"The usual suspects beginning with Adam"
From a previous post:
"at least we have the historical record of spokespersons, who claim to have had direct contact with God or with vicegerents, angels, or some form of representative of God"
"many have also been known for having high credibility and clean character."
I then asked you: "WHO? And what was their evidence for contact?"
You answered: "The usual suspects beginning with Adam"
Sorry, Less. I don't consider "Adam" to be either "historical" or having "high credibility and clean character" You are speaking nonsense.
"Evidence is usually verified by a body of jurors or by one authorized judge and that is the case here. Groups are formed to consider the matter and when/if persuaded form bodies of religious people who then encourage one another to take the issue to heart"
Well, I was asking you about the evidence for your assertion regarding "contact with God", etc. A courtroom has ONE verdict. Most religious dogma came about and was "assessed" and "judged" when thought was dominated by superstition, misconceptions--and a colossal ignorance of science and nature. There are thousands upon thousands of "verdicts"--most contradictory except for the wonder that many humans have imagined the existence of a "higher" power. So I consider your response to be nonsense.
"I was addressing the issue of evidence. Written records exist which attribute the scriptural message to an All Knowing God. That other written records exist is irrelevant."
That does not answer my point. Those written "claims" are not evidence and furthermore they are completely at odds with one another which makes all but one of those claims completely worthless. And there is no evidence to show that ANY one of those claims is more than worthless. Your response really says nothing at all.
"A belief, when it is universal, is evidence of a condition that is real"
There are no "universal" beliefs. And certainly the nature of thought is not at issue here. So let us not get sidetracked, OK? You were responding to my statement: "Indeed, the fact that these superstitions and philosophical speculations run and hop all about the warren is sufficient proof that they do not meet experimental requirements." And your response is entirely irrelevant, IMO.
"Proof is not the topic, as I understood it, evidence is"
Sound positions do not need to dribble semantics. Proof, evidence--whatever. "Adam" is neither proof nor evidence. Every religious person outside of some Christians, some Jews, and some followers of Allah...and ALL people rational and capable of a modicum of clear thought apart from dogma-consider "Adam" to be a creation story amongst thousands of creation stories--not proof or evidence of any "contact" whatsoever.
In case you are not aware of it, "Genesis" is two tribal creation myths entirely at odds with thousands of other creation myths and completely outside of the scientific and EVIDENTIAL story of life. What are we going to do next? Drink kool-aid??
"In this case, I presume you are excluding scientists who consider the ethereal aspects of existence to coexist with the temporal"
Your presumption is erroneous. I do consider the "ethereal aspects of existence". I was asking you why the poppycock about religious claims of "contact" with thousands of different "gods" was not MAINSTREAM science. I had hoped that a common effort was being made to bring religious claims into a scientific crucible for examination. I am trying to do that but your vague and dilatory words do not assist the matter.
"There is a core consciousness that pervades which testifies to will and purpose. It is ironic that religionists can be cruel and heinously brutal, in spite of that."
If you don't have a response to my comments please save yourself these meaningless asides. My comment was that these "Testimonials from the believing congregations of the world" were at odds with one another.
So probably the only fairly constant assumption is that there is a supernatural world. The disagreements as to what that is are so profound that they are the genesis of unending warfare and bitter polemic. Evidence that flies in every direction and ends in thousands of different conclusions or "proofs" is not evidence. IT IS MYTH AND FANCY.
I take you back to your metaphor about "jurors" and I repeat that in a court of evidence there are not thousands of "verdicts"--there is ONE. |
