Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...In my personal opinion, evidence is that which convinces or persuades you to hold a certain believe; it should be the effects of that which is true, the
logic of that which follows, or the experiencing of that which is defined.
Please forgive me, I forgot to credit you for your definition of evidence.
If I may, please now describe how evidence operates to substantiate the existence of something it is supposed to be the evidence of, at least one of the evidences.
As an aside, is the plural of evidence, evidences, or it should be pieces of evidence?
The burden of proof lies with the person making the contentious claim. The word Proof comes from the Latin probare meaning "to test". Therein lies the difficulty in proving a god, it simply cannot be tested.
You claim there is a god, so present your evidence that can be tested over and over again. Show us verifiable evidence, something objective, logical and reliable.
Perhaps, you can first give a generic concept, then the kinds of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt
Well, there are all different types of evidence and different standards depending on what one is trying to do with the evidence. That is why it is completely relevant to first identify what one is trying to gather evidence of and for what purpose.
For instance, if I meet you at a party and you tell me your name is Mike, your word that your name is Mike is good enough evidence for me that your name is Mike. But, if I am a clerk at a courthouse and am about to grant you a marriage certificate, your word that you are Mike Sandifer is not sufficient evidence. I might ask for a state issued picture ID, and that would be sufficient evidence. However, if you are applying for a top secret clearance, then your state issued ID would be insufficient evidence to establish who you are. They might want to interview people who knew you while you were living in every area you have ever lived. They will want to fingerprint you and test your DNA. They will want birth certificates that they can verify against county records, etc.
If you came into my basement in the afternoon and told me the sun is shining in the sky. I'd probably take your word for it because it is a very normal and common observation. But, if you came into my basement and told me an angel is shining in the sky, I would not take your word for it because it is not a normal and common observation. I'd need a lot more evidence, verifiable, replicable, objective, made by trained, skeptical scientists, etc.
That is very good, your post, for kinds of evidence corresponding to kinds of targets of evidence which is to substantiate the existence of the target.
Can you perhaps think up a generic concept of evidence, and then enumerate the kinds of corresponding to their respective targets, and very important also how evidence operates generically.
...But promise me first that you will contribute your thoughts on what is evidence and how it operates.
Here, my concept of God:
[God is the] maker of everything that is not God Himself.
Do not, oh please, do not now go into what you think about my concept of God, and what it should be the concept of God according to whomever, and I have the wrong concept of God, etc., etc., etc.
Because that is what I am trying to tell you people here, just to put all such thoughts in abeyance, and contribute to the question what is evidence, the generic only, and how it operates...
Ryrge
Concerned and Thoughtful Ryrge:
Evidences are experiences that affect an observer to believe certain things. They operate by first being presented to a thinker, who then
decides the truth that it came from, the logic that it leads to, and/or its definition.
Evidences for makers are low. For example, though a soda-can’s complexity might lead you to believe it was designed and made, it tells
you practically nothing about the creator, which might have been a thoughtless machine. And though snowflakes are complex and beautiful,
they have seemingly no intelligent design behind them (unless you purport they follow designed laws and are composed of created matter; which
many see as unfounded premises or leaping conclusions). It might seem unfair to say there is godly thought put into the shape of snowflakes yet
none into the shape of our industrial soda-cans or our new-born babies. I guess I won’t go further into this.
Evidence is rather subjective. And it operates in a rather subjective way. One person’s evidence is another’s leadless fact.
Do you have something perhaps more specific to inquire now? Perhaps you can share your thoughts on the answer(s) to your very own question.
Well, there are all different types of evidence and different standards depending on what one is trying to do with the evidence. That is why it is completely relevant to first identify what one is trying to gather evidence of and for what purpose.
I respect your intellect. You're a good and smart fellow. With that said, I'd be open to the idea of atheism is there was some kinda proof the Univerise just came to be. All on its own. Like poof! And here we are. Well actually the poof thing is kinda mystical. But I digress.
Well, there are all different types of evidence and different standards depending on what one is trying to do with the evidence. That is why it is completely relevant to first identify what one is trying to gather evidence of and for what purpose.
For instance, if I meet you at a party and you tell me your name is Mike, your word that your name is Mike is good enough evidence for me that your name is Mike. But, if I am a clerk at a courthouse and am about to grant you a marriage certificate, your word that you are Mike Sandifer is not sufficient evidence. I might ask for a state issued picture ID, and that would be sufficient evidence. However, if you are applying for a top secret clearance, then your state issued ID would be insufficient evidence to establish who you are. They might want to interview people who knew you while you were living in every area you have ever lived. They will want to fingerprint you and test your DNA. They will want birth certificates that they can verify against county records, etc.
If you came into my basement in the afternoon and told me the sun is shining in the sky. I'd probably take your word for it because it is a very normal and common observation. But, if you came into my basement and told me an angel is shining in the sky, I would not take your word for it because it is not a normal and common observation. I'd need a lot more evidence, verifiable, replicable, objective, made by trained, skeptical scientists, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djuna
The burden of proof lies with the person making the contentious claim. The word Proof comes from the Latin probare meaning "to test". Therein lies the difficulty in proving a god, it simply cannot be tested.
You claim there is a god, so present your evidence that can be tested over and over again. Show us verifiable evidence, something objective, logical and reliable.
There isn't any because there is no god.
That is what I am telling people not to go into, the proof by evidence of God, not in this thread.
Just give your concept of evidence, and how it works, and the kinds of.
Some good posters have pointed to the inappropriate addition of the phrase, in re God's existence, so everyone just disregard that phrase in the title of this thread.
Keep exclusively to what is evidence, the kinds of, and how evidence operates.
Thanks to posters who are contributing to the delimitation of the embrace of this thread, appreciate it.
I am sorry if I do not attend to anyone's postings here.
It is not disregard but owing to my limited capacity to respond individually to everyone, since I am only one person; so please forgive me, I have to choose the ones to reply to, first on the basis of relevancy and second on the basis of their message saying something that has not been said earlier.
On the matter of relevancy, please just abstain already from God's existence, proof from evidence, etc.
Because God is now out of this thread, it was not my intention to bring in God's existence to prove by evidence, but just to give an orientation to the topic of the thread.
So, just keep to the generic concept of evidence, the kinds of evidence, and important, how it operates (in clear, plain, simple language, if that is possible of course -- but I believe it is always possible...).
Oh, and "evidence" is anything and everything that can be used to support a particular view of a issue, subject, or matter.
It doesn't matter what it is...physical or conceptual...if it lends support so as to compel a certain view of something, it can be considered "evidence".
If I may, please now describe how evidence operates to substantiate the existence of something it is supposed to be the evidence of, at least one of the evidences.
As an aside, is the plural of evidence, evidences, or it should be pieces of evidence?
Ryrge
Dear Ryrge:
I have always believed that a language is best in being as simple as possible and most understandable, the word "evidences" in English
probably doesn't exist and it would be grammatically best to use the phrase "pieces of evidence" when wishing professional standards. As it is,
English is my second language, and I was understood.
Moving on to the topic question, I’m afraid we are now treading in the realm of my personal believes and religion. It is because I am a follower of
Illumination (I confess my understanding of my lack of certitude in all matters, since I appear to be a thinking thing or are one by definition, thus I must doubt all that I think, which can be doubted, as it stands outside my thinking or defining it; with ample concern for my health and well-being)
that I hold a fundamentally Agnostic view on substantiation. I hold in my believes that the existence of something can only be truly substantiated
by itself. The mind is that which operates to believe certain things and to judge upon whether some things are likely evidences of some other things, and how likely.
I hope my reply does not confuse any person. If need be, ask me to be more clear and perhaps delegate me to the right areas that need amplification.
In its simplest form, evidence is an observation submitted as support for an idea.
Examples of observations: a person might make an observation that their hand feels hot when they hold it over a flame; a scientist may observe that a Geiger counter registers more radioactive particles when held over a uranium pellet than the background radiation; a Christian might observe a warm feeling in his heart while vocalizing a prayer. All of these are observations. They become evidence the moment someone attempts to use any of these observations as support for an idea, such as "a flame is hot"; "that pellet is radioactive"; or "God touched my heart".
I disagree with my fellow atheists when they say there is no evidence for God; I think it is more correct to say that there isn't any convincing or persuasive or empirical or good evidence for god. But, there is evidence, lots of it actually, from warm feelings during prayer, to the universe's existence, etc. That is enough evidence to persuade many believers that their faith is well placed. But, it is not good, conclusive evidence in the eyes of those of us who are skeptical and believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
People have different standards for what it would take for them to find evidence convincing or persuasive. Personally, I value empirical evidence over anecdotal evidence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Perhaps, you can first give a generic concept, then the kinds of.
