Timeline for Can a coincidence be evidence of a god?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 9 at 15:51 | comment | added | Dcleve | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Nov 9 at 15:49 | comment | added | Dcleve | JD's warning that we are subject to confirmatory bias is also good, but he does not then reflect this warning back on the "skeptics" as well, who are also often operating on motivated reasoning to dismiss evidences for things they do not want to believe in. Should I write and answer, I would also want to note that we are evaluating worldviews, and science is not capable of doing that, as science is derivative from a specific narrow epistemology. To evaluate ontologies, one needs to accept a broader approach to justification. I use "warrant for belief" strongly influenced by Lakatos. | |
| Nov 9 at 15:44 | comment | added | Dcleve | I have upvoted three answers on this question so no need for a minor improvement. The top answer, by user6527, correctly notes that coincidences are evidence for a hypothesis, and add incrementally to supporting evidence. The use of a mass of evidences, some sometimes of small weight, is called consilience, and is at of how science is done. The second answer, by Marco Ocram, also correctly notes that a single coincidental observation is of such low evidential value by itself to approximate zero, but he then draws a wrong conclusion that it is not evidence. | |
| Nov 9 at 9:40 | comment | added | Futilitarian | At this point, it would be far more useful for everyone if you would post an answer which details the best evidence you can muster. I'm sincerely interested in what you might write. | |
| Nov 9 at 9:32 | comment | added | Dcleve | You have had four different commentators object to your answer on the same grounds. Explanatory utility is evidence for a hypothesis, we do not need some additional evidence for it before we consider it based on explanatory utility. Despite four objections, and my suggestion you reread and reconsider your phrasing if that is not what you meant, you have done nothing to defend your claim that one must have evidence independent of explanatory utility, nor revised your answer to remove the two-stage evidence requirement your answer calls for. | |
| Nov 9 at 8:54 | comment | added | Futilitarian | Respectfully, I don't think you're qualified to tell me what I'm willing to consider. I haven't objected to anything you said about Kant. All I objected to was your clear conflating of two different statements, which you failed to acknowledge. There's a thread of assumption in your comments which does neither of us or any readers any favours. | |
| Nov 9 at 7:20 | comment | added | Dcleve | You clearly are NOT willing to consider such evidence. I already presented the consensus of philosophy of science since Kant that our world is contingent, and the only criteria that a theory has to satisfy before it is "considered" is does it fit observed data, not a prior screening of theories as to whether they are "possible" before they can be fit to data. Your added criteria has been refuted by the demonstrated contingency of our universe. There is no separate evidence for our theories other than they match our world. | |
| Nov 8 at 11:08 | comment | added | Futilitarian | @Dcleve. Stating 'we have no evidence that x is possible' is not equivalent to stating 'theories about the existence of x are impossible'. I'm perfectly willing to consider such theories if they are presented. | |
| Nov 8 at 7:05 | comment | added | Dcleve | "We have no evidence that it is possible" is an assertion about logical possibilities. You made this assertion about logical possibility to rationalize IGNORING possible evidences! You might want to reread what you wrote. | |
| Nov 7 at 23:44 | comment | added | Futilitarian | @Dcleve. All I read in my answer is that we have no evidence for a God. I'm not making a positive claim that a God doesn't exist. In essence, I'm merely asking for evidence from those who claim to have it. Contrary to your claim, I've made no statement about 'what theories are possible'. Or am I missing something?. | |
| Nov 7 at 22:06 | comment | added | Dcleve | you made a claim about what theories are possible, and used that to dismiss the possibility of evidence. In general, post-Kant, we assume that all theories are possible, unless there is a structural logical problem with them. It is on you to justify a claim that there is such a structural/logical problem with God theories. | |
| Nov 7 at 21:46 | comment | added | Futilitarian | Doesn't the burden rest on those who claim there is such evidence? Perhaps you could list any arguments you believe qualify. That way people can research them and either be convinced or not. | |
| Nov 7 at 17:29 | comment | added | Dcleve | Unsupported claim: "We have no evidence that it is possible for a god to exist, so why would we ever call upon a god as an answer to such a question?" This assertion is both unsupported, but also almost certainty untrue. For it to be true, we would need to have no evidence that there is a large range of logically possible metaphysics of our universe, and the inherent contingency of our universe is instead strongly evidenced. | |
| Mar 18, 2023 at 23:56 | comment | added | Futilitarian | @DarkMalthorp. A very good question. | |
| Mar 18, 2023 at 19:22 | comment | added | user46575 | I wonder what kind of evidence would you require to consider that it is "possible for a god to exist" | |
| Mar 18, 2023 at 2:40 | comment | added | Futilitarian | @DarkMalthorp. I don't see anything in my answer that says anything about whether it is possible for a god to exist. | |
| Mar 17, 2023 at 20:07 | comment | added | user46575 | You say "we have no evidence that it is possible for a god to exist" but your subsequent reasoning depends on a different proposition, i.e. "it is not possible for a god to exist." | |
| Mar 16, 2023 at 8:10 | comment | added | Futilitarian | Then I'd want to know how it constitutes such evidence. | |
| Mar 16, 2023 at 7:43 | comment | added | user62907 | What if one argues that this very event is evidence of that being? | |
| Mar 16, 2023 at 7:34 | comment | added | Futilitarian | The fact something seems unexplainable to us (other than as an incredibly unlikely event) in no way can demonstrate the existence of a being for which we have no evidence. The only way you might modify your question that I can think of is by defining God with parameters that make such a demonstration possible. But remember, unless we have evidence of such a being, it doesn't really get us anywhere. | |
| Mar 16, 2023 at 7:22 | comment | added | user62907 | Doesn’t this just beg an explanation for what is considered explainable then? If this person did this weekly for example and had this happen, there would be a pattern. This would seem obviously unexplainable by chance and yet theoretically, it is also possible for this to occur naturally, no? | |
| Mar 16, 2023 at 7:10 | history | answered | Futilitarian | CC BY-SA 4.0 |