involved. This is your conclusion.

I know that, I was questioning how can you not conclude that there is no choice involved, when it is an inescapable and only logical conclusion.

You continually bring up 2+2=4 vs 2+2=5. The problem with this is that the equation 2+2=4 is not a belief.

Then use your mystical powers and choose to believe that 2+2=4 is a belief; choose to believe that 2+2=5 is factual; choose to believe 2+2=4 is not tautological. Go on, prove it.

No one "believes" in the tautological nature of mathematical equations. These are viewed as facts.

False by counter example: I believe all my facts and I believe all my tautologies. I believe the sun is hot. I also believe it is a fact that the sun is hot.

These are viewed as facts. Facts and belief are antonyms of one another.

Lets see how far you get trying to get Christians to acknowledge that God's existence not a fact like "the sun is hot" is.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 140 by Kenisaw]

There is a reason I did not use the word empirical when I spoke of evidence. Empirical evidence is a type of evidence. There are many types of evidence available to a person when making a decision. Sometimes that evidence is empirical while other times it is not. When people decide to get married, they do not make this decision based on empirical evidence. Most of the time, they do so based on weak evidence (dating) or the counsel of friends and family. For those atheist who pretend as though every decision needs empirical evidence, they are fooling themselves because the world does not operate in that fashion.

Utter nonsense. There is no empirical evidence that someone loves you? The way they treat you, what they say to do, how they say it, do they stand you up or do they arrive when expected, physical signs of affection, etc...all able to be viewed by others and therefore "empirical". Your decision to marry someone is OBVIOUSLY based on all sorts of empirical evidence. If they stab you, or beat you, or ignore you, etc than there is plenty of empirical evidence they don't love you and you shouldn't marry them (some idiots will do so anyway, but conclusions aren't always reached rationally, are they). Your statement is pure folly I'm afraid.

What you have listed above as empirical evidence for love could be considered secondary or indirect evidence by others. In most cases, the persons dating experience has not been observed by friends or family. In some cases the behavior we are able to observe is actually a pretense for what is really happening in the relationship. You may see a person treating their partner affectionately in public, and in private the person is abusive. What you are able to observe is not a true indication of reality. It is only a true indication of what you were able to observe.

We've got two things going on here, and they need to be separated. One is if others think someone loves you, and the second is if YOU yourself thinks someone loves YOU.

As to the first part, I completely agree that what others think is not going to be based on as large a pool of data as YOU because they won't experience everything, as YOU did. If they simply observe what they can however, and YOU offer no input to them on the matter, then they will still be reaching an opinion based on empirical data. It is an incomplete data set, which can lead to an erroneous conclusion, but it is based empirically.

The second part, which was the meat of your comment and therefore the meat of my reply, is that someone's decision to get married, in your own words: "When people decide to get married, they do not make this decision based on empirical evidence". This, obviously, is utter nonsense. Of course they make it on empirical evidence. They weren't there to observe what happened to themselves? Rather silly.

When it is available, we should use empirical evidence to help us make decisions. In the instances it is not available, we make decisions with the evidence available.

Let me ask you a question in response to this statement if I may - What situation exists, when wanting to make a decision, where you CAN'T gather empirical evidence? In other words even if you don't have any empirical evidence at this moment, what possible scenario exists where you can't go out and get some empirical data?

Here's a common decision. Should person X be found guilty of a crime? In many cases, no empirical evidence is available. Circumstantial evidence has been used for many years to generate a conviction. The juror is not able or permitted to go out an get additional evidence. If the only evidence presented is eye witness testimony and a possible motive, this evidence is often deemed sufficient to render a decision.

You can't go out afterwords and gather evidence? And then go back to the judge and the lawyers and say you've found additional data? Even in legal renderings there is an avenue for additional information to be presented at a later date. Verdicts get tossed and trials re-tried all the time. People get released years later, especially with the advent of DNA testing exonerating those wrongly convicted.

Empirical evidence can ALWAYS be gathered (assuming that data exists we should note).

Evidence:
a) The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
b) Information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court.
c) Signs or indications of something
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/evidence

The word empirical is used as an adjective to specify the type of evidence being presented. Does the way I use the term evidence cheapen the word or meet the actual definition?

You cheapen it I'm afraid, because you misuse it. As I already explained in my earlier post, the existence of something (say the Earth for example) does not constitute proof that any god being created it. It isn't actually evidence of anything related to the source of the Earth.

If someone sees the Earth, and wonders how it got here, and concludes that a god must have done it, they have not reached that conclusion via evidence. What data set shows that to be the case? None that I know of. Their conclusion is not reached rationally.

How have I cheapened the use of the word evidence? Have I altered or stretched the definition? Did I make the assumption that a persons conclusions were rational?

I explained it above which you quoted, as well as in a previous post. What part of that explanation needs clarification for you? We were discussing the existence of the Earth and whether or not it is empirical evidence for creationist claims. You use the word evidence inappropriately.

Empirical evidence is not predicated upon data sets. You have added your own meaning to the words, and then get upset with others who do not share your interpretation of the words. Empirical evidence in the context of physical sciences requires more observation and experimentation than other sciences.

It is because words have a slightly different meaning with respect to the physical sciences, many forget to transition back to common language. In the physical sciences, the words belief and hypothesis are not synonymous. Outside of the physical sciences, these words are synonymous.

Since we are talking scientifically I fail to see what the problem is then...

Many atheist and agnostics have a problem with words such as faith, evidence, or belief because they have a twisted interpretation of what those words mean. For some, the word evidence should only be used when talking about empirical evidence.

There's a good reason for that. First, there is the problem of first-person/second-person. Any first-person can reach any conclusion using their personal experiences. That is what I will call first-person evidence. That evidence is not empirical, however, because it cannot be validated or verified by a second person. The problem is that as soon as another individual is brought in, the second-person has no ability to determine the truthfulness of the claim. The only evidence that BOTH people can use to reach their own conclusion is EMPIRICAL evidence. You need data that anyone can collect in order for any rational discussion to commence. That is why empirical matters.

In a court of law personal testimony can be entered in as evidence. But the fact remains that no one can tell if that person is lying or not. You could have five people tell you the same story. Can you say for sure that they aren't lying? No, you can't. Can you say that their brains worked properly and they processed the information that their input systems received accurately? No, you can't. Eyewitness testimony is a shaky thing. Whole towns in Germany at the end of WWII all said they knew nothing about the concentration camp located outside of their boundaries. Later evidence was found that many worked there and that local papers ran stories on the camp. The WHOLE town lied. Without that empirical evidence, could we have ever known whether or not they were telling the truth? Obviously not.

Empirical evidence is so critical in fact that science cannot progress without it. I don't think you can disagree with how valuable the scientific method has been to humanity and to the knowledge gained through it. Empirical evidence is the bedrock of that value and knowledge.

I am not arguing against empirical evidence. I am aware that it is critical to the physical sciences. When we are having discussions outside of the sciences, we cannot use the same standard for evidence. Imagine if I used the same standards which are used in Alaska to build a house in the Caribbean. The change in venue demands a change in standard. The same is true for conversations outside of the sciences.[/quote]

I fail to see how a discussion about where the Earth comes from could ever fall outside of the sciences...

The term evidence does not mean the same thing from a legal prospective that it means in science. This discussion is not about the sciences, but about belief. As such, we must use the appropriate definition.

The discussion is about a conclusion reached regarding the existence of the Earth without any empirical data or evidence to support it. That errant conclusion is a belief on the part of the cultist to be sure, but that does not mean that the belief is rational or that science does not have a commentary on it.

For others the word belief is a derogatory term that should never be used to explain a persons thought process, unless it is used to demean and berate them. Words have meaning, even if you or other atheists don't like the actual meaning.

There are studies in fields like psychology which clearly show the unreliability of the human mind to accurately process data. Our brain filters out all sorts of "extra" info. Your vision actually jerks all over the place when you walk (like if you held a video camera in front of you and taped while you walked), but your brain filters out the jostling and what you "see" is a smooth picture. Your brain will actually change memories over time. Ever hear of the study in a classroom setting where a "robber" runs in, grabs something off the teachers desk, and leaves? When the students describe the person, the description varies all over the place. Height, weight, color of clothing...even gender and race will differ.

If you can't have everyone study the same data, or be able to gather the same data, and compare thoughts and conclusions, in a controlled setting that avoids error sources and information contamination, then there's no way to validate and verify the findings.

Empirical matters. It matters to you in your everyday life, in all the things you use and do. Why would you suddenly throw empirical aside when your belief system comes up? It's an odd double standard...

I agree empirical evidence matters. I do not ask you or anyone to throw empirical evidence aside when a belief system comes up. What I point out is that empirical evidence may not be available.
For example, the bible often speaks about a persons soul and spirit. Neither of these can be empirically observed or studied in an objective manner. We do not have any empirical evidence available, so we are left with secondary evidence.

Empirical evidence deals with what we are able to experience with our physical senses. A construct like the spirit is beyond the physical senses, so by its form, we cannot have empirical evidence of a spirit.

We can't? A spirit or soul interacts with the physical body, does it not? It is supposedly "felt" by people, which means an interaction with their physical being. By the conservation laws of the universe therefore that means data and evidence are produced. You cannot have any interaction in this universe in which no information follows. Not possible.

You fall into one of the basic blunders that I see believers fall into all the time. They think that because we call it "supernatural" that science cannot investigate it. The problem is that almost all "supernatural" events interact with this universe. Therefore they can be investigated. And of course there is absolutely nothing found. The silence of that is rather deafening...

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 146 by Kenisaw]

What you have listed above as empirical evidence for love could be considered secondary or indirect evidence by others. In most cases, the persons dating experience has not been observed by friends or family. In some cases the behavior we are able to observe is actually a pretense for what is really happening in the relationship. You may see a person treating their partner affectionately in public, and in private the person is abusive. What you are able to observe is not a true indication of reality. It is only a true indication of what you were able to observe.

We've got two things going on here, and they need to be separated. One is if others think someone loves you, and the second is if YOU yourself thinks someone loves YOU.

As to the first part, I completely agree that what others think is not going to be based on as large a pool of data as YOU because they won't experience everything, as YOU did. If they simply observe what they can however, and YOU offer no input to them on the matter, then they will still be reaching an opinion based on empirical data. It is an incomplete data set, which can lead to an erroneous conclusion, but it is based empirically.

The second part, which was the meat of your comment and therefore the meat of my reply, is that someone's decision to get married, in your own words: "When people decide to get married, they do not make this decision based on empirical evidence". This, obviously, is utter nonsense. Of course they make it on empirical evidence. They weren't there to observe what happened to themselves? Rather silly.

So a persons experience or observation is considered empirical "enough" for marriage but when it is presented as a claim of faith, you reject it as sufficient evidence. If I personally witness God performing a miracle, and testify about my experience, have I met the requirement for empirical evidence?

You want it both ways, a persons experience through observation is often touted as insufficient to proclaim that God really performed a miracle. Now you say "If they simply observe what they can however, and YOU offer no input to them on the matter, then they will still be reaching an opinion based on empirical data."

So the eyewitness accounts of the miracles performed by Jesus are empirical evidence according to this standard. Being able to observe an event or series of events falls short of what most scientist and non scientist describe when using the term empirical evidence. Which is it?

If I am there to observe how God healed me of a illness that no doctor or medicine intervened, is this not credible emirical evidence? Why or why not?

Here's a common decision. Should person X be found guilty of a crime? In many cases, no empirical evidence is available. Circumstantial evidence has been used for many years to generate a conviction. The juror is not able or permitted to go out an get additional evidence. If the only evidence presented is eye witness testimony and a possible motive, this evidence is often deemed sufficient to render a decision.

You can't go out afterwords and gather evidence? And then go back to the judge and the lawyers and say you've found additional data? Even in legal renderings there is an avenue for additional information to be presented at a later date. Verdicts get tossed and trials re-tried all the time. People get released years later, especially with the advent of DNA testing exonerating those wrongly convicted.

Empirical evidence can ALWAYS be gathered (assuming that data exists we should note).

Evidence acquired after the fact will lead to a new decision. You cannot go back and change the decision. Even in the court of law, a new decision is rendered and allows the person who may have been deemed guilty to go free.

As a juror, you are not allowed to go an get your own evidence. Even if subsequent evidence is discovered, it leads to a new decision. No one goes back in time and changes the old decision. We make a new decision and render the old decision mute.

My statement was about being able to gather empirical evidence at the time of Decision A. We may be able to gather subsequent evidence, which will lead to a new decision.

How have I cheapened the use of the word evidence? Have I altered or stretched the definition? Did I make the assumption that a persons conclusions were rational?

I explained it above which you quoted, as well as in a previous post. What part of that explanation needs clarification for you? We were discussing the existence of the Earth and whether or not it is empirical evidence for creationist claims. You use the word evidence inappropriately.

We were not discussing the existence of the earth. This thread is about the ability to choose what we believe.
See ref:Is belief a choice?
and http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 143#503143

Empirical evidence is not predicated upon data sets. You have added your own meaning to the words, and then get upset with others who do not share your interpretation of the words. Empirical evidence in the context of physical sciences requires more observation and experimentation than other sciences.

It is because words have a slightly different meaning with respect to the physical sciences, many forget to transition back to common language. In the physical sciences, the words belief and hypothesis are not synonymous. Outside of the physical sciences, these words are synonymous.

Since we are talking scientifically I fail to see what the problem is then...

This discussion is about choosing what we believe. Have you forgotten the context of this debate?

Empirical evidence is so critical in fact that science cannot progress without it. I don't think you can disagree with how valuable the scientific method has been to humanity and to the knowledge gained through it. Empirical evidence is the bedrock of that value and knowledge.

I am not arguing against empirical evidence. I am aware that it is critical to the physical sciences. When we are having discussions outside of the sciences, we cannot use the same standard for evidence. Imagine if I used the same standards which are used in Alaska to build a house in the Caribbean. The change in venue demands a change in standard. The same is true for conversations outside of the sciences.

I fail to see how a discussion about where the Earth comes from could ever fall outside of the sciences...

Once again, this discussion is about being able to choose what we believe.

The term evidence does not mean the same thing from a legal prospective that it means in science. This discussion is not about the sciences, but about belief. As such, we must use the appropriate definition.

The discussion is about a conclusion reached regarding the existence of the Earth without any empirical data or evidence to support it. That errant conclusion is a belief on the part of the cultist to be sure, but that does not mean that the belief is rational or that science does not have a commentary on it.

Not sure why you insist on bringing up the existence of the earth. That was used as an example, and you have chosen to make it the base of the conversation. This thread is about belief, and being able to make choices about what we believe.

Please don't get caught up in examples.

I agree empirical evidence matters. I do not ask you or anyone to throw empirical evidence aside when a belief system comes up. What I point out is that empirical evidence may not be available.
For example, the bible often speaks about a persons soul and spirit. Neither of these can be empirically observed or studied in an objective manner. We do not have any empirical evidence available, so we are left with secondary evidence.

Empirical evidence deals with what we are able to experience with our physical senses. A construct like the spirit is beyond the physical senses, so by its form, we cannot have empirical evidence of a spirit.

We can't? A spirit or soul interacts with the physical body, does it not? It is supposedly "felt" by people, which means an interaction with their physical being. By the conservation laws of the universe therefore that means data and evidence are produced. You cannot have any interaction in this universe in which no information follows. Not possible.

You fall into one of the basic blunders that I see believers fall into all the time. They think that because we call it "supernatural" that science cannot investigate it. The problem is that almost all "supernatural" events interact with this universe. Therefore they can be investigated. And of course there is absolutely nothing found. The silence of that is rather deafening...

We can study the empirical effects of this interaction, but we cannot study or empirically measure the soul or spirit. We can measure the blood flow or electrical signals in the brain, but we cannot isolate a specific thought. Where does a idea come from. We see the interaction of an idea in the electrical signals in our brain, but even scientist have confirmed that we make decisions before our brain is even aware of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

The evidence that some use to support determinism use studies which only describe binary decisions that are predictive.

In the last few years, neuroscience experiments have shown that some “conscious decisions� are actually made in the brain before the actor is conscious of them: brain-scanning techniques can predict only when a binary decision will be made, but what it will be (with accuracy between 55-70%)—several seconds before the actor reports being conscious of having made a decision.

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... free-will/

These studies ignore the countless complex non binary decisions we make every day.

Each observer was presented with a series of screens, each having a letter and five numbers. They appeared at a rate of one screen per second. The letter was in the center of the screen, and right above it was a number from one to ten. There were also four other numbers between one and ten in the corners of the screen. The observer was instructed (and trained beforehand) to make a decision whether to add or subtract the two “above center� numbers in the next two screens, and to memorize the central letter at the moment he/she made the decision to act. This decision was not recorded on the computer. Then the observer either added or subtracted the two numbers above the letter as the next two screens appeared. The next frame after that offered four numerical solutions as the corner numbers: two corresponding to the “add/subtract� decision, and two decoy numbers. The observer was asked to press one of four buttons corresponding to the solution of the arithmetical operation chosen. Finally, in the last screen, a series of four letters were given corresponding to the four screens before the arithmetical operation, and the observer was asked to record (by pressing a button) which letter was on the screen when the observer decided to add or subtract. That corresponded to the time of the conscious decision.

So the individuals in this study were trained to make a decision a certain way, and then some used the study to say that mind brain dualism does not exist.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to KingandPriest]

These studies ignore the countless complex non binary decisions we make every day.
So a persons experience or observation is considered empirical "enough" for marriage but when it is presented as a claim of faith, you reject it as sufficient evidence. If I personally witness God performing a miracle, and testify about my experience, have I met the requirement for empirical evidence?

What "miracle" specifically do you believe that you witnessed? One of the hallmarks of the modern scientific age is that we have discovered that things which were once routinely accepted as being supernatural in nature, are in reality caused entirely by natural processes. Processes which people misinterpreted, or simply did not understand. When events occur that people do not understand, they invariably leap to the conclusion that a miracle has occurred. Often because that is precisely the conclusion that pleases them.

These studies ignore the countless complex non binary decisions we make every day.
So was your personal "miracle of God" a genuine miracle? Was it really something for which no natural explanation is possible? Or is "miracle" simply the explanation that gives you the most satisfaction to believe in?

So the eyewitness accounts of the miracles performed by Jesus are empirical evidence according to this standard. Being able to observe an event or series of events falls short of what most scientist and non scientist describe when using the term empirical evidence. Which is it?

The Gospels are not eyewitness accounts. They are the written accounts of non eyewitnesses based on still other earlier accounts. Paul's "eyewitness account" is based on an experience he believed he had at a time when he was desperately ill. During his illness Paul believed that he had an encounter with a man who had been dead for some few years. A claim for which any reasonable person might be excused for questioning, surely.

If I am there to observe how God healed me of a illness that no doctor or medicine intervened, is this not credible emirical evidence? Why or why not?

Wikipedia
Spontaneous remission
Spontaneous remission, also called spontaneous healing or spontaneous regression, is an unexpected improvement or cure from a disease that usually progresses. These terms are commonly used for unexpected transient or final improvements in cancer. Spontaneous remissions concern cancers of the haematopoietic system (blood cancer, e.g. leukemia), while spontaneous regressions concern palpable tumors; however, both notions are often used interchangeably.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_remission

If spontaneous remission only statistically occurred among Christians you would have a very powerful case that supernatural intervention was involved. But such is not the case. Spontaneous remissions are entirely random, allowing Muslims to credit Allah, Buddhists to credit Buddha, Hindu's to credit Krishna, or Vishnu, or whichever Hindu deity they feel closest to. Atheists just consider themselves lucky.

Evidence acquired after the fact will lead to a new decision. You cannot go back and change the decision. Even in the court of law, a new decision is rendered and allows the person who may have been deemed guilty to go free.

Are you suggesting that once you have declared an event to be a miracle, no further investigation is pertinent?

We were not discussing the existence of the earth. This thread is about the ability to choose what we believe.

Everyone has, not only the ability to choose what to believe, but the absolute right. The purpose of this entire forum however is comparing conclusions, and determining just how well these various conclusions stand up to a detailed analysis of them. One may continue to defend a conclusion that continuously fails, on a point by point basis, to stand up to a detailed analysis of it. At some point however such a defense stops being a debate on the facts and simply becomes an exercise in tenaciously clinging to a personal emotional preference. "I know it's true because that's what I prefer to believe." Self satisfying perhaps, but not really a position that is subject to debate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

The evidence that some use to support determinism use studies which only describe binary decisions that are predictive.

Science say that we have free will. The Bible on the other hand indicates that God has already plotted out the course of our lives.

Psalm 139:
16 Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. (NIV)

So which should we go with, the physical evidence, or what the Bible tells us?

These studies ignore the countless complex non binary decisions we make every day.

All decisions are binary. Every move we make is an ongoing process of either/or. Lying flat on my back in bed is a decision to remain there. The simple act of getting up requires an entire cascade of either/or signals to my muscles to make it happen.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 147 by KingandPriest]



[center]Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Thinking that struggling with the concept of "empirical evidence" somehow proves that God exists[/center]

So a persons experience or observation is considered empirical "enough" for marriage but when it is presented as a claim of faith, you reject it as sufficient evidence.

We can OBSERVE with our eyes and other senses what people do and say... that is EMPIRICAL.. using our senses, observing, testing, fact gathering.

What SENSES, observations and experimentation are you using to detect a god?
you might BELIEVE in a god.. but how can I observe what you are observing?
You might REALLY believe in a god, but what EXPERIMENTS will lead to the conclusion that there is such a thing in reality, and not just in your mind?

If I personally witness God performing a miracle, and testify about my experience, have I met the requirement for empirical evidence?

Not at all.
To skeptics, you would have only made a claim to have met a god.

We should be able to quickly agree that a TESTIMONY is not empirical evidence.
If it were, we would have to believe any and all testimonies.

We don't, for some reason.

I can't read your mind.. go in there and verify your claim.
You might be lying, delusional, irrational, lied TO, too gullible, or simply MISTAKEN.

Maybe in the future we will have mind reading machines.. until then, your story is just a story.. a claim is just a claim. You now need to PROVE that claim is true.

And for THAT, one of the best ways is empirical evidence, but the CLAIM is in no way empirical evidence.

So, to answer your question quite briefly, NO.

There are evil skeptics lurking around, if you want to prove your observations were CORRECT ones.. and not some illusion, or worse... then you MIGHT want to repeat the performance of having MET the guy in a way that has any HOPE of being verified by us hateful heathens.

Look at us.. grrrrr. Evil, see?
Empirical evidence of evil.

You want it both ways, a persons experience through observation is often touted as insufficient to proclaim that God really performed a miracle.

Oh, that never really stops anyone from PROCLAIMING miracles.. we have miracle claims by the thousands... You dont need ANY evidence to proclaim ANYTHING whatsoever.

Now you say "If they simply observe what they can however, and YOU offer no input to them on the matter, then they will still be reaching an opinion based on empirical data."

Yeah, but in critical thinking and science, we have to have a mechanism to rule out ERROR. No method.. test is inconclusive, let's all go home.

So the eyewitness accounts of the miracles performed by Jesus are empirical evidence according to this standard.

Well, I think you are mistaking empirical CLAIMS with empirical EVIDENCE.

IF something is said to be true of reality.. then that CLAIM should be supported with some kind of sound evidence. Empirical evidence is really sound.

There MIGHT be other kinds of evidence that are sound.. but right now.. Can't think of any. I'm hungry. How about you do a research on what constitutes sound evidence and get back to us.. maybe we "empiricists" are missing out on something important.

Help us out, will ya?

Being able to observe an event or series of events falls short of what most scientist and non scientist describe when using the term empirical evidence. Which is it?

Some people are able to observe "water" in the desert, only to find out that their observations were illusions. You might have heard of "mirages".

Do you believe that it is possible that people can make INCORRECT observations?
What is, in your opinion, one of the best methods for sorting out the incorrect observations from the correct ones?.. anything come to mind?

If I am there to observe how God healed me of a illness that no doctor or medicine intervened, is this not credible emirical evidence? Why or why not?

As a skeptic, I would ask you if you observed the GOD healing you or if you observed getting better and ATTRIBUTED that healing to your god.

Your attribution isn't evidence of a god.. its evidence of your belief.
And I think that it's safe to say that we have quite empirical evidence that you HAVE A BELIEF.

What we DON'T quite have yet, is empirical evidence that what you believe in is TRUE.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 148 by Tired of the Nonsense]

What "miracle" specifically do you believe that you witnessed? One of the hallmarks of the modern scientific age is that we have discovered that things which were once routinely accepted as being supernatural in nature, are in reality caused entirely by natural processes. Processes which people misinterpreted, or simply did not understand. When events occur that people do not understand, they invariably leap to the conclusion that a miracle has occurred. Often because that is precisely the conclusion that pleases them.

I saw a woman who had very swollen legs and could not walk. She came into service in a wheel chair. She was healed as a result of prayer and laying on of hands. I had the opportunity to speak to and interview the woman after the service. She described her legs as still feeling sore, but the swelling had gone down visibly and she could walk.

The next night, the woman came back to service walking normally. No swelling.

The Gospels are not eyewitness accounts. They are the written accounts of non eyewitnesses based on still other earlier accounts. Paul's "eyewitness account" is based on an experience he believed he had at a time when he was desperately ill. During his illness Paul believed that he had an encounter with a man who had been dead for some few years. A claim for which any reasonable person might be excused for questioning, surely.

Sounds like you need to reread your bible. The bible does not say Paul was severely sick. In fact it says Paul saw his vision before he was struck with blindness.
"Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.

3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. 4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?�

5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?�

Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.[a] It is hard for you to kick against the goads.�

6 So he, trembling and astonished, said, “Lord, what do You want me to do?�

Then the Lord said to him, “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.�

7 And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one. 8 Then Saul arose from the ground, and when his eyes were opened he saw no one. But they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9 And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank."

Now if you consider not eating or drinking for 3 days, severe dehydration, I take it you have never fasted. 3 days without food or water is doable, and will not leave a person delirious.

Even modern medicine has done numerous studies on the health benefits of fasting.
https://authoritynutrition.com/10-healt ... t-fasting/
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/295914.php
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/2015 ... cts-first/
https://draxe.com/the-many-health-benefits-of-fasting/

So, I could actually argue Paul was healthier as a result of fasting for 3 days.

Wikipedia
Spontaneous remission
Spontaneous remission, also called spontaneous healing or spontaneous regression, is an unexpected improvement or cure from a disease that usually progresses. These terms are commonly used for unexpected transient or final improvements in cancer. Spontaneous remissions concern cancers of the haematopoietic system (blood cancer, e.g. leukemia), while spontaneous regressions concern palpable tumors; however, both notions are often used interchangeably.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_remission

If spontaneous remission only statistically occurred among Christians you would have a very powerful case that supernatural intervention was involved. But such is not the case. Spontaneous remissions are entirely random, allowing Muslims to credit Allah, Buddhists to credit Buddha, Hindu's to credit Krishna, or Vishnu, or whichever Hindu deity they feel closest to. Atheists just consider themselves lucky.

Good thing Christians don't depend solely on spontaneous remission. This applies to cancer, but there is no medical support of spontaneous healing of broken bones or other health related miracles.

Are you suggesting that once you have declared an event to be a miracle, no further investigation is pertinent?

No, I am just trying to get a clear and consistent definition of empirical evidence. Apparently the dictionary definition is inadequate. By the dictionary definition, my observation with my senses counts as empirical evidence. If a group of people claim to witness the same encounter, this also technically counts as empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence has one definition for when a person is making the decision to get married, and another definition when it comes to claims of faith. Can we have a consistent application of the word across disciplines?

With this consistent application, we can test the claim of a person. If you dismiss my claim of a personal testimony as empirical, then you should also invalidate the claim of a person making a decision to get married. You would have to conclude people make the decision to get married without empirical evidence.

Science say that we have free will. The Bible on the other hand indicates that God has already plotted out the course of our lives.

Psalm 139:
16 Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. (NIV)

So which should we go with, the physical evidence, or what the Bible tells us?

I don't see a conflict. Based on observing my children, I can know what they are going to do. Even though I know what they are going to do in certain situations, that doesn't take away from your free will.

If I present you with a choice between receiving $100,000 cash or paying $100,000 cash. It is safe to say, I know which one you will choose. This does not remove your ability to make a decision. Because I am not God, my knowledge is partial, and is a best guess.

In God's case his knowledge is not limited, and does not impact your free will. Just because God knew some would reject him, does not mean you did not have a choice. It is like having an answer key to a test. Just because you have the answer key, does not remove the choice you have. You could choose to get a few wrong on purpose just to make it seem like you did not cheat.

All decisions are binary. Every move we make is an ongoing process of either/or. Lying flat on my back in bed is a decision to remain there. The simple act of getting up requires an entire cascade of either/or signals to my muscles to make it happen.

Since when were all decisions binary. There are often cases where we have many options to choose from.

Lets say you decide to buy a car. Decision A is binary: Buy or dont buy. Decision B may not be binary. What type of car? Sedan, SUV, Coupe, Truck, Van, etc. Your options are more than binary for this secondary decision. Then you may have an option of features, and color choice. Are all of these decisions binary?

Some decisions are binary, but not all decisions. The decision to accept Christ is one of those binary decisions. Life or death. You choose.