So called philosophical evidence for god are not really even evidence

Debby wrote:

Jesus turning water into wine, healing the sick, feeding a crowd of 5000 gathered to hear him speak were all called miracles and the people of his time accepted it as so. Science has no explanation for those miracles and they remain as miracles.

So the story goes.

These are repeated anecdotes, though, and they're rooted in observation, science even. Repeated anecdotes are a trend and these things can be measured, even if its indirectly. You may have a point that its merely anecdotal evidence, or circumstantial evidence, but it is evidence. Yes there is evidence of the supernatural and it would be irrational to contest that, or playing games with philosophy to get around that. With that said, you may be right and are probably right that it doesn't rise to the level of being called empirical evidence, but its at least noteworthy enough to ask why or why not it shouldn't be called empirical, like theres a philosophical question there about what actually counts as empirical

The miracles were recorded as true and included in the Bible with eyewitness accounts.

I never argued there was no evidence. I consider philosophical and logical argumentation to be evidence. I stipulate more evidence than you do. 😉

I am simply pointing out what you consider the strongest evidence (miracles and NDE) do not rise to your own standard (Legal/scientific).

I wouldn't be so quick to say the evidence doesnt count as evidence legally and scientifically. The key point in those domains is that mere philosophy shouldn't count as evidence if theres nothing tying it to the real world. Yes we can point out that its probably not empirical but its still tied to the real world, its even scientific. Repeated anecdotes and observations mean something, they aren't meaningless. They're a trend. I know skeptics like to put their heads in the sand and deny all terms or conditions but that is not a rational approach to repeated observations. I maintain they do count as evidence scientifically and legally, and its fair to question what we should conclude from that evidence but its not fair to question its basis to begin with. Ultimately the totality of science and history and philosophy point common sense wise to what they indicste, point towards. The supernatural. But if course im not about to declare that ive proven the supernatural. Totally lacking common sense to think otherwise tho

Dr long a cancer doctor and the founder of nderf said we know more about the afterlife than we do many forms of cancer. You wouldn't reject a conclusion that looks right simply cause we cant prove them empirically would you? Do you accept dark energy and matter? We know more about what looks to be supernatural than we do those subjects and much in the way of commonly accepted science hypothesis

Proof of no Afterlife. Demographers estimate that approximately 117 billion people have been born over the course of human history.

Proof of afterlife increases the population as the dead come back to life or are reincarnated. The world population keeps growing.

Repeated anecdotes are never valid as scientific evidence. At best, they might be a justification to start formal investigation. Just to be clear, that is not the same thing as scientific evidence because investigation may or may not reveal something real.

Spectral evidence, in any quantity, is not considered evidence in a court of law.

I dont think my position is wrong or controversial, but I'm open to being proven wrong.

Though there is no proof of afterlife...We make up stories of the supernatural...And we speculate about many other things too.

Spectral evidence is mostly philosophical when it comes to ndes the ndes themselves. Obe vertical experiences with witnesses under peer review stidy and inexplicable healing that look supernatural under peet review study... these are not examples of spectral evidence. Credible people repeatedly claim to see supernatural things and this is not spectral and counts as evidence. Even if ndes are spectral they are in the loosest sense evidence in that they make a proposition more likely to be true so id say it should be admitted as part of the overall picture

It is starting to seem like you are not arguing for scientific/legal standards, but that these standards should be lowered. These standards are what they are. I dont know what to tell you.

You ignored most of what i said. Nde experiences are arguably spectral but peer reviewed things healing and peer reviewed obe experiences with witnesses and people claiming to see supernatural things in the real world are not spectral, and are text book definitions of evidence

"Repeated anecdotes are never valid as scientific evidence."

Says who?

Also whether something counts as this or that as evidence isn't the real point. The point is that they're not just anecdotes but anecdotes that happen repeatedly and predictably. Just use common sense

Just use common sense

I'm pretty sure thats not part of the scientific method. 🤔 Seriously, science is all about weeding out opinion. There are many things in the real world that defy 'common sense'.

Nde experiences are arguably spectral

You said this was the strongest evidence for god, but you also acknowledge the inaccessibility of it.

but peer reviewed things healing

I dont know what you're talking about. Intercessory prayer study? No change or worse outcomes. Spontaeous remission? Human error in diagnosis or many other natural explanations. No IRB has ever verified supernatural healing.

and peer reviewed obe experiences with witnesses

'Out of body experiences' have natural explanations. We can generate these experiences on demand.

and people claiming to see supernatural things in the real world are not spectral, and are text book definitions of evidence

Supernatural evidence is not accepted by the courts, and science famously operates on methodological naturalism. So, these are not textbook legal or scientific definitions of evidence.

The following is the only argument you can make regarding obe that are observed under peer review

this is precisely where skeptics introduce a critical layer of analysis: **the evidence base is not neutral**. It is shaped by multiple forms of bias that systematically inflate the appearance of accuracy.

The first is **selection bias**. Most OBE cases enter the literature through voluntary reporting—books, interviews, or retrospective studies. People are far more likely to report experiences that are vivid, unusual, or seemingly accurate than those that are vague, incorrect, or mundane. This means the dataset we see is already filtered toward “hits,” while “misses” remain largely invisible. In other words, we may be observing not the true distribution of outcomes, but a curated subset.

Closely related is **publication bias**. Researchers, publishers, and audiences are naturally drawn to compelling stories. A case where someone correctly describes an operating room event is far more likely to be written up than a case where someone’s recollections are clearly wrong or unverifiable. Over time, this skews the literature toward the extraordinary, creating the impression that accurate perception is more common than it actually is.

Then there is **confirmation bias**, which operates at multiple levels. Experiencers may unintentionally reconstruct their memories in light of what they later learn. Third-party witnesses—doctors, nurses, family members—may affirm matches that are approximate rather than exact. Researchers themselves may interpret ambiguous details as meaningful correspondences. A statement that is general or partially correct can, after the fact, be seen as impressively accurate. The result is a subtle but powerful inflation of evidential strength

Of course if a person sees something that wasnt possible for them to see cause they were dead, and this happens repeatedly hundreds of times and becomes predictable your argument is weak and taken at face value absolutely false

Regarding things that look supernatural happening to christians under peer review. You should say those types of things probably happen to atheists and other religions. But of course when I ask you to prove it you wouldn't be able to.

I could go on and on making arguments that you r too dense to make yourself, cause you only know how to argue like a high school kid. I grow tired of these head in sand and irrelevant posts from skeptics but I also dont like debating myself

The first is **selection bias**. Most OBE cases enter the literature through voluntary reporting—books, interviews, or retrospective studies. People are far more likely to report experiences that are vivid, unusual, or seemingly accurate than those that are vague, incorrect, or mundane. This means the dataset we see is already filtered toward “hits,” while “misses” remain largely invisible. In other words, we may be observing not the true distribution of outcomes, but a curated subset.

Valid.

Closely related is **publication bias**. Researchers, publishers, and audiences are naturally drawn to compelling stories. A case where someone correctly describes an operating room event is far more likely to be written up than a case where someone’s recollections are clearly wrong or unverifiable. Over time, this skews the literature toward the extraordinary, creating the impression that accurate perception is more common than it actually is.

Valid.

Then there is **confirmation bias**, which operates at multiple levels. Experiencers may unintentionally reconstruct their memories in light of what they later learn. Third-party witnesses—doctors, nurses, family members—may affirm matches that are approximate rather than exact. Researchers themselves may interpret ambiguous details as meaningful correspondences. A statement that is general or partially correct can, after the fact, be seen as impressively accurate. The result is a subtle but powerful inflation of evidential strength

Valid.

Of course if a person sees something that wasnt possible for them to see cause they were dead,

Are you open to the fact that such a case could be explained by one, or all, of the criticisms you provided above? If so, how do you show that's not the case? If not, well, you're not being honest with yourself.

Regarding things that look supernatural happening to christians under peer review.

I have no good reason to accept "peer-review" and "supernatural" belong in the same sentence, and neither do you.

I could go on and on making arguments that you r too dense to make yourself, cause you only know how to argue like a high school kid. I grow tired of these head in sand and irrelevant posts from skeptics but I also dont like debating myself

"Too dense", "argue like a high school kid", "head in the sand", all equates to ad hominem and does nothing to address the arguments.

"Are you open to the fact that such a case could be explained by one, or all, of the criticisms you provided above? If so, how do you show that's not the case? If not, well, you're not being honest with yourself."

In my evidence of the afterlife thread, i provided hundreds of examples of things occurring while the person was dead that they couldn't know unless they were out of their body. Some of these were observed under peer review. Theres countless examples more, plus examples of experiences like meeting relatives the person never knew till after they died which was later confirmed, shared death experiences where two people share a nde and later verify with each other what they saw. Could all this be a hoax or false or misconstrued? Its a super stretch considering some of this is observed under peer review and the countless testimony of credible people. As us believers argue all it takes is one black swan to prove black swans exist. And we shown countless black swans. If everything i argue about this is true, what's more likely? That im peddling conspiracy theories or that you are? Clearly, its you. The only thing you are proving, is that you are a deep skeptic. If you at least entertain the idea that you're wrong at least you're open minded about it. Im just used to dealing with people who are cock sure its all bunk.

The answer appears to be "no". You make no attempt to explain why the criticism is invalid. Instead you claim there are supernatural events that are peer-reviewed - which makes no sense to me. (Not to mention this is essentially testimony of testimony). I suggested some studies that might fit that description, but you disregarded this and did not provide any of your own.

Ive looked into the cases that I could figure out what youre talking about, and I've not seen what you claim. Perhaps, I am a stubbornly difficult non-believer with blinders, or maybe you read too much into the stories because your standard of evidence is too low.

Everything is an internal simulation derived from sensory input in the form of of either sensory signals or stored data.

Basically, NDE's and OBE's are created and viewed internally.

So OBE's are actually IBE's...And both NDE's and OBE's/IBE's are Not Dead Experiences.

If they were DE's how could they be "peer reviewed"?

Though how can a peer actually review another's internally generated imagery?

It's all belief based upon hearsay.

https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/religion/posts/1k/descriptions-of-the-protocols-used-in-peer-reviewed-studies-of-veridical-out-of-body-experiences--and-whether-these-prove-the-experiences-are-real

Thoughts?

SergeantLynch wrote:

Everything is an internal simulation derived from sensory input in the form of of either sensory signals or stored data.

Basically, NDE's and OBE's are created and viewed internally.

So OBE's are actually IBE's...And both NDE's and OBE's/IBE's are Not Dead Experiences.

If they were DE's how could they be "peer reviewed"?

Though how can a peer actually review another's internally generated imagery?

It's all belief based upon hearsay.

You and I are on the same page.

Well, based upon what I stated previously, actual "experiences" are always real...Most people dream don't they?

So under certain conditions the brain generates more intense internal imagery...Though like normal dreams, such imagery cannot be reviewed.

The concept of “God” is one of staggering human conceit, beginning with “created in His image”, and using that conceit to rationalize horrific crimes against nature and fellow humans who simply believe differently. Man’s inhumanity to Man begins and is defined throughout history by religion, and has resulted in countless cultures being eradicated by self righteous greed and imagined superiority, and the perfect excuse for racism and imperialism. Meanwhile, we take nature for granted as a gift from an imagined “god”, and have exploited it mercilessly, to the extinction of a multitude of species, and eventually, our own. Since the dawn of humanity, Nature is the creative entity that determines all life on this planet, but religion is a useful invention that allows humans to exploit nature to its destruction, while giving us a useful imaginary tool to control or kill off whatever we choose in the name of “god”.

"Allahu Akbar"

Allahu Akbar

Allah, like God, is a title, not a name, so we may be talking about the same Person, in the end, so I don't give a flip what you akbar. Plenty of "akbar" has been invoked to kill allegedly indiscriminately for Allah, too, so don't get too wrapped up in that nosey atmosphere.

By the way, ""Verily, Allah created Adam in His image." [Hadith, Muhammad]

Christianity and Islam are the two competing religions. Since both claim God created Adam in his image. The question is how both religions treat women.

? See post 82

https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/religion/posts/w0/so-called-philosophical-evidence-for-god-are-not-really-even-evidence?comment_number=82

My friend, I remain unconvinced NDE are anything other than subjective events driven by extreme physiological changes in a brain near death.

Not to mention, a soul would be required. The concept of a soul is thoroughly quashed by modern neuroscience. This is the final nail in the coffin for NDE...

So would you agree with this idea? There exists peer reviewed evidence that out of body experiences are verified by third parties to be accurate, but you simply refuse to take the evidence at face value? I understand extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but what if the evidence is just good or great and not extraordinary?

I do understand its like tryin to pull teeth gettin yall skeptics to stay on point in this debate, but all I can do is continue to smack ya all over the head with it until a light goes on