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

[SeekerSA]

You ignored this post so I'll post it again.

Originally Posted by SeekerSA

From Wiki (which is good enough for internet discussions)

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

--snip--

The evidence at a crime scene differs from the evidence of say evolution or any evidence of known scientific facts. A universal understanding of what the word means infers also people are able to adapt what evidence entails or what evidence will satisfy the postulated by the postulator.

The "evidence" we are showered with for deities and the supernatural are all anecdotal and as such equates too circumstantial evidence in a court of law. Although this type of evidence may be enough to reach a verdict, usually such matters do not go to trial as reasonable doubt has to be proven. IOW, the defendant is presumed innocent till proven guilty.

In science, evidence can never be circumstantial. One can make predictions and then search for the evidence to support them, this is called an hypothesis. It moves the quest for knowledge in the right direction, seeking the answers/conclusions.

In religion, the conclusion is assumed and then folk move out to find evidence that may support the conclusion. Nothing wrong with that as it is similar to the scientific way but what constitutes evidence is not based on existing accepted norms or proven theories. One has to "learn" interpretive skills to determine exactly what a specific text means as there are so many variables. Science eliminates the variables and follows the most logical course to reach a conclusion. This is called Occam's razor That conclusion can then be re engineered to attain the same result by someone different and is repeatable.

The conclusion is based on the preceding evidence. Should this evidence be found wanting the conclusion becomes moot and rejected or must be reexamined from another perspective.

The reverse engineering of evidence at a crash site is used to determine probable cause. This is an example of working backwards and in itself is scientific.

The equivalent theist approach will be to suggest that the fuselage ripped in two and then try and find out if the guess was right. See, this is working backwards from a conclusion or preconceived idea/notion.

I am no scientist but clearly I can see the benefit of the scientific method as being the most logical.

Evidence varies per the assertion or observation.

The examples I posted shows these different approaches and the logic that should be applied.

The bottom line is evidence presented for a deity where we are now discussing needs to follow the same level of critique or testing.

How is anecdotal "evidence" tested? This encompasses all the feelings, emotions and alleged experiences people encounter in a religious mindset or church setting

We have to question the validity of the bible as accurate evidence.

Let us take two simple illustrations. I am not citing the verses.

Onan and the spilling of seed.

From the story, the text suggests (other than the requirement to father an heir for his dead brother) that the "seed" of the man was the key ingredient to making this happen. The underlying story of coitus interruptus is not what it is about.

FF a few books and we see the mindset of the woman's menses described as her "secret fountain" and elsewhere her menstrual cloths (filthy rags) is seen as something unclean and unrighteous.

Back then, an omni everything god should have had the wherewithal to reveal the mystery of the woman's role in procreation and the reason for the menses. Yet we have inaccurate information. Semen as we all know is ejaculated in copious quantities visible to the naked eye.

From this we surmise that the ancients wrote this stuff down as they knew nothing of the real mechanisms behind this "miracle" of procreation.

We now know exactly what the mechanics are and why women have menses and that it is not an unclean thing but totally natural. We also know the male part, in spite of millions at a time, only one lil' bugger makes it to the destination for conception to occur.

What do the theists do? They leave the text intact and write it off to ancient understanding yet still claim the books containing the texts mentions are inspired works, even dictated by god himself.

Can we in all honesty submit these readings as evidence of how procreation works?

The logical discourse is to say, if this is/was wrong, what else is wrong. many have done this and then weighed up the evidence/claims for a god and found the evidence lacking in facts and in most cases wanting.

In fact the more this piece of "evidence" is scrutinized, the more implausible the claims become.

One has to question the concept of an intelligent creator that requires male genital mutilation as a pact/covenant yet the female requires none. Even in the NT we already see some enlightenment wrt circumcision.

These texts are ess overlooked in teaching the gullible and cherry pick from this book to derive 30000 odd different sects each with their own interpretations/dogmas.

The revisionist approach deems certain texts no longer relevant but refuse to remove that which is no longer relevant as the text forbids it. Plus a thin bible is not as impressive as a thick leather bound embossed one.

As we cannot test anecdotal evidence we are left with the only common denominator, the bible. Contrary evidence aka recent discoveries in science/archeology refutes almost everything in the bible as either folklore, merging of myths, borrowing from other cultures.

When the theist argument is defeated by the inconsistencies in their own holy book and the untrue claims, the theist defaults to;

It is a relationship.

Then we are left at an impasse and the conversation becomes circular or stops.

My requirement for tangible evidence would be for god to manifest in a physical form, while I am fully cognitive (no meditation or drugs) and preferably with two equally sober witnesses present. We all have cell phones with cameras and we have digital cameras so capturing the moment for posterity should be easy.

But of course the guud book says no one has looked upon the face of god an lived to tell about it, but somehow. ol' Moses got a free pass.

But this god should be able to turn off his laser eyes to convince me and my two friends, really what harm would it do?

When Gideon is allowed to put out a fleece to test and dictate the results not only once but twice, I think my requirement is not too blasphemous.

[TRANSPONDER]

I have been watching this thread for a while and it's been interesting to see the talk revolving around what evidence is. Particularly Hueff's observation that evidence does not exist if humans didn't exist.

This is to point up that while things remain the same, humans can talk about them in different ways. For example. dust lying on rock is strong evidence that the dust was laid down later than the rock. That evidence or 'proof' as it can be called (since that conclusion is amply justified), is there and exists quite apart from us humans, but if there are no humans to see it or think about it, is it 'evidence' in the sense of being considered by humans in finding out answers to questions? No, not in that sense.

Thus 'Evidence' is the raw data which is real, to all rational purposes and exists apart from us, and it can also mean the consideration of that data and drawing conclusions from it. That, I'd say, answers Ryurge's Q about evidence and how it operates.

"Just continue now to work on what is evidence and the kinds of and how it operates."

Of course, the evidence is what it is and can be stronger or weaker. the weight of evidence varies. For example, not finding any alien civilizations in the solar system is poor reason to suppose that cannot be any elsewhere in the galaxy, much less the universe, but the lack of any non - fossil dinosaur bones in S. American Indian archaeological deposits of the last thousand years is good evidence that there weren't any.

It would be technically correct to argue that, just because we haven't found any, that doesn't mean that we won't. But it is also correct to argue that, until we do, we cannot assume what has not been demonstrated by good evidence.

Correct approach to evidence and its evaluation (or 'how it operates') is important because individual bias has to be recognized. while it is considered wrong to try to prove a theory, often that is what people try to do. Correct method and peer review is in place to place a check on these understandable tendencies. The Scientific method and the rules of logic are globally accepted as the parameters with the reliable track record for evaluating evidence. The track record is not only the building up of a reliable body of data and technology which we all rely on daily and constantly, but in being willing to review and reappraise information and admit new evidence if necessary.

Ryurge,

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.

Thus we can see already a fundamental but understandable error in the approach, here. It is not proposed to look at the data (evidence) and draw conclusions (how it operates) but it is proposed to "substantiate what we claim to be existing"

The problem here is cherry - picking or looking at one side only or the old problem of looking around for evidence which supports a prejudged conclusion. If you don't mean that, Ryurge, and are rather proposing to look at both sides in accordance with the generally accepted and tried and tested methods for evaluating evidence, then that's ok.

We shall insist that you do so, anyway, otherwise, any argument you may put forward on the subject (whatever it is) will be invalid and a waste of everyone's time.

[Hueffenhardt]

Originally Posted by Ryrge

So, why do scientists continue to work so strenuously if we or they can never be completely objective?

Because they are trying to approach objectivity as close as they can, which is a worthy goal, and they succeed in getting closer to objectivity than anyone not utilizing science. Scientists have peers review their work before it is published in peer-reviewed journals, so that flaws in data collection, analysis, or experimenter bias can be caught and addressed. Scientists actively seek to isolate variables of interest and eliminate confounding variables. They spell out their procedures, so that others can replicate their results. They take careful measurements and make sure their instruments are calibrated properly. They understand that their results must be statistically significant, i.e., greater than chance. And on and on. All of that helps them approach objectivity, even if they can never be 100 % objective.

Originally Posted by Ryrge

If I may, I have not really seen an exposition of how evidence operates, what I have seen are examples of evidence.

Then I don't understand exactly what you are looking for. Are you asking how a person weighs evidence and decides whether it is convincing or not? For some people it takes no more than a whiff of poor quality evidence to jump to the conclusion that whatever proposition is under consideration is true, especially if they already believe (or want to believe) the proposition is true. Others will refuse to concede a proposition is true regardless of how much good quality evidence is presented and arguments that for most people would rule out all other alternative explanations for the evidence because they don't want to believe the proposition is true.

I think most people have never been trained to recognize and identify their own bias that makes it difficult for them to fairly weigh the evidence. They haven't been trained how to approach objectivity and be cautious about jumping to conclusions, and to recognize the difference between the raw data and the interpretation of the data.

Ryrge, I pointed out awhile ago that evidence operates as ---- Induction.

[Ryrge]

Originally Posted by SeekerSA

[...]


The bottom line is evidence presented for a deity where we are now discussing needs to follow the same level of critique or testing.

[...]

Please be patient, I am trying to move everyone to the generic concept of evidence, and I believe I am succeeding.

Now I am asking people to exert their most productive thinking on the mechanism how evidence operates to substantiate the existence of the target of evidence.

As soon as everyone has contributed to the exposition of the mechanism how evidence operates, then I plan to start on a new thread on how evidence substantiates the existence of God corresponding to the concept of God as maker of everything that is not God Himself.


Please, for the present, just prescind from, i.e., don't mention or don't bring in, the question of God or no God, because it disturbs our calm and thus disrupts the viability of the thread which should just concentrate on what is evidence and how it operates, i.e., the mechanism of evidence.



Ryrge

[Hueffenhardt]

Each person has different standards for what evidence (amount and quality) would be needed to persuade them to believe a proposition is true (whatever it may be) and different propositions require different evidence.

That is one of the reasons jurors so often disagree on whether the prosecution has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty.

Since it does differ so widely from person to person, I don't think many hard rules can be discovered about the conditions under which most people would be satisfied that evidence has in fact established the truthfulness of a proposition. A faster way to get at it, is what is done in this forum on a regular basis, namely, a poster asks us what evidence it would take to get us to believe such-and-such, and we tell them.

It continually amazes me when people believe outlandish things on the basis of what I consider to be very poor quality evidence. Some people are suspicious and skeptical, while others are, in my opinion, gullible and extremely irrational. Then, there are other issues for which I can't fault a person either way they believe on the issue, because the evidence is equivocal - it could go either way.

[SeekerSA]

Originally Posted by Ryrge

Please be patient, I am trying to move everyone to the generic concept of evidence, and I believe I am succeeding.

Now I am asking people to exert their most productive thinking on the mechanism how evidence operates to substantiate the existence of the target of evidence.

As soon as everyone has contributed to the exposition of the mechanism how evidence operates, then I plan to start on a new thread on how evidence substantiates the existence of God corresponding to the concept of God as maker of everything that is not God Himself.


Please, for the present, just prescind from, i.e., don't mention or don't bring in, the question of God or no God, because it disturbs our calm and thus disrupts the viability of the thread which should just concentrate on what is evidence and how it operates, i.e., the mechanism of evidence.



Ryrge

OMG are you deliberately obtuse?

What are you trying to achieve? Are you going for the Guinness world record for a meaningless thread?

We all know you want to discuss your god so get on with it. Present your evidence already. Why skirt and dance around the issue?

[SeekerSA]

I'll converse with you as this OP apparently cannot read or decipher definitions and/or examples.

Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt

Each person has different standards for what evidence (amount and quality) would be needed to persuade them to believe a proposition is true (whatever it may be) and different propositions require different evidence.

I agree. One approach to a proposition cannot be used as a blanket approach. However, it remains fair to apply the scientific method in determining the veracity of claims and evidence presented to all situations. Where evidence is refuted as inadmissible or questionable, then it is on the proposer to seek new evidence or accept that which is offered does not meet a minimum standard

That is one of the reasons jurors so often disagree on whether the prosecution has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty.

Since it does differ so widely from person to person, I don't think many hard rules can be discovered about the conditions under which most people would be satisfied that evidence has in fact established the truthfulness of a proposition. A faster way to get at it, is what is done in this forum on a regular basis, namely, a poster asks us what evidence it would take to get us to believe such-and-such, and we tell them.

Except in this thread where the OP is trying to manipulate the results to serve a predetermined outcome. I find it amazing the delaying tactics used? Because he is confronted by volumes of logic and a sensible way forward, it does not meet the preconceived notion/conclusion.

It continually amazes me when people believe outlandish things on the basis of what I consider to be very poor quality evidence. Some people are suspicious and skeptical, while others are, in my opinion, gullible and extremely irrational. Then, there are other issues for which I can't fault a person either way they believe on the issue, because the evidence is equivocal - it could go either way.

Precisely.

What it comes down to in a nutshell, the theist claims always are expected to be held to lower standards of veracity and as such, they know their claims cannot stand up to scrutiny OR at best, they know anecdotal evidence cannot be tested in the empirical sense.

When one is confronted after an exhaustive debate with;

"I know my god is real b/c I have a relationship with him", there really is nothing more anyone can say. That cannot be tested and does not constitute evidence but rather faith.

When the only thing that remains as published evidence is the holy text, that can be subjected to peer review sortof and we have a plethora of evidence to counterclaim the claims documented. Instead of following the logical discourse in weighing up the alternate, preponderance of the evidence, we are told we are taking it out of context. OR we really do not understand as you need some holy spook infilling to make sense of it all.

Is it unfair to expect they examine the alternate evidence? Not really but that requires due diligence and takes much time to digest and assimilate.

The roles of defense and prosecution are somewhat reversed in these discussions. In a court of law innocence is assumed. Reasonable doubt is thus the default.

The prosecution has to make the case for conviction. They have to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the defense is guilty. The defense only needs to maintain the default and challenge evidence offered as unreliable or questionable.

Demonstrating that the evidence, the bible is not reliable by highlighting the inconsistencies of "evidence" by showing certain events never occurred or events embellished et al. should be enough to have it struck off as an unreliable "witness". A judge will be obliged to rule that he jury ignore this or leave the jury to formulate their own conclusion, preponderance of the evidence.

Because the theist departs from the conclusion, god is real, then reverses the court room roles, we are expected to prove a negative of god is not real. The reality is the roles are not reversed. The proposition of the asserted claims falls in the realm of the prosecution. The prosecution/theist is thus responsible to present the evidence to remove reasonable doubt.

This never happens.

If we take any other scenario, science, claims by science, an air crash site, a train wreck, no assumptions are made. The onus rests on the claimant to prove once again beyond reasonable doubt his claims OR the results that led to the conclusion or preponderance of the evidence available.

A hypothesis, which may or may not be based on existing proven claims, is asserted to garner support for funding. If a hypothesis is a prediction, and after exhaustive research finds the prediction to be true, it becomes a theory, still open to critique and still open to correction if new evidence is found and/or existing evidence is found to be invalid. Peer review will independently test an hypothesis and/or theory and if they all come to the same conclusions, the claims are thus deemed valid.

Science is not tested in a courtroom and IF say evolution were ever proven incorrect, it will be by scientists and not theists.

Simply, the fossils of Adam and Eve will go a long way in making the assertion of the theist's case plausible. After all they are only 6000 years old and as such, DNA mapping may be possible.

Another good indication would be fossils of walking/flying/talking snakes that preceded the belly crawling variety.

When a theist starts offering the allegory card, that is merely an excuse for "well we know that cannot be real so it must mean something else" We then enter as seesaw situation as to what is literal and what is allegorical. We also find there is no fixed rule like italicized text for allegory and plain text for literal. It is obvious to the observer, that this is left pretty much to the whim of the theist and an infinite number of conclusions can be derived for the same text(s).

If science and trials were held to the same standard as the theist's we would have anarchy and chaos.

[Ryrge]

Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt

Each person has different standards for what evidence (amount and quality) would be needed to persuade them to believe a proposition is true (whatever it may be) and different propositions require different evidence.

That is one of the reasons jurors so often disagree on whether the prosecution has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty.

Since it does differ so widely from person to person, I don't think many hard rules can be discovered about the conditions under which most people would be satisfied that evidence has in fact established the truthfulness of a proposition. A faster way to get at it, is what is done in this forum on a regular basis, namely, a poster asks us what evidence it would take to get us to believe such-and-such, and we tell them.

It continually amazes me when people believe outlandish things on the basis of what I consider to be very poor quality evidence. Some people are suspicious and skeptical, while others are, in my opinion, gullible and extremely irrational. Then, there are other issues for which I can't fault a person either way they believe on the issue, because the evidence is equivocal - it could go either way.

You say in your short definition of evidence (and I really go for short definitions, because for being short they are most likely to come from serious and long and very careful honest razor sharp thinking on the part of their authors, than long long long definitions) that:

[Evidence is] "an observation by man submitted in support of a proposition."

Why don't you just say simply "in support of the existence of a thing."


A proposition is a thought in your mind, evidence is going to establish that you have a proposition in your mind that is true?


Okay, with all due respect, please expound.



In the meantime I am still waiting fro GldnRule to make his appearance in this thread, as he has told me that he will be coming over as soon as he has some time from his business.

For we have I presume by pm correspondence agreed to discuss about the mechanism how evidence operates.



Ryrge

[SeekerSA]

Why don't you just say simply "in support of the existence of a thing."

Because he is not playing into your trap. Get over it.

What you are doing is not even philosophically "intelligent", simply a bait and switch tactic. You are either willfully ignorant and refuse to engage in debate.

Really, 11 pages and you still have not progressed on from your OP.

May I ask, were you trained by Ray Comfort or his boyfriend Kirk? This approach reeks of that/their approach to debating with atheists.