jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (146 posts)

Evidence?

  1. AshtonFirefly profile image81
    AshtonFireflyposted 2 years ago

    I've observed a lot of disagreement on the forums concerning what constitutes "evidence" of what one thinks or believes, in a religious or non-religious context.

    I love to study people and their behaviors, and my question to all who are interested is this:
    What, in your opinion, constitutes valid evidence or proof of a concept?

    1. oceansnsunsets profile image89
      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Facts, logic, and reason are the best things, and sometimes what seems deeply intuitively true considering the first three things. 

      So for me, what is most reasonable with all things considered, "wins" in my book.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        It seems that God cannot be proved or disproved on the physical plane.  However, the force of all creation can be detected on the metaphysical plane.

        God is not found in your imagination. This is what gripes the atheists.
        TWISI

        1. AshtonFirefly profile image81
          AshtonFireflyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          "It seems that God cannot be proved or disproved on the physical plane.  However, the force of all creation can be detected on the metaphysical plane.

          God is not found in your imagination. This is what gripes the atheists.
          TWISI"

          What do you consider to be metaphysical evidence and what is the criteria?

        2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
          EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Having been shown to be incapable of offering anything valid to support their assertions and having used up their arsenal of making things up out of thin air, believers will then begin offering lame excuses they themselves could not possibly even know.

          1. Prodio profile image60
            Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            "In mathematics we can take our inner distance from the content of our statements. In the final analysis mathematics is a mental game that we can play or not play as we choose. Religion, on the other hand, deals with ourselves, with our life and death; its promises are meant to govern our actions and thus, at least indirectly, our very existence. We cannot just look at them impassively from the outside. Moreover, our attitude to religious questions cannot be separated from our attitude to society."


            ~ Neils Bohr   [Statements of Bohr after the Solvay Conference of 1927, as quoted in Physics and Beyond (1971)]

        3. oceansnsunsets profile image89
          oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          What is TWISI?

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            The Way I See It.

            1. oceansnsunsets profile image89
              oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              oh, thank you.  smile

        4. oceansnsunsets profile image89
          oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          God can be a more reasonable thing over other things, on a physical plane or point of view though.

      2. AshtonFirefly profile image81
        AshtonFireflyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        True, but what do you constitute as a fact? What method makes something a fact? Universal acceptance, scientific method,...? Logic and reason kind of speak for themselves, that's true.

        Under what circumstances would you accept an intuitive feeling as evidence?

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image89
          oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          True, but what do you constitute as a fact? What method makes something a fact? Universal acceptance, scientific method,...? Logic and reason kind of speak for themselves, that's true.

          Under what circumstances would you accept an intuitive feeling as evidence?

          Well those are tougher questions.....  My initial quick answer to the fact one, is along the lines of what you said.  Universal acceptance/experience, and scientific findings are biggies for me. 

          As for deeper intuitions, I mentioned the other three things, facts reason and logic along with that.  If all things line up, AND it seems to "ring true" on top of it all, that is like icing on the cake so to speak.

          I don't and can't consider my own personal intuitions to be able to be known or felt by others of course (necessarily), or vice versa.  So that one is more for me personally.  There have been times that I have relied on intuition and I think it can be helpful in certain situations but that is something kind of separate.  Intuition is kind of like a different category.

          Common sense is a big one.  That could be very relative though of course.

          When things contradict, or are logically impossible, unreasonable, or go against facts as we know them (actually), then they truly deserve the skepticism they receive.  Assertions can be easily made over and over, and don't impress me much.  Looking at things as they really are, and being willing to accept that my wants and desires don't always equate to truth are big things.  Not always easy, but more satisfying long term, like we see with many other things in life I think.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            God cannot be disproved. Metaphysics deals with what is beyond the physical plane.

            When the heart stops beating where does the animating force of the body go? It goes somewhere. It is now not visible on the physical plane. But, it still exists. Proof?
            There is all sorts of proof. But one can only be convinced by direct experience. Intuition is the only way to detect the reality of the metaphysical plane. Each to their own perceptions / means of proof!

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Intuition is something we think based on past experience, what past experience do you have with the Metaphysical plane that would make you think that experience help you decide if your intuition is correct?

              The animating force you are speaking of is energy. Our bodies energy is given back to nature or the earth depending on what is done with the body.

              1. Jerami profile image78
                Jeramiposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                This animating force which we are speaking of seems to be that force which drives and directs every action going on within our body; every automatic reflex such as breathing, our heart beat. etc.   It also seems to be at work being a driving force of what we call our intellectual decision making.
                In every sense of the word "animating force"  seems to be more intelligent than we are.
                activities is gone upon death of the body seems to be an intelligent  force. SO ...   It seems to me that you are saying this energy which you are calling energy ... in intelligent energy.
                Does this explain why some of the characteristics of energy seems to be destructive while others are constructive.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  You do understand that we can take a dead person and using electricity animate them. The electricity is directed by the brain. A dead person very often repeats the actions of the last directions given by the brain.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Oh my gosh, you are so absolutely humorous! I love it!

                  2. Jerami profile image78
                    Jeramiposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    You are correct as far as it goes in running an electric current through a dead body causing the leg to jerk, and causing the heart to contract .... sometimes causing the heart to continue beating.  We can run an electric current through a noodle causing it to vibrate or wiggle. This is not animation.

                    Science doesn't know what this thing you called an animational force is. Science can only determine its presence by watching the behavior of the body as a whole.
                        We can put a dead person on life support, keeping the heart beating and the lungs functioning, but doesn't cause the brain to continue to function. IMO when the brain isn't functioning, the body isn't truly alive.     
                        Which brings up the question,  When all of the physical parts are working correctly, is awareness created OR does the presence of awareness cause all of the physical parts to operate correctly?

            2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
              EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              As to the lengths and depths religious believers will go to making stuff up out of thin air will often be aligned with their level of understanding and knowledge of the world around them coupled with their intellectual prowess.

              Often, we find the excuses and assertions to be so elementary and puerile, one wonders if they are actually adults talking.

              1. Prodio profile image60
                Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                "We ought to remember that religion uses language in quite a different way from science. The language of religion is more closely related to the language of poetry than to the language of science. True, we are inclined to think that science deals with information about objective facts, and poetry with subjective feelings. Hence we conclude that if religion does indeed deal with objective truths, it ought to adopt the same criteria of truth as science. But I myself find the division of the world into an objective and a subjective side much too arbitrary. The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables, and paradoxes means simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer. But that does not mean that it is not a genuine reality. And splitting this reality into an objective and a subjective side won't get us very far."



                "We must be clear that when it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images and establishing mental connections."







                ~ Niels Bohr   [in response to questions on the nature of language, as reported in Discussions about Language (1933)]

            3. AshtonFirefly profile image81
              AshtonFireflyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              So you are saying that each person determines what constitutes "evidence" for them, in this particular example?

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Yes. What else? Only we as individuals can prove God to ourselves as individuals.
                Right?

                1. AshtonFirefly profile image81
                  AshtonFireflyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Within the parameters of your own definition, that would seem to be so. As for my own thoughts, I have no conviction about it. I'm simply wondering if that is how you see it. Do you feel that one's own perceptions are reliable?

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    One's own perceptions are not always reliable. But, one can always adjust their convictions as truth is known more clearly.

          2. oceansnsunsets profile image89
            oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            My apologies for the first part there, I neglected to delete that part, and my response begins with, "well...."

      3. EncephaloiDead profile image60
        EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, religious believers will tell us they support facts, logic and reason, but instead they will often deny or reject facts, logic and reason.

        1. Prodio profile image60
          Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          "We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future."


          ~ Max Planck   [The Universe in the Light of Modern Physics (1931)]

    2. bBerean profile image59
      bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Disagreement on the topic of evidence within these forums rises primarily from the view common among materialists that anything not demonstrable on demand is not valid, which brings us to the question, of "evidence to who"?  If you can't show them, then it isn't/wasn't real.  It should come as no surprise that a God who wants relationships with people on an individual level doesn't reveal himself to everyone on youtube. 

      Spiritual experiences, real and lifechanging as they frequently may be, are by definition not tangible, repeatable or transferrable.  Materialists conclude they are not real, but then folks with rabbit ears may doubt the existence of HBO.  If you don't subscribe to the medium, it's content is beyond your grasp, so perhaps you will conclude it must not exist.  So, while useless as "evidence" to another, the personal experience of believers may well be the most conclusive "evidence" they have ever encountered. 

      There begins our impasse.  What one person could not be more certain of, another considers delusion.  "Show me your evidence".  Sorry, you may have to get your own.  Good news is, it is there for everyone.  Bad news is, nobody else can make you discern it.

      1. Prodio profile image60
        Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Very well said.




        But - it might bring up the issue - which is - what is real?

      2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
        EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        What we find with religious believers who operate from a system of belief is the use of fallacies, disingenuous and dishonest tactics as the only ammunition they possess in light of not having anything else to  support their assertions. They believe anything they can make up out of thin air is valid and unquestionable, that is, if they themselves want to believe it to be valid. Even amongst themselves, they fight tooth and nail as to whose imaginary super friend can beat up the others imaginary super friend.



        Believers will then assert the evidence they consider valid is there for everyone to see, yet they are incapable of showing it because it's all in their heads.

        1. Prodio profile image60
          Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          "To create and to annihilate material substance, cause it to aggregate in forms according to his desire, would be the supreme manifestation of the power of Man's mind, his most complete triumph over the physical world, his crowning achievement, which would place him beside his Creator, make him fulfill his Ultimate Destiny."


          "The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power."




          ~ Nikola Tesla

      3. Cgenaea profile image61
        Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Yes!!! We have MANY things "real" but not demonstrably so. Experience is key.

      4. oceansnsunsets profile image89
        oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Regarding spiritual evidences, I think you are right.  No one's evidence can count for another's, but some can share and others can search it out. 

        If I wasn't a believer, and I sincerely sought God out (in case he existed and was really open to the idea even) then I am convinced he would hear my prayer to him and show himself to me.  I don't believe all want to even want to consider such an idea, whatever their reasons are.

        1. bBerean profile image59
          bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Your perspective is consistent with the biblical one, that all are aware of spirituality but many choose to reject it.  This is why the bible never argues that there is a God.  Instead it presents that as a given all people know, but may rebel against.  It is on this basis that the bible states all men are "without excuse".

          1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
            EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            lol Sorry, but "spirituality" has not even been shown to exist let alone opining everyone is aware of it or are rebelling against it or rejecting it. That's like rejecting unicorns.

            1. Prodio profile image60
              Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              "Every one who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."



              ~ Albert Einstein [Quoted in Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Albert Einstein: The Human Side (1981)]







              hahahahaha!

          2. oceansnsunsets profile image89
            oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Which would make sense if there was an intelligence that put this universe into motion, and there was a creator.   If it is true we are created in the image of god, we would have some sense of it inherently at least, but could suppress it.  Almost kind of an inescapable kind of thing, but I never really thought about it like how you said that.  I mean looked at it all together like that, but it makes sense.  It would accurately explain so much to me that is usually an enigma too, in people.  (When nothing else explains the same things.)

            It makes sense that with the creatures that have a free will and ability to ponder our own existences, would have something within us that echoed the thing that brought us here.  We have the ability to be "anti", "that kind of thing, such a cause".   It is allowed, though I wish it weren't the case that some want to be disconnected to the degree it seems, until they can be fully separate and what comes with it.  (sorry if the terminology there sounds weird,lol.)

    3. 0
      Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Credible eye witness testimony bears a great deal of weight when talking about religion and spirituality. But, eye witness testimony is only credible as it relates to the actual experience. I think, when someone begins to add conjecture to explain the experience the discussion devolves into disagreement. I, personally, don't believe billions of people, running the course of human history, are incapable of accurately identifying an experience as other worldly, or out of the realm of the natural which is observable with the five physical senses. Their ability to interpret the experience is heavily handicapped by culture and upbringing.

    4. Silverspeeder profile image60
      Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      A rather simplistic answer would be cause and effect.

      If I stick my finger in the fire it will burn, therefore the evidence is a burnt finger, if I continue to repeat the same experiment the evidence should remain exactly the same for it to be considered as actual evidence. Unfortunately this simple method is not applied to most evidence, much of which is personal opinion and belief.

      1. oceansnsunsets profile image89
        oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Silverspeeder, when I was answering the question above, it felt like I was forgetting something, and this is what it was in part I think!  The idea of cause and effect is HUGE with this topic. 

        I have seen at times people holding VERY strong views on all kinds of things that I truly wondered about.  If we apply cause and effect, the truth is usually contained within that somewhere, even if it isn't happily accepted.  For example, a human response to something in particular, can show what a person really thinks about that thing, even if they are saying the opposite in general.

        Or in reference to the beginning of the universe, the big bang, etc.  The idea of cause and effect is huge.

    5. EncephaloiDead profile image60
      EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Evidence is basically anything presented that supports an assertion.

      For example, religious believers will assert their God waved his magic hand thus creating us in the form we are in today while science will assert we are the result of millions of years of evolution. The evidence for religious believers is based on a few lines in a book written centuries ago by people who were steeped heavily in myth and superstition while the evidence for evolution is based on mountains of research spanning many scientific fields of study all supporting each other.

      It then comes down to whether or not one operates on a system of belief or a system of understanding that will determine which of the two assertions they will accept.

      1. Prodio profile image60
        Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        "In some sort of crude sense which no vulgarity, no humor, no overstatement can quite extinguish, the physicists have known sin; and this is a knowledge which they cannot lose."



        ~ J. Robert Oppenheimer

    6. kess profile image61
      kessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      All of reality exist as a perception and that perception alone is the only evidence required as proof  of existence.

      With that, each one is  the only evidence of their proof  of their reality.
      For  their reality is determined only by their perception of it.

      Therefore we see that the depending on how rigid or accommodating ones perception is,
      a comparable reality is created which  that one is proof of evidence.

      And those more of a rigid of perceptions,would, not only be more demanding of evidence, but hard (physical) evidence at that.

      1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
        EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry, but that is false, reality is determined by reality itself, not by ones perception of it, that would called a delusion.

        1. kess profile image61
          kessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          To the deluded, his delusion represent his reality.

          So then, the deluded are those who do not accept this statement as true,
          for they are clueless about reality.

          And the deluded one will singlehandedly prove my initial statement as absolutely true in every aspect.

          And even after he has been made aware....watch

          1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
            EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Like, for example, those who believe their gods are part of reality?



            I'm watching.

            1. Prodio profile image60
              Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              "All the fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no closer to answer the question, “What are light quanta?” Of course today every ... thinks he knows the answer, but he is deluding himself."



              ~ Albert Einstein [Quoted in Raymond W. Lam, Seasonal Affective Disorder and Beyond (1998)]

            2. Prodio profile image60
              Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              "The existing scientific concepts cover always only a very limited part of reality, and the other part that has not yet been understood is infinite."


              ~ Werner Heisenberg

  2. AshtonFirefly profile image81
    AshtonFireflyposted 2 years ago

    Based on the replies I'm seeing, I'm going to throw this out there:

    Some people believe that intuition or experience is a sure way to determine if something is true or not. Yes?

    Some people believe that scientific method is a sure way.

    Some people believe that logic, reasoning, and reliance upon facts is a sure way.

    If you are relying on intuition or experience, then it is relative. So is it possible to logically argue that someone else is incorrect?

    If you are relying on the scientific method, what caused you to think that? Was it not reliance upon your own logic, reasoning, and the facts as you see it and your own deduction that the scientific method is indeed logical and worthy to discern evidence?

    If you are relying on logic and reason .I find that attempting to define those can seem somewhat relative, because the definition of each person's logic is apparent in how they choose to use it. "that's not logical!"--"Yes it is!" Is there truly only one set way of being logical? Or is logic simply using our own rational thought process, which is uniquely our own? To one person, it is perfectly rational to come to a conclusion, and completely irrational for another. Why? What is our concept of logic based on? Cause and effect? If so, is not the concept of cause and effect based upon a paradigm or specific scientific worldview to begin with? Does it ever end or does it ultimately rest on the shoulders of the individual?

    I'm not arguing for or against anything. Just food for thought.

    My ultimate question is: Is it maybe all just relative?

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      If you are relying on intuition or experience, then it is relative. So is it possible to logically argue that someone else is incorrect?
      NO! Nor should they try. (IMO)

    2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
      EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Again, the acceptance as to what one considers logical and reasonable is whether or not they operate on a system of belief or a system of understanding. The former is often void of logic and reason by any stretch of the definition.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        A Scientologist told me that logic is the lowest form of awareness.

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
          EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I'm sure they did, most likely because they are incapable of using logic.

          1. Prodio profile image60
            Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            "The supreme task of the physicist is the discovery of the most general elementary laws from which the world-picture can be deduced logically. But there is no logical way to the discovery of these elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition."



            ~ Albert Einstein

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        "True beliefs, as long as they remain, are a fine thing and all they do is good, but they are not willing to remain long, and they escape from a man's mind so that they are not worth much until one ties them down by giving an account of the reason why. After they are tied down, in the first place they become knowledge, and then they remain in place. That is why knowledge differs from correct opinion and knowledge differs from correct opinion in being tied down." Socrates in Plato's Meno.
        But he goes on to reason:
        "Correct opinion is …neither inferior to knowledge nor less useful…"

    3. oceansnsunsets profile image89
      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      i hear what you are saying, but I don't think it is actually as complicated perhaps.  I think good science is hard to refute, period.  I disagree a lot though, with those that apply different philosophies to science, and when they do they are often still passing off the added information as science still.  I think its deceptive to pass of a philosophy interjected into science, AS science still.  It is no longer science when it ceases to be just science. 

      Logic and how we are discussing it can be tested I think.  We can talk about what is logical or not, and if we disagree can talk about how something might defy a law of logic for example.  Like a logical contradiction....none of that is relative for instance.  It seems to be pretty cut and dry.  The KEY though is proving sometimes there is a real contradiction or whatever the case may be.  People that are determined to be right at all costs (including deluding themselves at times, which I have seen) will often turn to multiple other means to avoid having to see where their ideas break down.  I have seen this a lot.

      At the very least, we can line up two opposing ideas I think, and ask ourselves honestly which one is actually more rational, reasonable, logical, etc.  Of course the two sides will disagree, but this is where they lay out their reasons which can be examined.  This matters to me because I can be wrong about things, that is absolutely possible!  I care very much about these topics and think they are the stuff life is made of, and think a lot of others do also which is why they are here so much.  Often though, when taken to the enth degree, some are tired and angry by that point, but the hashing things out can be very good for those up for such a thing if truth is their genuine goal.  I don't think truth is the goal for all. 

      I think cause and effect need not be based at all on a paradigm or worldview.  We see it in science and medicine and everything all the time.  To those that disagree, they live their lives as if it is still true, so the disconnect may be somewhere else in that case, something more personal perhaps?  Its hard to know for sure. 

      Being free thinkers (for the most part, and while we still can be!) means we ARE free to think what we want, and for whatever reasons we do.  We can't all be right, so while it may not be about finding absolute truth right off, it can be something we can get closer to if the desire is there, by ruling out lesser qualified views along the way.  Letting them go, shedding ourselves of views that fail on their own merits and therefore fail us for the holding of them.  So I think it does fall on the shoulders of each individual, and like with all of life, we get whatever comes with our choices, good or bad.  I personally don't think it all could be just relative.  We might all be wrong, but we can't all be correct.  We could all be wrong, AND the actual truth be out there still.  I don't believe that is the case, but the idea works.

  3. peeples profile image88
    peeplesposted 2 years ago

    My honest and possibly ignorant answer to what evidence is, anything I am willing to accept. One person's evidence is another person's theory.

  4. AshtonFirefly profile image81
    AshtonFireflyposted 2 years ago

    I feel like I'm beginning to see patterns. Our definition of evidence to support a particular concept seems alot of the time to be somewhat circular, no matter who we are:

    Suppose I say this:
    I think that this is evidence. [Someone else asks] Why? Because it's logical to me. How? It follows the patterns which I perceive to be logic. How did you come to this perception of logic? Through observation [intellectual, visual, experimental, etc] . How do you interpret this observation? Through logic.

    Do we not interpret all information around us with logic? so how do we determine if something is logical if not through logic? Even in making intuitive generalizations we use some form of logic....this happened, so that means that this is true...etc.

    I'm not saying this is the thought pattern of all people I speak with, just a lot, inside and outside the forum, so just throwing the possibility out there for review. Or to be ripped to pieces by greater minds. smile Either way.

    1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
      EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Once again, it depends on whether the person operates on a system of belief or a system of understanding. A person who operates on belief "believes" they are using logic and reason, which is a false premise from the get go.

      1. AshtonFirefly profile image81
        AshtonFireflyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Hmm...That's just what I mean. Is not even a non-believer's position on what is logical, determined by their own logic? How do we know we are being in reality logical if assessing what is logical requires our own logic?

        1. peeples profile image88
          peeplesposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Some will deny it, but as an atheist I have no issue admitting that my logic is what determines my belief, and my logic can be flawed because after all, my brain created it. There is never a way to know anything 100%. Even facts were learned and as our brains change we may find out those facts were flawed.

          1. Prodio profile image60
            Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I appreciate the frankness.

        2. Prodio profile image60
          Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          You caught a big fish!

      2. Prodio profile image60
        Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        "Whenever we proceed from the known into the unknown we may hope to understand, but we may have to learn at the same time a new meaning of the word "understanding."


        ~ Werner Heisenberg   [Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science (1958)]

  5. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    What do you consider to be metaphysical evidence and what is the criteria?
    This is an excellent question.
    criterion noun
    standard, specification, measure, gauge, test, scale, benchmark, yardstick, touchstone, barometer; principle, rule, law, canon. Thesaurus

    Evidence of the metaphysical realm is revealed through all the discoveries of science. The measure is the unexplainable invisible moving force behind all creation.
    Many scientists agree. They are quite baffled. Much of so-called scientific knowledge is based on theory alone.

    1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
      EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry, but that is false and there are no scientists who would agree with that nonsense or are baffled by it.

      Yes, science is based on theories, which are a collection of facts that explains a phenomena

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Have it your way.

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image60
          EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Reality isn't my way, it is what reality shows us every single day.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Reality = Illusion!  Illusion = Reality!
            Why do you use the word "us?"
            Each to their own!
            Right?

          2. Prodio profile image60
            Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            "I consider those developments in physics during the last decades which have shown how problematical such concepts as "objective" and "subjective" are, a great liberation of thought. For all that, we have come a long way from the classical ideal of objective descriptions."



            ~ Neils Bohr

      2. Prodio profile image60
        Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."


        ~ Max Planck [As quoted in The Observer (25 January 1931)]

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          And different states of consciousness are exhibited in all life. Humans exhibit the most consciousness or the highest state of consciousness compared to lower forms of life, including plants, insects, animals.

          1. Prodio profile image60
            Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            With the same color - we can make many different paintings.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              exactly.

            2. EncephaloiDead profile image60
              EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, they're called walls and ceilings. lol

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I guess you don't have paintings on YOUR walls. Maybe you need some.

  6. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    - would a prism with all it's refracted colors from one source of light be another good analogy?

    1. Prodio profile image60
      Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Yes.

 
working