What is evidence and how does it operate, in re God's existence. (church, Muslims)

[Ryrge]

Originally Posted by LuminousTruth

[...]

* the word "observation" is heavily leading outside its contextual meaning. "experience" meaning "the experiencing of something" might be a better fit.
In this way, evidence is "an experience submitted as support for a defined idea." In a sort of experience/idea dichotomy. If anyone is familiar with "sense-data" and further western/academic philosophy, they might understand my objection.

Good, experience then is the word to use to come with man, thus the definition of evidence from human beings who are concerned with evidence should be:

[Evidence is] an experience of man in support of a thing. (9 words)

However, as we continue to explore the intricacies of evidence, we might have to still rephrase this short definition of evidence to accommodate to new insights.



Ryrge

[hooligan]

Am I allowed to ask what the point of this little excercise is?

Also, what's the need to keep to less than 10 words? I would always prefer a precise definition, even if it's wordy, over an ambiguous definition that is efficiently stated.

[Ryrge]

Originally Posted by SeekerSA

The only way this thread is going is to cite

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

There is no evidence for god except anecdotal "evidence" that cannot be tested EVER using a reasoned, sound and logical approach that anyone can assimilate and arrive at the same conclusion. This is why the theist has faith as it deals in the abstract and unseen aka fantasy.

To find god, you first have to believe, but to believe you must have faith, but only after you have believed will you get the gift of faith. Yeah, that sounds real logical and evidential.

Circles much?

We are defining evidence, not faith.

When we have agreed on what is evidence, then you might care to give faith as an example of evidence.

And then you will have to define what is faith and explain why faith is an example of evidence.

But first, we have to come to agreement on what is evidence, but please in very few words and in plain, clear, simple words.



Ryrge

[Ryrge]

Originally Posted by LuminousTruth

[...]

On the matter of the existence of the concept of “evidence” without thinkers, I wish to point out to you, Ryrge, that not all conceptual thinkers have to be human. And to GldnRule, I would have to say that “evidence” is a concept that only exists when there are thinkers. A rock is not evidence of itself; a rock is just a rock, by definition. In order for it to be evidence of itself it must be observed* by a thinking thing which wishes to use data of its apparent visual experience as support of the objective existence of the rock.

On further note, I wish to voice concern over the arbitrary word limit upon the sought definition of what evidence is and/or how it operates. Hueff’s lack of patience for your apparently biased moving of the goal posts is duly understandable.

[...]

GldnRule says something which I can see to be very insightful on the issue of what is evidence, namely, that anything can be evidence of something, even of itself.

That is the key to the mechanism of how evidence operates.

But as regards a thing being evidence of itself and itself being concerned about evidence of itself, I said to Hueff that thing for me means anything at all, and that includes human being, or a concept in the mind of man.

I have in mind that man is also concerned with evidence for his own existence, and someone has come to the thought that man is himself the evidence to himself for his own concern of his own existence of himself as evidence of his own existence.

Consider the thinker who says, "Cogito ergo sum."


As regards arbitrary shortening of the words in the definition of evidence, that is no imposition but just a request, because a short definition is a good text for everyone to use as a launching pad for his contributions to the topic in question, which in the present instance is evidence, what is it.

I say a good text, at least better than a longer text, if you have to choose between a short definition that says everything that makes up the barebone essential, and a longer one that already opens the issue to a lot of deviations and irrelevancies.


For example the definition of what is man in two words is rational animal, that says everything that is the essential barebone of man, compared to whatever volumes of words that can be said and still miss the essence of man.



Ryrge

[Ryrge]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge
we have agreed to put God's existence in abeyance, disregard the phrase, in re God's existence, in the title of the thread.

You may have agreed this but I have not. Given the title of the thread AND the fact this is the "Religion and Philosophy" forum, I think it perfectly valid to use the existence of god in my examples.

However the things I am saying apply to other things too. Astrology. Alien Abduction. Ghosts. Walking around on Astral Planes. Homeopathy. Psychic mind reading and seeing into the future. Elvis still being alive. Unicorns. You name it. What I am saying is true for all those things too.

In all these cases evidence is not a thing, but a procedure. A process. It is a simple 3 step process but no matter how simple it is the god people, the psychic people, the supernatural planes people.... none of them can do it. Ever.

You have all the right to bring in God in relation to the concept of evidence which evidence is also for people who do know God's existence is available to them to support the existence of God.

I agreed to leave out God because it would bring in a lot of questions about which God, gods, goddesses, divinities, deities, and then the main concern for what is evidence in its generic concept would be forgotten, with everyone specially people who lack a belief in any God, gods, goddesses, divinities, deities whatever insisting that there is no evidence to support any such God, gods, goddesses, divinities, deities, and getting all annoyed as to move to dump the thread -- which has happened in other forums I have been to and I introduced the thread on what is evidence also in re God's existence, see page 1 for one link.


As regards your concept of evidence as a procedure, I agree with you totally, and it will be most useful when if ever we come the mechanism by which evidence operates.

That is the most challenging part in the examination of what is evidence.


Yes, you go ahead and mention God, I presume you are referring to God in the Christian faith, that is all right with me, but you have to bear with posters here who will be annoyed because God is supposed not to have anything to do in say, scientific discourse? And everyone now is supposed to be into science, so that as science is into observation and experimentation, anything which people who are into science cannot observe and cannot experiment on is not to be given any attention because it is all a waste of time and labor and can be the cause of violent conflicts whatever.


But please the rest of you who don't want God, gods, goddesses, divinities, deities, whatsoever, please just continue on with the generic concept of evidence, the kinds of, and the mechanism by which it operates.



Ryrge

[Ryrge]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Evidence = Observation/Experience

Hypothesis = Generalization

E ----> H = Induction

-----> = Methodology (Ex. Scientific Method or Rules of Induction)

Question - what is the justifcation for the Methodology or Rules?

M or R presupposes the uniformity of nature - every event has a cause.

If not there is no ground for Induction.

The problem is that there is no ground for 'the uniformity of nature' becuase it uses induction - it is circular.

Humes answer to this is - Constant Conjuction of Resembling Instances - the thing we call the cause is always followed by the thing we call the effect. In other words - Regularity.

Regularity is just representations or patterns of nature.

Reasons develop from this Regularity.

Beliefs should follow from Reasons.

Therefore, your beliefs should be correspondent to and strengthened by regularity.

I think you can see that what others have been saying about what constitutes good evidence and that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Humans are built to experience the external world of nature and recognize patterns in the environment in order to make their lives more efficient and more likely to survive. This is why it is so difficult to really 'know' conceptual truths about reality particularly if they have difficulty corresponding to reality.

Anyway, have at it.

But there is the principle of preponderance of evidence and proof beyond reasonable doubt.


So that even very deep philosophers who write most voluminously against this or that and that everything has no absolute certainty, they also one day have to resort to preponderance of evidence and proof beyond reasonable doubt, if they care to join in human society and get things done if at all.

Your post is already into the mechanism by which evidence operates.


Thanks, please continue to think on the mechanism by which evidence works.



Ryrge

[Ryrge]

Originally Posted by hooligan

Am I allowed to ask what the point of this little excercise is?

Also, what's the need to keep to less than 10 words? I would always prefer a precise definition, even if it's wordy, over an ambiguous definition that is efficiently stated.

As I said already, it is good to have a short definition so that everyone can be focused, provided that short definition conveys the bare essence of the concept.

And my idea is that if we proceed with already a short text, and give our comments on it, and of course revise the short definition as we go forth, it is more fruitful than if no definition is ever given formally and succinctly and everyone just talks and no one is concerned with whether the talk is getting anywhere to a consensus on the issue or to an agreement to a definite impasse.



Ryrge

[Ryrge]

Okay, dear GldnRule, shall we talk about anything is evidence of something.

So, in the mechanism how evidence operates, we can distinguish between the thing that is evidence and the thing that evidence is to substantiate the existence of in reality outside the mind [or even in the mind as a concept].



Some people are saying that I might have an agenda, and am pushing the discussion to my agenda.

No more than that anyone who speaks instead of just talking has an agenda, namely, to get other people's thoughts on an issue or a concept, in order to learn from them or to see where they are not in conformity with oneself and how and why.

Is that a most wicked agenda?


What are we supposed to do who start a thread, have no agenda at all?


Only robots have no agenda at all, but their masters have.


Are we supposed to be in a thread to discuss things among ourselves to conduct ourselves like robots, but who are the masters if we be robots?

Then they are the ones with an agenda, each one of them, and I for myself submit that if they be honest seekers of knowledge, they are into the agenda of exchanging thoughts to learn from one another and to seek consensus, otherwise behave civilly in the face of an impasse.



Ryrge

[Mickiel]

Originally Posted by Ryrge

I have not come to all the posters here, if Mickiel is one poster here.

Anyway, all men are brothers to me and all women are sisters to me.



Ryrge

Well I am a poster here, and I do not know you;

But I like your work. Very interesting and stimulating post, in my view.

Refreshing.

Peace.

[Hueffenhardt]

Originally Posted by Ryrge

Here I will do it for you:

From Hueff: Evidence is:
an observation by a human submitted by a human in support of an idea thought of by a human. (19 words)...

So, may I just suggest that we agree to reconcile our two definitions of what is evidence into the followiing formulation:

[Evidence is] an observation by man in support of a thing (instead of an idea). (9 words)

Is that okay with you?



Then we can everyone give comments on evidence as defined in the following words:

An observation by man in support of a thing.

Ryrge

Here is what I would be ok with:

"an observation by man submitted in support of a proposition" (10 words)

Evidence must be an "observation", meaning an experience that is noted, or an instance of noticing or perceiving. An experience that is not noticed and identified can never be submitted as evidence. An observation moves an experience into the realm of conscious awareness and into the realm of the intellect in which the experience is identified and thought about.

The observation must be "submitted" into evidence (as in a courtroom), or submitted into a discussion, or submitted into one's own mental evaluation of a proposition. An observation could exist out there somewhere, but it does not become evidence until it is submitted into the case.

The submitted observation must be submitted "in support of a proposition" to be evidence. Otherwise, it is just some random fact someone threw out in the middle of a discussion, like a comment about the weather when people are discussing the merits of fiscal discipline. The submitted observation has to be connected to a case or an argument to be evidence. One might be trying to demonstrate that something is true or something is false; exists or doesn't exist; a person committed a crime or not; that a certain product is better than another. A person uses evidence in the making of their case. A proposition is a position to be considered, accepted, adopted, or done.

You proposed "in support of a thing". That doesn't make any sense if you put a thing like a rock in the definition. "An observation by man in support of a rock".You are not trying to support a rock, you might being trying to support the existence of a rock, but that is a proposition (you propose for consideration that the rock exists), and quite different from the rock itself.