So many people seem to believe that you need a mathematical equation or physical evidence to "prove" or "disprove" that there is a God. Anecdotal evidence - like the millions of people who claim they "feel God's presence" (or don't) and so on - isn't acceptable to these people.
Yet in many sciences, anecdotal evidence is highly valued and is sometimes the only information available. Take psychology as an example. There is no blood test for depression; a shrink diagnoses it by checking off various criteria.
Isn't anecdotal evidence the only thing we have when it comes to matters of spirituality? Just because there's no way to weigh or measure such things doesn't mean they don't exist. We know depression exists because we've (1) defined what it is and (2) know that many people experience the critieria that meet that definition. Could the problem be that we haven't defined what we mean by "God" clearly enough?
I'm an agnostic, by the way, so I'm interested in everyone's thoughts.
2007-03-25 11:21:55 · 10 answers · asked by Huddy 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Does the bank accept anecdotal evidence that I will repay a loan without collateral? That's funny, cause the modern banking system was set up and is run by a bunch of people who believe in God.
2007-03-25 11:27:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Sorry but Psychology is hardly a science to use as an example because you're right, it's mostly anecdotal evidence, which is never true evidence at all.
I won't get too deep into how I feel about that.
I will however ask you this:
If evolution is a provable theory, how did the spider develop the organs to spin a web?
When did it learn to build its web with suck intricate patterns? And from whom did it learn this?
The theory of evolution is incomplete. It is a 19th century theory that contradicts itself just as the Bible does.
Unfortunately, most "religious" folk point to the Bible and their own experience as the proof of God. This is not proof. proof is that which evidence both concrete and anecdotal can verify. As we have no concrete proof of God from religious sources, we must turn to science.
The reconsiliation of the anectodal evidence of God and the evidence of evolutionary theory combined with Superstring Theory and Multidimensional HyperSpace-Time give us the room we need to find the evidence we seek.
Once these are combined, we find that Evolution must be by design as random chance means if any one space-time event from the Big Bang until now went differently, Humanity would not and could not exist. Random chance cannot be the answer when you take into account quatum particles and the effects the act of observing have upon them. There MUST have been a design to the origins of creation and life here on Earth. Without a design, life simply could not have formed in the way it did in most cases, or at all.
If there is a design, then by definition, there must be a designer.
Who is that designer is a question I leave to you to answe.
2007-03-25 18:36:15 · answer #2 · answered by cybrrgeek 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Im somewhere in the middle between agnostic and athiest (atheism being bad science) and i dont feel i need to disprove God. It is impossible to prove or disprove God. All I have to go on are feelings and observations. I take a lot more stock in science and the way it looks at "anecdotes" than the way religion does. The Bible, at least the laws and interpretive sections, are not anecdotes. They are the authors thoughts on the subject. When looking at the matter of God, putting stock in what some guy said thousands of years ago is foolish. I look at what can be proven, and its not God. Scientific pronciples can be proven. Evolution can be proven. God cannot be proven or disproven, and I certainly dont feel anything special or any connection when I read the Bible or go to church. That suggests to me the whole thing is fake. And when i realized that for the first time, thats when I felt the most right about my beliefs.
2007-03-25 18:30:45 · answer #3 · answered by sprocket9727 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So...the millions of people who have believed in all the other gods over our history were right too. There is also anecdotal evidence (based off the "feelings" of people) that racism is good, that women aren't equal to men, etc. etc. Sorry, but that's just not evidence that any of those things are accurate. We cannot decide fact by a majority vote.
2007-03-25 18:33:20 · answer #4 · answered by N 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Anecdotal evidence is an informal account of evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay. The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, such as evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts. Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific because it cannot be investigated using the scientific method. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy and is sometimes informally referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc. Compare with hasty generalization). Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily typical; statistical evidence can more accurately determine how typical something is.
The bottom line is believing in God is based on faith, and either evidence is not really the issue.
2007-03-25 18:29:04 · answer #5 · answered by llosier9 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm an agnostic and I don't think that anecdotal evidence is enough. Sorry but for myself I want empirical, irrefutable evidence to show me deities are out there and then at least yes I'd say they exist but that would not make me worship them anymore than I am willing to do now. As it is, I don't think the concept of deities can be proved at all, for or against, at this point in our human lives.
The evidence currently for deities is that people feel them, that the bible says so (and you are talking about a book that cannot be cross referenced so it is hardly empirical evidence) and because a certain number of people believe so.
I want more proof than because I feel it in my heart.
2007-03-25 18:32:29 · answer #6 · answered by genaddt 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"A bloke down the pub told me..."
'Nuff said.
Additional
Of course, you tripped yourself up by saying
"There is no blood test for depression; a shrink diagnoses it by checking off various criteria." So, hardly anecdotal, is it?
2007-03-25 18:24:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
no, a psychologist diagnoses somebody by judging their mental state.
people believing in god is not evidence because over the years there have been billions of people who believed in different gods. There are plenty of people who claim to feel Shiva (a hindu god), but does that mean that Shiva is real?
2007-03-25 18:27:33 · answer #8 · answered by funaholic 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
God is not a being in the clouds but a principle of our nature.
2007-03-25 18:24:47 · answer #9 · answered by Julian 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because if you accepted that you would still believe that diseases were caused by demonic possession. It is lousy evidence.
2007-03-25 18:26:26 · answer #10 · answered by Alex 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋