"Proof" is like statistics. In statistics you can skew the results and include or exclude a variety of parameters to show that both ends of a spectrum are completely and totally right given the same data.
Those who demand "proof" that a thing is true are like the statisticians who spin data in a certain way to try to convience us that up is down, the sky is really the inside of a blue whale and that we're all really in some vat of goo and none of this exists anyway.
2007-11-16 06:58:28 · 18 answers · asked by Tonya in TX - Duck 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Ok, so obviously I'm in one of those moods today.
2007-11-16 09:12:20 · update #1
You can skew the results a lot easier without statistics.
If we're talking about the existence of gods, I never demand "proof", because so far I haven't even seen any evidence. In light of the fact that there's no evidence whatsoever, and therefore no need for the nonbeliever to "skew" anything.
In fact the demand for evidence is perfectly justified, because there's a heckuva a lot of "skewing" going on by those who aren't able to supply any.
2007-11-16 07:02:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Asking for proof is not a bad thing so long you recognized what kind of proof are needed for what kind of question.
Scientific proof are great for something, but not for all things.
For example, how can you explain "love?". Scientifically, all you can measure is the blood flow in your heart when you are love, and how the body reacts to love, but emotionally or metally, the scientific method has no clue what love is.
Finding the right proof is like a doctor trying to find out what illness you have, without the right test, you won't get the right answer. So for someone to want proof of God, scientfically just do not work. Christ teaches that Faith preceeds miracles, yet sadly many people wants miracle before faith.
Logically speaking, how can a worker get their pay without doing the work that is require by their employer, thus how can one get the evidence of God without seeking him spiritually.
Just my 2 cent
2007-11-16 07:23:58 · answer #2 · answered by Wahnote 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Statistics can be skewed, but that's why you have them verified. Science does not rely on statistics, and if they are presented the data backing them is also presented with relevant information and assumptions. This allows the readers to objectively evaluate the results and any potential problems.
Seeking proof or evidence is not trying to spin data, is is simple a formalized methodology of seeking the truth.
I have see way more "data spinning" on creationist and apologetic sights/books than I ever have on science sites/books
2007-11-16 07:06:57 · answer #3 · answered by Pirate AM™ 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I like this question. As an agnostic, I always say I need proof either way (as to whether there is a god or there definitely isn't). I don't think that is the kind of thing that can be proven. Unfortunatly straight up belief (imho) isn't the way to go either.
Liesel.
2007-11-16 15:52:56 · answer #4 · answered by Liesel 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Let me give an earnest answer.
let's say that I suggested that up is down, and the sky is really the inside of a blue whale. You would want me to support my claims in some way. That is all I have ever asked. Is that unreasonable?
2007-11-16 07:05:07 · answer #5 · answered by Herodotus 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
No, this is wrong. Mark Twain said there are 3 types of lies; lies, damned lies and statistics. Statistics are suspect, for I have seen them distorted and used by people on both sides of any issue. Scientific proof is quite another matter. If you cannot tell the difference, continue studying these subjects.
2007-11-16 07:04:45 · answer #6 · answered by miyuki & kyojin 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
you aren't making any sense. Proof (or more accurately evidence) is not the same thing as statistics.
We rely on evidence and proof that certain medications will work and not cause heart failure before we take them. I hope you require proof or evidence that a car will start before you purchase it. Why do you assume that I would use more thought and demand more evidence before I buy a car or take aspirin then I would with my spirituality and personal ideologies?
2007-11-16 07:02:20 · answer #7 · answered by alana 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
it is the comparable reason some human beings refused to fill out the census. that is for stable intentions, yet what if there's a powerful insurrection, a dictatorship is commonly used, and the dictator comes to a decision he hates each and every of the Republicans (or in spite of political occasion, faith, race, etc.) That information could be attainable to him, and then that's the holocaust as quickly as extra. Lilman: thank you for struggling with for our freedom.
2016-10-16 23:53:17 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, and no. First of all, statistics can't be skewed. They can be gathered incorrectly, used incorrectly, or represented incorrectly, but then they cease to be statistics.
And there's nothing wrong with demanding evidence for what, on its face, seems unlikely. Would you be so skeptical of the need for proof if you were on trial for murder?
2007-11-16 07:02:28 · answer #9 · answered by STFU Dude 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
That is a nice opinion, however the existence of inventions that make our lives better because of science and technology, kinda disprove your contention.
Our reliance on peer reviewed proof, has been incredibly helpful to mankind, your reliance on 'inspired' text gave us broken homes and national wars.
I'm with historical results.
2007-11-16 07:05:13 · answer #10 · answered by ɹɐǝɟsuɐs Blessed Cheese Maker 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋