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

[TRANSPONDER]

Well done Hueff. It is a familiar ploy of theists to accuse someone picking them up, when they use sloppy definitions or unsubstantiated assumptions so as to prepare the way for fallacious arguments (calling 'god' He rather than It is a common one), of being over - fussy, pedantic or legalistic.

It is perfectly correct to stop the fella dead as soon as he (or she) makes an a priori such as 'Well, let's say God is the creator of everything..' and ask for some support for that even before they smoothly slip to talking about Biblegod as being the only credible candidate for Creatorship, and then of course quote Paul as evidence that God without Jesus isn't..ah...what they have in mind..

Yep, they have to justify a lot before they get anywhere near that stage. Don't let 'em cut corners.

[Ryrge]

Preliminaries

Definitions of evidence:

From Hueff: An observation in support of a proposition.

From Ryrge: Anything man knows leading him to know another thing.

Definition of God from Ryrge: Maker of everything that is not himself.

-----------------------

Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt

[...]

I noticed your latest definition uses the word "Himself" instead of the more neutral "itself". Is that just a figure of speech or are you asserting that god is male, therefore he has a body or a spirit which includes testicles? Do his testicles produce testosterone; does he have a Y-chromosome?

Why is this important? Because if I find something that I can identify as the maker of everything and it is not male, then I can falsify your definition of god. Also, his maleness helps define who he is, not what he did like "maker of everything" does. The idea that he is male is not a dead end, but invites more and more questions, and I like it for that reason. Why would he be male if there were no female? Why would he be male if there was no reproduction? And on and on.

But, you probably just meant it as a figure of speech.

There, that is an example of over-meticulosity and literalism of fanaticism.


Being overly scrupulous with gender when it is obvious that the himself pronoun stands for anything that is a person.

Dear readers, please don't read the text from yours truly below, it is a personal message of me to Hueff, in the spirit of fraternal concern for a fellow human -- but communicated in the guise of rhetorical humor with a sardonic garb.

I will not lapse like you into the quagmire of your scrupulous meticulosity nitpicking heart and mind which is in the service of your fanatical attachment to your obsessed ideas, like insisting for exmple on a proposition as the target of an evidence.


You see, with your kind of a fanatical over-scrupulous meticulositossimous nitpicking over minutiae, you are missing the camel.

Is that how your heart and mind works, being overly argumentative over nitpicked minutiae conceptual distinctions, like objecting to the use of himself instead of itself, over gender and sexual reproductive aspects of mammals, when even a child knows that himself is not all the time indicative of a male person, just that it is conventionally used in reference to a person as distinct to a non-person.

I think it is hopeless if we normal people seek to come to any consensus with an overly scrupulous guy like Hueff.

When his wife greets him coming home with the routine question, "Did you have a good day?" he will launch into an argument with her, by insisting to her that there is no such thing as good or bad, etc., etc., etc., etc.


Well, I just have to live with him in this thread, and like a mature normal person just disregard all such scrupulous overly meticulous obsession with minutiae, when the big picture is the one we are after.


Dear Hueff, more and more you meet my worst expectation of the impossibility of any viability to any consensus with you over the issue of this thread, what is evidence.


Anyway, I am just curious to examine more extensively the kind of psychoneurotic meticuloticism in your heart and mind.

It is an interesting sideline hobby, the observation of the proposition-question how a person can sink himself so deep into minuticism.


This message is ad hominem, not in a bad sense, but with the intention to reach the person, the homo sapiens, of Hueff, and hope to influence him as to effect a change in his heart and mind, to divest himself of such a madness.

Feel better now, thanks everyone for your company, appreciate that.

And everyone or anyone at all, don't do anything drastic -- because no matter the obstructors here and the obstacles of idiocies unavoidable from people otherwise routinely normal, I am happy to hear from GldnRule that the thread is doing fine.

Ryrge

[Ryrge]

Originally Posted by SeekerSA

We have simply been waiting for you to present evidence.

The first attempt you make is a fallacious analogy to the twin towers.

That hardly constitutes evidence. It is called a strawman tactic. Theists use it all the time in forum debates.

How about your camp simply present the world with the fossils of Adam and Eve? Most folk in your camp believe the earth is no older than ±6000 years old so expend some effort where you think the garden of eden may have been.

Human remains that were alleged to be 900 odd years old before passing should show some real signs of wear and tear unlike the normal lifespan of real fossils.

We can ignore for now the plethora of irrefutable evidence for a very old earth which allows for aboigenesis and evolution to transpire. We can also ignore the real fossil record and pretend dino fossils were put there by satan to fool the scientists.

Having the GoE artifacts and A&E bones in the Smithsonian would go a long way to proving your god. We could also reasonably expect a 6k yo fossil of a talking/walking/flying/serpent aka a dragon.

Real science has the wherewithal to test any findings you may have in this regard.

At minimum, you should be able to confirm the creation event.

God is nth time more than your objection-observations, see the big picture, please.




Ryrge

[Ryrge]

Please, everyone, the direction now is with the question what kind of evidence should apply to substantiate the existence of God according to the concept that God is the maker of everything not Himself.


Can you just abstain for the present from bringing in all kinds of objections petty ones against God?


It's like we are working on the recipe for Chicken in Caviar Sauce, but you guys already keep objecting against the existence of Chicken in Caviar Sauce.


Wait till the recipe is all finished from the part of every participating cook, then you use it to prepare Chicken in Caviar Sauce, and try to convince others that is it no good.



Ryrge

[Hueffenhardt]

As I said, I am only this meticulous when we are talking about the law, scientific investigations or philosophy, all areas where evidence is used. You can rest assured that I am not like this in my typical interactions in life, including those with my wife.

Being that meticulous would be harmful in social interactions, but it is a characteristic of highest value and praise in solving problems and in determining what is true.

I am a research analyst/statistician by trade and it is essential that when I perform an analysis I am precise and accurate; close enough is not good enough.

Now, this thread is about a subject near and dear to my heart. I am an atheist. It is part of my identity, and I earned it after much emotional and intellectual hard work.

I have thoroughly examined all the evidence and arguments people submit in support of the proposition "god exists", and I can articulate very well, why that evidence and those arguments are lacking.

Now, you can say, "you are straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel" all you want. I was a devout and devoted believer for many years who believed I had a personal and very close relationship with God. I thought I talked with Him all the time, felt the warmth of his Spirit, and saw His hand in all things. I know that perspective very well; I lived it. Then, I came across evidence that proved that relationship with God I thought I had was unreliable at best and most likely all in my head; a mere imaginary friend combined with a confirmation bias.

Everything, all evidence for God, all of my spiritual experiences, could be explained through a naturalist worldview absent of god.

So evidence, especially in regards to god, has been a central issue in my life, so forgive me, if I don't give you an inch in this examination of evidence and god. It is important.

Quite frankly, nobody has ever been able to give a satisfactory definition of god, like we can easily define a giraffe or any other inhabitant of this planet. Where is god? What is god composed of? What are god's dimensions? Describe the texture of god's surface? What color is god? What is god's density? What noises does god typically make? Describe god's gait, or common behaviors.

We can answer all of those questions about a giraffe, but not about god, and those who think they have answers, all they really have are guesses. And if god is a spiritual being, then what is spirit, really? What are its properties? What are you really communicating with when you think you talk to god? Then we hear the common explanation, that god is beyond our comprehension, which is an admission that nobody knows what god is.

So, since no one even knows what god is, how can one begin to gather evidence in support of its existence when no one knows what the heck they are talking about.

[SeekerSA]

Originally Posted by Ryrge

God is nth time more than your objection-observations, see the big picture, please.
Ryrge

So why is my suggestion not acceptable? I did not even ask you to prove god but prove his creation as documented in Genesis.

Finding 6000 year old fossils and artifacts of the creation event seems statistically more plausible. After all, these must have been real people and a real place.

If you avoid addressing this, I claim a win for abiogenesis and evolution by default.

I am sorry, you no longer get to make the rules. You asked for evidence, I stated what evidence would get us started.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by Ryrge

Please, everyone, the direction now is with the question what kind of evidence should apply to substantiate the existence of God according to the concept that God is the maker of everything not Himself.


Can you just abstain for the present from bringing in all kinds of objections petty ones against God?


It's like we are working on the recipe for Chicken in Caviar Sauce, but you guys already keep objecting against the existence of Chicken in Caviar Sauce.


Wait till the recipe is all finished from the part of every participating cook, then you use it to prepare Chicken in Caviar Sauce, and try to convince others that is it no good.

You know what would be more productive than this post. ACTUALLY GETTING TO THE POINT INSTEAD OF PLAYING GAMES.

Actually, come to think of it, blunt head trauma would also be more productive...

[hooligan]

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

You know what would be more productive than this post. ACTUALLY GETTING TO THE POINT INSTEAD OF PLAYING GAMES.

Actually, come to think of it, blunt head trauma would also be more productive...

Bolded the above for emphasis. Ryrge, instead of making us all guess at what the rules of your little game are - why not just make the statement you seem determined to make and we can all move forward from there?

Your dictating partial lists of what is and is not allowed to be discussed is getting VERY tiresome, to be honest...

[TRANSPONDER]

Ryurge

Preliminaries

Definitions of evidence:

From Hueff: An observation in support of a proposition.

From Ryrge: Anything man knows leading him to know another thing.

Definition of God from Ryrge: Maker of everything that is not himself.

We have two definitions of 'evidence' Clearly we need to see how they differ.

Hueff's is validated evidence. Sound evidence.

Ryurge's is suspect and I think it may not be a correct definition. I'll look it up.

There's obviously an opening for all sorts of mistakes and false assumptions.

Ryurge's definition of God is also questionable. Why 'himself'? Why not 'Itself?' This is taking the unwarranted assumption of 'god' (since one asked if it didn't make itself, what did? Why not call that 'god'?) a step further into irrationality.

Ps. let's look up that def...

Merriam Webster

Definition of EVIDENCE

1
a : an outward sign : indication b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter

Well, maybe this does support Ryurge's definition. Something that one knows (hopefully correctly) that leads them on to discover and know something else. Hopefully also correctly. The question is how do you tell the difference between 'know' and 'believe'? It can only be how good the evidence is and this we are back to Hueff's definition of an observation in support of a proposition.

Bugger. That seems to have the same problem. You observe lightning strike the ground. that supports the proposition that Thor is angry. It does seem to come down again to 'how do we know what we know' and the contention that scientifically validated evidence and logically sound proposition are the best. Speculations while they go where validated knowledge cannot (yet) reach are often useful but are not Evidence - not sound evidence, at least.

Apologies for the length, and semantic fanaticism, but it is necessary to avoid risking misleading ourselves.

[Hueffenhardt]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

It can only be how good the evidence is and this we are back to Hueff's definition of an observation in support of a proposition.

Bugger. That seems to have the same problem. You observe lightning strike the ground. that supports the proposition that Thor is angry. It does seem to come down again to 'how do we know what we know' and the contention that scientifically validated evidence and logically sound proposition are the best. Speculations while they go where validated knowledge cannot (yet) reach are often useful but are not Evidence - not sound evidence, at least.

Actually my definition of evidence is: an observation submitted in support of a proposition.

You observe lightning strike the ground. Someone could submit that observation in support of the proposition that Thor is angry. The one hearing the submission evaluates the claim and rules in their own mind whether the observation really does support the claim or not.

As much as many would like to think no evidence is objective, not even scientifically supported evidence. You will never see the claim in any peer-reviewed research journal that a scientist proved anything. Scientists test the null hypothesis and rule based on an arbitrary chosen p value, typically 0.05 or 0.01, whether a result they obtained was statistically significant, basically that they are comfortable saying that the results are not likely to be due to chance alone. That doesn't mean that their hypothesis is right; there may be other possible explanations for the results not yet considered. The field of the philosophy of science addresses all of this and perhaps is worthy of its own thread.

Even in law, objective evidence does not exist. DNA evidence could be present due to contamination by those who collected or tested it. Eye-witness testimony is notoriously faulty.

The sooner we all realize and accept that there is a subjective element to all evidence, then we can begin to look at how we weigh the evidence.

Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt

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.

Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt

Let me be clear by what I mean when I say observation: the noting of a fact or occurrence. This includes causal observations and scientific observations gathered methodically and/or with instruments.

I do not claim that observations are objective, or are beyond questioning. I think we should not only question whether an observation actually supports a claim, but also whether the observation itself is valid. Errors can be and often are made during observations. Evidence must be an observation (an observation of a stained dress in a criminal trial; an observation of a testimony given by a witness who in turn made an observation of a crime scene; an observation of a fossil).

I also object to the use of the phrase "something you know". I don't think people "know" half of what they think they "know". Saying you made an observation acknowledges that you could be mistaken. Claiming to know something suggests it is a fact and you could not possibly be wrong.

An object is not evidence until it is first observed and then submitted as evidence in the trial, discussion, etc. Let's suppose for a moment that god does exist, we cannot claim that god's being is evidence of his existence before his being is observed and submitted. We have to know its there before it can be considered evidence, and the only way we can know it is there is if an observation is made. Otherwise it is just speculative.

An earring left at a crime scene and undiscovered by investigators is not evidence in the case. It becomes evidence when it is observed, collected, bagged, and tagged, and submitted as evidence to the DA's office, who can then in turn submit it in the trial as evidence accompanied with an argument trying to support some proposition. It is interesting how evidence in a trial is called "Exhibit A" or "Exhibit B"; it is being put on display for the jurors to observe.