EVIDENCE

317 posts / 0 new
Last post
Diotrephes's picture
LogicForTW,

LogicForTW,

Have you ever considered how many calories a person would have to consume for a limb to grow back and how painful it would be?

LogicForTW's picture
No I have not. I am sure it

No I have not. I am sure it is quite a bit. Especially if people wanted it to grow back quickly or "over night." There is a million things wrong with the idea of spontaneous limb regrowth in an adult human. Calories and pain are only 2 of many. Imagine two entire legs. All the bone, all the muscle, all the flesh, all the nerves. It takes a human ~18 years to get the full length of their legs. Not a quick process.

Diotrephes's picture
LogicForTW,

LogicForTW,

I think a workable process using current technology would be to scan a body and use it as a blueprint for 3D printing a prosthetic that incorporates robotics. They already have the basic capability for doing things like that but this would be specific to the individual. For instance, a soldier gets his body scanned prior to combat and if he loses a limb a new one is made using data from his original scan. It would be identical in shape, size, and weight. It shouldn't be that complex of a thing to do.

LogicForTW's picture
Sorry for delayed response.

Sorry for delayed response.

Not a bad idea, scanning a soldiers limbs to allow for greater reproduction of prosthetics.

Prosthetics still have a long way to go before they are even close to replacing the limb lost though. Although nice advancements are being made all the time.

I personally am looking forward to exoskeletons that are light and compact, but will allow me to be fully mobile well into my 80's and 90's. No wheelchairs/canes/steppers for me! I will be out mowing my own lawn well into my 90's! (Okay maybe a lawn mower on remote control, but you get the idea, full independence even in my late age when my body begins to fail me.)

Sheldon's picture
The ironic thing is that

The ironic thing is that there are species that can regrow detached limbs, spiders for instance. Now why would a deity create them, but refuse to answer the prayers of the faithful?

I think Occam's razor works just fine here to be honest.

Diotrephes's picture
Sheldon,

Sheldon,

You've just identified something that will make you super-rich and famous. Get busy in your lab and synthesize the compound from spiders and lizards that allow them to regrow body parts. You can even throw in some plant compounds for stabilizers. You should be able to get it done within the next 12 months.

Tin-Man's picture
@Dio Re: "Get busy in your

@Dio Re: "Get busy in your lab and synthesize the compound from spiders and lizards that allow them to regrow body parts."

Hate to break it to you, Dio, but that has sorta already been tried in a Spiderman movie. Didn't work out very well, by the way. People killed. Lots and lots of major property damage. Emotional trauma and scarring. Friends becoming enemies. Failed relationships. It was a disaster.....

Aw, what the hell. Fuck-it. GO FOR IT, SHELDON!

Sheldon's picture
Still no one prepared to try

Still no one prepared to try and offer any objective evidence for the existence of a deity, and it's been by my count 17 days since this thread offers theists that opportunity. Now there are theists on here who like to attack atheism, and atheists, and who even like to deny scientific facts, yet none of those theists can demonstrate objective evidence for a deity? What are we to think...

JoC's picture
Evidence has been presented.

Evidence has been presented. You simply choose to dismiss them coz it threatens your atheism.

How about the argument from first cause. Or the argument from motion. Or the argument from contingency. You say they've been debunked but I've yet to see them be debunked at all.

Sheldon's picture
"Evidence has been presented.

"Evidence has been presented. You simply choose to dismiss them coz it threatens your atheism."

An unsubstantiated claim from an 8th century monk for what he thought was a miracle maybe something you consider objective evidence, sadly you're woefully wrong. If you think that "threatens" my disbelief then I don't know what to say to you, but again you're woefully wrong.

"How about the argument from first cause. "

How about it? Firstly it is a deeply flawed argument, secondly it is not objective evidence by definition, and lastly it's not even an argument for the existence of a deity but for a first cause, unless you use pure assumption and argumentum ad ignorantiam like WLC.

"You say they've been debunked but I've yet to see them be debunked at all."

So what? This thread is asking for objective evidence for the existence of a deity, it;s not a thread for me to try and reverse a lifetime of indoctrination in theists who now have no critical thinking ability and accept risible hearsay from 8th century monks as "scientific evidence", and for a supernatural miracle no less.

Is this really all you have to base your beliefs on?

NB I started a separate thread for arguments for the existence of a deity, as opposed to objective evidence as the few theists who have bothered to post here seem confused about the difference..

JoC's picture
Let me pose the question this

Let me pose the question this way, Sheldon. What would need to happen for you to say, "That's God and there's no other reason but God"?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ JoC " Let me pose the

@ JoC " Let me pose the question this"

Oooh pick me, pick me *thrusts hand in air*

If your YHWH was stood right in front of me with Yeshua bin Josef and a large penis on a stick called the Wholly Vodka. And they were all one person, but I could still see each of them...

Can I go now Miss? Why are you sobbing? Miss???

Sheldon's picture
Seriously? Well let me try

Seriously? Well let me try and show how that question appears to an open minded objective viewer.

"Let me pose the question this way, JoC. What would need to happen for you to say, "That's XXXXXX and there's no other reason but XXXXXX"?"

I have said repeatedly said that I apply the same criteria for all claims, and without bias, which is the definition of open minded. That objective evidence be demonstrated commensurate to the claim. You're asking me a meaningless question. What evidence would need to be demonstrated before you would believe there is an invisible unicorn in front of you, that is undetectable in any empirical way? Loaded questions about unfalsifiable claims are easy to create.

Now what objective evidence can you demonstrate that any deity is real? I'll go way out on a limb here to help, subjective claims from believers of any faith, or arguments based on known common logical fallacies, rounded off with pure biased assumption, are as far removed from objective evidence as it's possible to get.

Take the arguments to the thread I started for them, and before you claim objective evidence for a miracle flip on a news channel, and ask yourself why it isn't ticker taped across the bottom of a screen showing the Pope receiving the celebrations of the massed faithful in St. Peter's Square, and if you're remotely interested in being honest or objective that's not an easy question to answer.

Sorry, it is an easy question to answer of course, but only if you're objective and open minded. You claimed to have based your belief on a weight of evidence, so again I'm wondering, why in a thread for objective evidence you don't just demonstrate the best of it? Instead we get claims for a miracle from an 8th century monk, and common logical fallacy, can you see why I am dubious about a claim you can't back up at all?

JoC's picture
What is this that you mean by

What is this that you mean by objective evidence? I’m trying to get to the meat of what you’re looking for specifically here. Would you need to see God with your own eyes? Or again, would traces be enough?

How about reality? Everything you see, perceive abd experience are things that don’t have to exist. I don’t need to exist. The computer you’re using doesn’t have to exist. Nothing in the universe has to exist. Why then is there something rather than nothing? Existence of something demands an explanation. And no other explanation for reality existing other than the existence of “being” itself, which we call God.

It’s like seeing an apple in the middle of an empty room. Why is the apple there? It takes more faith for me to say the apple had always been there since the room was made than to simply acknowledge that someone brought the apple in and left it there. In the same way, I’d ask, why is there the empty room at all? It would take more faith for me to say that the room had always existed in that state than acknowledge that some construction workers made the room. Continue this reasoning until you come up with, “Why does anything exist at all?” It would take far more faith for me to accept that everything just exists and has so for all eternity than to acknowledge that existence has a cause, which we call God.

Sheldon's picture
Argumentum ad ingnorantiam,

Argumentum ad ingnorantiam, please look this up as you genuinely still seem to not know you're basing all your arguments on this common logical fallacy.

"acknowledge that existence has a cause, which we call God."

Do you have any objective evidence that existence had a cause, let alone that the cause was a deity? The thread is for objective evidence after all, not for you to endlessly repeat common logical fallacies like argumentum ad ignorantiam.

JoC's picture
Let me turn the question back

Let me turn the question back to you.

Between the two mutually exclusive events of,

Existence of reality has a cause and
Existence of reality does not have a cause

Which one is more likely to be true? All scientific study we have is actually based on the assumption that everything that exists has to be caused by one thing or another. If we’re to reject this, might as well reject all scientific inquiry as it can be accepted that things happen without a reasonable cause.

There’s also the case that an infinite series of causes cannot exist. Need an explanation of this as well?

Therefore there must be a first cause of existence and it cannot be caused to exist by anything else except itself.

Nyarlathotep's picture
JoC - If we’re to reject this

JoC - If we’re to reject this, might as well reject all scientific inquiry as it can be accepted that things happen without a reasonable cause.

Newton is often cited as the first scientist to reject the notion that things need reasonable reasons to happen. In the last 100 years your idea has been repudiated over and over again. This idea of reasonable cause and effect is NOT how the world works.

JoC's picture
So, you'd agree to that

So, you'd agree to that things can simply not have a cause at all to happen? I agree that somethings we may not know the cause of. Or that reality might not behave how we know they would behave. It doesn't follow that reality or existence doesn't have a reasonable cause.

Nyarlathotep's picture
JoC - I agree that somethings

JoC - I agree that somethings we may not know the cause of.

It is worse than that. There are things we know can't have causes (unless you are willing to accept randomness as a cause).

JoC's picture
Examples of which are? I don

Examples of which are? I don't accept randomness as cause. But I'm interested in what these may be.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Consider the decay of a

Consider the decay of a neutron (into a proton + some other junk). Experimentally we know that a free neutron has about a 50% chance to decay in a 15 minute period (it has a half life of 15 minutes). We also know all neutrons are identical (this part is super important).

So let's say we start with 2 free neutrons and then check them 15 minutes later, and let's say we happen to find that one has decayed and the other did not. It is impossible to attribute this decay to any cause, because anything that you say caused the first decay, did not cause the 2nd to decay; yet there was no difference between them.

Or to put it another way. If the cause X, acting on A, produces effect K; then the cause X, acting on B (which is identical to A), must also produce effect K. The decay of neutrons (any many many other processes) does not take this form; as we get different results from identical particles. Randomness is here to stay.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Nyar

@ Nyar

Now that is fascinating...and understandable.

Thank you.

JoC's picture
True enough. This is

True enough. This is Newtonian. But remember, you can’t use Newton’s laws or his framework when dealing with the smallest particles. Quantum mechanics is what governs the very small. So really the most your case is saying is that we cannot know for certain what will happen. Not that we know for certain that there does not exist a cause.

Nyarlathotep's picture
JoC - True enough. This is

JoC - True enough. This is Newtonian. But remember, you can’t use Newton’s laws or his framework when dealing with the smallest particles. Quantum mechanics is what governs the very small.

Newtonian mechanics is the mechanics of cause and effect. That is exactly my point. We do not live in a Newtonian universe. We do however live in a pretty good approximation to a Newtonian world. We live in a world where cause and effect makes sense in most macroscopic situations. But this world is underpinned by non-Newtonian physics that contains pure randomness. And to be clear, this isn't my argument; this is the standard model in the field.
-----------------------------------------------------------

JoC - So really the most your case is saying is that we cannot know for certain what will happen. Not that we know for certain that there does not exist a cause.

It is worse than that. If you grant the postulates of QM: we know that no one can ever know what will happen, because nature itself does not know.

JoC's picture
You’re actually forcing a

You’re actually forcing a Newtonian view on QM in order to make your point. Which still doesn’t counter what I said.

Using your neutron example, would we say that the fact that the neutron has a 50% chance of decaying has no cause at all?

Nyarlathotep's picture
You’re actually forcing a

You’re actually forcing a Newtonian view on QM in order to make your point.

I did no such thing.

Using your neutron example, would we say that the fact that the neutron has a 50% chance of decaying has no cause at all?

Remember we had 2 neutrons which are identical. Which means you need a cause that when acting on the 1st neutron resulted in a decay, but when asking on the 2nd neutron didn't result in a decay. But since the neutrons are identical, anything that caused the 1st one to decay must also cause the 2nd neutron to decay since it can't tell them apart. If it could tell them apart, then they aren't identical. This leaves only randomness as a cause, but you said randomness isn't a cause; which leaves no cause.

Sheldon's picture
"All scientific study we have

"All scientific study we have is actually based on the assumption that everything that exists has to be caused "

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of both science and the Kalam (edit spelling) cosmological argument.

1. Every single example science has of cause and effect is material.
2. Every single example science has of cause and effect is evidence within the temporal state of the physical universe.
3. Science does not and cannot evidence supernatural causation, by definition.
4. Prior to the origin of the universe time did not exist, so to claim the universe had a beginning shows a fundamental ignorance of the concepts of the science cosmology and theoretical physics as it applies to the big bang theory.
5. It's fascinating to me that theist who deny every example if every human life to claim (without evidence) thing like virgin births and resurrection, insist cause and effect can be used an absolute?
6. Science does not support the conclusions you are assuming. Turn on any news channel if you don't believe me.

What you're offering is a common logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam. Why do you keep ignoring this???

No argument can be asserted as rationally valid if it contains a logical fallacy.

Lastly, and again I have to say it's dishonest of you to ignore this, an argument is not objective evidence...by definition.

You're being dishonest.

JoC's picture
Which is why I keep on asking

Which is why I keep on asking what does this objective evidence you’re looking for. You earlier referenced an invisible unicorn.

The difference between your invisible unicorn and God is that the unicorn should exist in space in time by its very definition. This goes the same with the Flying Spaghetti Monster or a wise old man. God, as deduced thru the arguments for God would necessarily be eternal (for him to create Time) and immaterial (for him to create space).

Anything else that we know truly exists without being in space and time? Numbers and the rules of math. Except God is a mind (also immaterial). Btw, mind and brain are not the same thing.

Sheldon's picture
"The difference between your

"The difference between your invisible unicorn and God is that the unicorn should exist in space in time by its very definition."

Nah, it's transcendent see, but it is so powerful, as it created everything, it can interfere in the physical universe. I told you it is undetectable in any empirical way. all hail the invisible unicorn, amen.

But this is moot as all I was doing was showing you that unfalsifiable makes a claim useless. In science the phrase is "not even wrong" for something so useless it can't even be falsified, and so can teach us nothing as it has no explanatory powers whatsoever, like your god claim really.

"God would necessarily be eternal (for him to create Time) "

As would the invisible unicorn. Now do you see where this is going? I substitute the invisible unicorn every time you reference god, and so either we have proved invisible unicorn is real or your argument's are nonsense? Unless of course you can demonstrate some objective evidence for your deity?

"Anything ****else**** that we ****know**** truly exists without being in space and time? "

I'm so tired of pointing out you're using logical fallacies now I'm just going to go ahead and put the salient claim in asterisks so you can work it out for yourself. Since I'm rolling this out for the first time I'll give you a break and explain this one for you, by saying know, and anything else, you have used the fallacy of begging the question, in other words you have assumed the point your trying to argue in your argument, namely that a transcendent god is known to exist. I've just checked every major news network and they seem to have missed this??

"Numbers and the rules of math. "

I need more sorry? What about it?

"Except God is a mind (also immaterial). "

Sigh, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE.

"Btw, mind and brain are not the same thing."

Another so what moment. The mind is the product of the brain, unless you can objectively evidence a mind that exists without a brain? Rather than just assert it for your deity as you keep doing.

Page 7 and not one post even pretending to be objective evidence. At least no one has mentioned faith.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

Ok Ok already, I will install a 100,000 'Likes' button. Brilliant post and solid reasoning.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.