Define "Evidence"

@puzzledperson,

puzzledperson wrote:

. . . Why should a superior being demand worship? If a human scientist created some sort of minor beings to boss them around and demand veneration as a god, he would be deranged.

I could be wrong, but perhaps some insight may be gleaned from an examination of man's relationship with God before and after the events of Genesis chapter 3.
Their first command was to fill the earth and master it, not an unreasonable request, IMO. Then there was the warning about the fatal consequence of eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad. Before they ate, they had regular visits with God and free communication. That was about all the "worship" that the scriptures tell us of. No holy water, no genuflecting, no mumbo, no jumbo, and no priests.

But, according to what was written, after the intervention of the "serpent", the direct relationship with God was broken. The "serpent" or "Satan" had inserted himself between humans and their creator, causing a separation that continues to exist. So perhaps what we now see or experience as "worship" is what some feel obligated to practice in order to show which side they are on.

4 Replies

@neologist,

If I might briefly indulge in the fanfiction: Takes a pretty powerful serpent to screw up a creator's plans like that. Wonder where that serpent got such power...

0 Replies

@puzzledperson,

Quote:

Recognise what? Godhood? What does recognition of godhood entail? And what is meant by "God"?

Obviously you do not recognize him. So how could you possibly know what it means to 'worship' him? The two are inseperable.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Many threads contain posts asking for or submitting "evidence" for or against certain theses in question.

But what is meant by the term evidence?

Take my hammer toe, for example. It's ugly.
And it's evidence.
But evidence of what?
And can it be used for proof of anything? If so, how does it fit into the argument? Perhaps it is simply data. But then, should it not be evaluated/measured for degree of variation from what is normal?

OK, I know I have already drifted from the topic. But my purpose is to call attention to the diffuse application of terms such as, first of all:
Evidence, but also:
Data
Hypothesis
Fact
Test
Theory
Law
Truth
Falsifiability
Necessary
Conclusion
Sufficient
Science
Technology

Not necessarily in that order and not a complete list.

It seems to me, if you wish to present a coherent argument, you should have at least a basic understanding of rhetoric. Every time you drive your car to buy pizza, you rely on the trusted conclusions of others. Do you understand why?

Here are a few discussions from a2k archives that may be interesting.

Evidence related to global warming briefly discused here

Evidence versus Proof

What is the difference between necessary and sufficient?

Thomas said here

Quote:

After all, facts are what establishes the truth or falsehood of any claim about the world.

razzleg wrote:

Just sayin', where was "warrant" on that list?

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

puzzledperson wrote:
. . . Why should a superior being demand worship? If a human scientist created some sort of minor beings to boss them around and demand veneration as a god, he would be deranged.
I could be wrong, but perhaps some insight may be gleaned from an examination of man's relationship with God before and after the events of Genesis chapter 3.
Their first command was to fill the earth and master it, not an unreasonable request, IMO. Then there was the warning about the fatal consequence of eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad. Before they ate, they had regular visits with God and free communication. That was about all the "worship" that the scriptures tell us of. No holy water, no genuflecting, no mumbo, no jumbo, and no priests.

But, according to what was written, after the intervention of the "serpent", the direct relationship with God was broken. The "serpent" or "Satan" had inserted himself between humans and their creator, causing a separation that continues to exist. So perhaps what we now see or experience as "worship" is what some feel obligated to practice in order to show which side they are on.

Sorry "the fall" play such an important part in your religion, Neo.

It is one of the most useless pieces of trash ever to infect literature.

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

But, according to what was written . . . blah, blah, blah . . . woof! woof!

Yeah, "what was written" . . . that's some proof you've got there, sucker.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

neologist wrote:

But, according to what was written

Setanta wrote:

. . . blah, blah, blah . . . woof! woof!Yeah, "what was written" . . . that's some proof you've got there, sucker.

OK, you're right.
It was just my opinion.
I thought I had made that clear.

0 Replies

@neologist,

I don't object to neologist's introduction of the OT story of the fall; after all, worship is a theistic concept, and every form of theism exists within a particular framework, whether it's biblical, non-biblical, or even strictly personal.

But if worship is just a pledge of allegiance, then I don't see what additional meaning the term conveys. I'm looking at this as much from a linguistic standpoint as anything else. A knight might kneel (abase himself) before a medieval king, pledge fealty to him, even acknowledge his "divine right" to rule, without worshipping him as God.

And in my view, historical kings seem pretty insecure, despite all the trappings of power. That's why a visible, public demonstration of inferiority is necessary, to demonstrate the relative pecking order. Because at the end of the day, kings can be controlled or even overthrown by their nobles or by the masses.

To me, the concept of worship seems to stem not from the need of God (or a god, in the case of polytheism) so much as from the need of men to regard their fealty as something of value to a more powerful being, one that might perform favors if propitiated, or at least, one that might refrain from doing mischief if propitiated. But the idea that the sovereign and eternal master of the universe would need a bull or a lamb sacrificed to him strikes me as bizarre.

There is also something diabolistic to me in the idea that a sacrifice of the innocent must be performed to atone for the sins of the guilty, whether that is a burnt offering (animal lamb) as in the Old Testament, or a human "lamb" as in the New Testament. And the concept of Original Sin (punishing all mankind for the transgression of Adam and Eve) lacks moral justification. Just imagine if someone suggested incorporating such a principle into a system of jurisprudence.

What kind of moral authority would use Job as a kind of cosmic bar bet between God and the devil? Why would God feel the need to prove anything to Satan?

Why allow evil impulses to be acted out, if sinning in one's heart is the same and God knows men's hearts?

What about disease organisms and natural catastrophes that don't involve the issue of allowing s free-willed agency a choice?

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote: "Obviously you do not recognize him. So how could you possibly know what it means to 'worship' him? The two are inseperable."

I'm asking you and other participants in this forum what "God" and "worship" are. Why don't you explain the terms?

Incidentally, which comes first: knowledge of God or worship of God? You say the two are inseparable, which seems to imply simultaneity; but then, how is worship possible for someone who doesn't know God, and how is it possible to know God without worshipping him? It seems to me that in phrasing it this way you've created a pretty little chicken and egg problem.

2 Replies

@puzzledperson,

The "world" is no chicken and egg problem. It exists and we along with it. We acknowledge it as our own happy circumstance.

1 Reply

@puzzledperson,

Quote:

I'm asking you and other participants in this forum what "God" and "worship" are. Why don't you explain the terms?

Incidentally, which comes first: knowledge of God or worship of God? You say the two are inseparable, which seems to imply simultaneity; but then, how is worship possible for someone who doesn't know God, and how is it possible to know God without worshipping him? It seems to me that in phrasing it this way you've created a pretty little chicken and egg problem.

I doubt anyone can explain God or worship to another in anything other than secular or religious abstractions, both of which are fairly useless. But you introduced another term in your post - knowledge of God.

Since recognition and worship are more or less the same, it is knowledge that must come first. To come to that first requires an openness to the idea that God exists. That openness has to grow to more than mere curiosity. There has to be an acknowledgement that something inside you 'needs' to know. If it isn't there, go on about your life until it is. When it is there (it happens to everyone at some point) and you acknowledge that it is there, God himself will reveal himself to you. That is the only way to come to that knowledge.

Recognition/worship will fall naturally after that.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
I'm asking you and other participants in this forum what "God" and "worship" are. Why don't you explain the terms?

Incidentally, which comes first: knowledge of God or worship of God? You say the two are inseparable, which seems to imply simultaneity; but then, how is worship possible for someone who doesn't know God, and how is it possible to know God without worshipping him? It seems to me that in phrasing it this way you've created a pretty little chicken and egg problem.
I doubt anyone can explain God or worship to another in anything other than secular or religious abstractions, both of which are fairly useless. But you introduced another term in your post - knowledge of God.

Since recognition and worship are more or less the same, it is knowledge that must come first. To come to that first requires an openness to the idea that God exists. That openness has to grow to more than mere curiosity. There has to be an acknowledgement that something inside you 'needs' to know. If it isn't there, go on about your life until it is. When it is there (it happens to everyone at some point) and you acknowledge that it is there, God himself will reveal himself to you. That is the only way to come to that knowledge.

Recognition/worship will fall naturally after that.

C'mon!

That was absolute nonsense...blather...and you should be intelligent enough to see it.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

What if I was already open minded, or even a believer, and now I'm not?

You say "God will reveal himself to me" if I look for him. But you haven't even defined God in a way that I find sensible. If you know God, surely you can put it simply enough. What is God -- to you? I just don't think the concept of God holds together.

If you want to find something badly enough, you might, especially if you find a feeling or a coincidence or something ambiguous enough to be explained some other way.

How would someone who doesn't know God be sure that when he goes looking for what has never made itself evident to him, he isn't just finding an aspect of his own mind? Or maybe a spirit or a devil? Perhaps the whole theism thing is just the devil playing good cop, bad cop? He wants so very badly to be worshipped by men, because at base he's driven by insecurity. Maybe he's both the boogeyman and the refuge? Maybe that's why he insists on unthinking obedience. Kill your firstborn son. Massacre whole cities down to the last woman, child, and animal. Maybe it's an alien, like Melvin Belli in that Star Trek episode. Doesn't the Bible say that the devil can appear as an angel of light? Maybe it's a mind-parasite. What if I'm a brain in a vat and the computer behind the reality simulation is playing tricks (or playing God), as part of some experiment or simply because it's out of control?

1 Reply

@puzzledperson,

You have the best but most far off argument by far, props.

The Bible has been passed down generations through people trying to cover it up. People have been tryinrg to destroy the Word for ages, but it's never truly destroyed. Why is that?

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Lol to you evolutionists it literally is. We're the chickens and the universe spilled out of my exploding protein packed breakfast ( the cosmic egg)

1 Reply

@Johnjohnjohn,

Quote:

Why is that?

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

0 Replies

@Johnjohnjohn,

"The Bible has been passed down generations through people trying to cover it up. People have been trying to destroy the Word for ages, but it's never truly destroyed."

Which Bible? The King James version wasn't commissioned until the early 17th century. The translation is said to be the work of 54 Anglicans working as a committee.

The Roman Catholic Bible defined by the Council of Trent in the middle 16th century as orthodox isn't the same as the King James.

The late 4th and early 5th century Vulgate version by Jerome wasn't the same as either the King James or the Roman Catholic Bible based on the Vulgate, and several texts called apocryphal by Jerome are included in the Catholic canon deemed orthodox by the Council of Trent.

The Vetus Latina used before Jerome isn't the same as any of these.

In Christ's time there was no Bible. The authors of the various New Testament books might have been divinely inspired but they wrote independently without any knowledge of each other or intent to combine their works into a book. There were many accounts of Christ and his message circulating for hundreds of years after his death in various editions and translations, many of them by sects that are now considered to be non-orthodox and were so considered by the Roman Catholic Council of Nicaea, which in the 4th century (before Jerome) was the first group of Church fathers to define orthodoxy and make it stick, at least as regards certain central doctrinal questions, though not with respect to canon or translation.

Where does the Bible call itself the Word? Since there was no Bible at the time of the Apostles following Christ's death, any version of the Bible that did this would be suspect. Christ himself was referred to as the Word in the Book of John.

1 Reply

@puzzledperson,

I thought this thread was about evidence?

2 Replies

@Johnjohnjohn,

P.S. Even in the Protestant Bible as it exists today, even among the four gospels, there seem to be some variations of an important sort.

In my New King James Version, Matthew 19:17 has Christ saying "Why do you call me good? No one is good but One, that is God." That seems like a peculiar statement from someone who believes himself to be God. In verse 28, Christ tells his twelve disciples (including Judas the betrayer) that they will sit on twelve thrones, judging the tribes of Israel; which seems like a funny thing to say unless you believe Judas will end up in this position of heavenly authority regardless. In Chapter 24, Christ speaks to the disciples of the tribulation, the end of the age, the falling of the stars from heaven, the darkening of the sun and moon, and the coming of the Lord who will gather his elect; and in verse 34 he says that all those things will take place before the generation alive at the time of his speaking passes away.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Doesn't discussion of the evidentiary value of the Bible count?

Besides, this thread has taken a lot of forks, and I'm only responding to a comment replying to me.

1 Reply

Define "Evidence"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know