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.
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".
I am one for putting concepts in the most few words possible at the same time people can get right away what it is all about.
What about we rephrase your thoughts on what is evidence into the following few plain clear simple words, which I think anyone can already get the idea.
[Evidence is] anything man knows leading him to know another thing.
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.
I have to spread around, So I will simply comment on how great this response is. I told you Ryrge: you had Hueff wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge
I am one for putting concepts in the most few words possible at the same time people can get right away what it is all about.
What about we rephrase your thoughts on what is evidence into the following few plain clear simple words, which I think anyone can already get the idea.
[Evidence is] anything man knows leading him to know another thing.
Ryrge
No, I wouldn't agree with that. In my observation, man knows nothing, but simply thinks everything. So evidence would be: anything an individual thinks which leads him to think something else. It is because of this that evidence is subjective, and is heavily relient on the individual thinker. I rather like Hueff's definition the best, though.
* 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.
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 07-19-2011 at 10:27 PM..
I am one for putting concepts in the most few words possible at the same time people can get right away what it is all about.
What about we rephrase your thoughts on what is evidence into the following few plain clear simple words, which I think anyone can already get the idea.
[Evidence is] anything man knows leading him to know another thing.
Ryrge
I don't think I'm too keen on that Ryrge.
I used the term "view"...not "know"...and I did that for a reason.
"Evidence" doesn't have to be something you "know", that leads you to "know" something else, for it to be considered "evidence"...it just needs to be something, in fact anything, that draws you toward a conclusion, determination, or view, to qualify as "evidence".
"Know" is kind of an absolute term...and I believe too "rigid" in this context. It doesn't need to go that far.
If anyone will work on the shortest definition for evidence, that will be a most convenient text for all of us to give our comments on, to arrive at a consensus on what is the generic concept of evidence, generic meaning applicable to anything that the word evidence is used by man for the purpose he uses it for.
Now, I propose the short definition of evidence as "anything man knows leading him to know another thing."
I say anything to indicate that evidence is something as opposed to nothing.
Why is evidence something at all instead of nothing?
Asking a silly question?
Not at all, because before we can talk about anything at all we have first to agree that it is something and not nothing.
Next, evidence is anything man knows, because how can we ever talk about anything at all if we don't know it at all in any way by any means.
Knowing here means any kind of knowing as opposed to not knowing at all, and the most weighty knowing is knowing for certain that something exists in objective reality outside of concepts in man's mind.
Why not then say evidence is anything man is certain of leading him to be certain of another thing?
Instead of using the very broad term, knowing?
Because the idea is to make evidence to consist in any kind of knowledge at all, no matter how flimsy provided at least the person is convinced for himself that his knowing is founded on certainty of the objective existence of the thing he knows.
So that if he were the only man alive then he can still be convinced that what he knows is certainly existing outside his mind, and in a situation of critical danger, he must act right away on that knowledge no matter that he has no critical skill to analyze whether what he knows is certainly existing in objective reality or it is all an illusion or a halucination or a self-delusion.
For example, you are the only man alive, and you hear something noisy that gives you the impression of something huge and heavy rolling toward you from behind, what you do is that knowing something huge and heavy rolling toward you from behind, you run away from it as fast as you can and hope to outrun it, to safety.
So, that leaves now the phrase leading man to know another thing, in the short definition of evidence as "anything man knows leading him to know another thing."
That is the purpose of evidence for man, and man is the only thing that is in need of evidence, without that purpose to know another thing from first knowing something, then anything known to man is not anything that is evidence, i.e., without that purpose to lead him to know another.
The mechanism now we must seek is how evidence operates to lead man from knowing one thing which leads him to know another thing.
Anyway, at this point, the task is to come up with the most succinct definition of evidence that says clearly to readers what is evidence.
So, everyone, chip in with your most brief definition of what is evidence.
I have time and again read from atheists writing about God or no God, that there is no evidence for the existence of God.
So I thought I have to learn what exactly is evidence, for if I do not know what is evidence how can I go forth into the universe to seek for evidence that substantiates the existence of God.
What "evidence" is slightly changes depending on the context you are speaking in. Evidence in science will differ from evidence in a murder court case for example.
However if you want a simple lay man general description of what evidence is that fits most contexts then it would go like this:
Evidence is not a thing, but a procedure. It is a three step procedure that goes as follows:
1) State your claim and define exactly what you are talking about when you make it.
2) List anything you think supports that claim.
3) Explain exactly how each thing in step 2 supports the claim in step 1.
It is really as simple as that. The problem atheists have with theists however is that they bastardise that process and turn it into this:
1) State a claim.
2) Randomly list some stuff.
Before they then run away claiming that they provided you evidence and you just "wont accept it" or some other statement along those lines like "You just do not WANT to see the evidence" and so on.
I have been asking for "evidence" for over 18 years now and have never been given any. Actually what I ask for is "any evidence, arguments, data OR reasons to lend credence to the claim there is a god entity". People just are incapable of providing any. At all.
Yet the three step process is very simple indeed. What could be simpler?
But time and time again I am just told over and over that I do not want to see the evidence, or I have been shown it and I reject it, or that I should go find it myself or some other such canard. Either that or they start an obfuscation process which starts with things like "Well what is 'evidence' anyway....". Whatever their tactic the aim is the same.... to distract from the fact that they actually HAVE no evidence to present.
I have been asking for "evidence" for over 18 years now and have never been given any. Actually what I ask for is "any evidence, arguments, data OR reasons to lend credence to the claim there is a god entity". People just are incapable of providing any. At all.
As have many atheists, for many, many years. Eventually one comes to accept there is no evidence because the claim is simply unable to be substantiated with anything credible.
What "evidence" is slightly changes depending on the context you are speaking in. Evidence in science will differ from evidence in a murder court case for example.
However if you want a simple lay man general description of what evidence is that fits most contexts then it would go like this:
Evidence is not a thing, but a procedure. It is a three step procedure that goes as follows:
1) State your claim and define exactly what you are talking about when you make it.
2) List anything you think supports that claim.
3) Explain exactly how each thing in step 2 supports the claim in step 1.
It is really as simple as that. The problem atheists have with theists however is that they bastardise that process and turn it into this:
1) State a claim.
2) Randomly list some stuff.
Before they then run away claiming that they provided you evidence and you just "wont accept it" or some other statement along those lines like "You just do not WANT to see the evidence" and so on.
I have been asking for "evidence" for over 18 years now and have never been given any. Actually what I ask for is "any evidence, arguments, data OR reasons to lend credence to the claim there is a god entity". People just are incapable of providing any. At all.
Yet the three step process is very simple indeed. What could be simpler?
But time and time again I am just told over and over that I do not want to see the evidence, or I have been shown it and I reject it, or that I should go find it myself or some other such canard. Either that or they start an obfuscation process which starts with things like "Well what is 'evidence' anyway....". Whatever their tactic the aim is the same.... to distract from the fact that they actually HAVE no evidence to present.
That is good your definition of evidence as a procedure.
Just in case you miss the first page of this thread, we have agreed to put God's existence in abeyance, disregard the phrase, in re God's existence, in the title of the thread.
Just continue now to work on what is evidence and the kinds of and how it operates.
Thanks just the same, if I may voice my own concern, it is similar to yours, that is why also I was working in previous forums where I got a bad reception on what also is your concern, what is evidence all about which atheists insist theists don't have for accepting the existence of God.
Here are your short definitions of evidence, thanks, now let us choose which to adopt for comments.
Here are your short definitions of evidence, thanks, now let us choose which to adopt for comments.
Luminous Truth
...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. http://www.city-data.com/forum/20090102-post6.html
Luminous Truth
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. http://www.city-data.com/forum/20091450-post14.html
GldnRule
..."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". http://www.city-data.com/forum/20091725-post18.html
Nozzferrahhtoo
Evidence is not a thing, but a procedure. It is a three step procedure that goes as follows:
1) State your claim and define exactly what you are talking about when you make it.
2) List anything you think supports that claim.
3) Explain exactly how each thing in step 2 supports the claim in step 1. http://www.city-data.com/forum/20093442-post25.html
But we cannot just adopt any definition based only on minimum number of words, to do comments on.
I guess everyone would agree that aside from miniumum of words, the definition must appear to people to say something they can see to be relevant and understandable to themselves on what they would also agree to be evidence in its essential barebones.
So, for those of you who have presented definitions that are above ten words, please see if you can bring them down to say, perhaps, only ten words?
Now, we can all work on this thing called evidence and thus get to be able to look for evidence to substantiate what we claim to be existing in objective reality outside the realm of concepts in our mind.
If anyone will work on the shortest definition for evidence, that will be a most convenient text for all of us to give our comments on, to arrive at a consensus on what is the generic concept of evidence, generic meaning applicable to anything that the word evidence is used by man for the purpose he uses it for.
Now, I propose the short definition of evidence as "anything man knows leading him to know another thing."
I say anything to indicate that evidence is something as opposed to nothing.
Why is evidence something at all instead of nothing?
Asking a silly question?
Not at all, because before we can talk about anything at all we have first to agree that it is something and not nothing.
Next, evidence is anything man knows, because how can we ever talk about anything at all if we don't know it at all in any way by any means.
Knowing here means any kind of knowing as opposed to not knowing at all, and the most weighty knowing is knowing for certain that something exists in objective reality outside of concepts in man's mind.
Why not then say evidence is anything man is certain of leading him to be certain of another thing?
Instead of using the very broad term, knowing?
Because the idea is to make evidence to consist in any kind of knowledge at all, no matter how flimsy provided at least the person is convinced for himself that his knowing is founded on certainty of the objective existence of the thing he knows.
So that if he were the only man alive then he can still be convinced that what he knows is certainly existing outside his mind, and in a situation of critical danger, he must act right away on that knowledge no matter that he has no critical skill to analyze whether what he knows is certainly existing in objective reality or it is all an illusion or a halucination or a self-delusion.
For example, you are the only man alive, and you hear something noisy that gives you the impression of something huge and heavy rolling toward you from behind, what you do is that knowing something huge and heavy rolling toward you from behind, you run away from it as fast as you can and hope to outrun it, to safety.
So, that leaves now the phrase leading man to know another thing, in the short definition of evidence as "anything man knows leading him to know another thing."
That is the purpose of evidence for man, and man is the only thing that is in need of evidence, without that purpose to know another thing from first knowing something, then anything known to man is not anything that is evidence, i.e., without that purpose to lead him to know another.
The mechanism now we must seek is how evidence operates to lead man from knowing one thing which leads him to know another thing.
Anyway, at this point, the task is to come up with the most succinct definition of evidence that says clearly to readers what is evidence.
So, everyone, chip in with your most brief definition of what is evidence.
Ryrge
A slight modification of your "short" definition, and I'm good, Ryrge.
"Anything known of, that could or does lead to the knowing of it or something else."
In your "short" definition, the knowledge actually has to lead to other knowledge to be "evidence". I feel that anything that has the potential to clue you in to something...is necessarily "evidence". Which then makes EVERYTHING "evidence".
EVERYTHING is "evidence" of SOMETHING...even if just itself.
"Evidence" is then anything and everything, both physical and conceptual, that could or does lead to the realization of it or anything else.
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.
I told you Ryrge: you had Hueff wrong. 
That is good, but just put God in abeyance.
