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 think the internet is evidence for Heaven. At the very least it is the perfect metaphor for Heaven. The Holy Spirit works through the Chakras. Information travels at, or faster than the speed of light. Each Chakra gives off, and takes in different aspects of spiritual information, from one enlightened being to another. The internet is one big Chakra. It does the EXACT same thing.
Even editors of the Wikipedia find the concept of evidence problematic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeekerSA
[...]
The thread is pretty silly as if there is no universal definition for evidence.
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.
[...]
It would appear that unlike you the editors of the Wikipedia are themselves aware of the problematic character of the concept of evidence.
Evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof. Many issues surround evidence, making it the subject of much discussion and disagreement. In addition to its subtlety, evidence plays an important role in many academic disciplines, including science and law, adding to the discourse surrounding it.
Scientific evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Scientific evidence has no universally accepted definition but generally refers to evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.
Just the same we should not be fearful of going into the challenge to work together to come to a consensus on the generic concept of evidence that is applicable to every field of human inquiry where people are insisting on evidence.
Wanted: Adventure-some people to join in the formulation of a generic concept of evidence applicable to all fields of human inquiry where evidence is in demand.
But SeekerSA if you do have a universal concept of evidence, then I congratulate you, I for one am working for such a universal definition of evidence.
Have you contributed your own personally crafted definition of evidence, please forgive me if I overlooked it.
My goal is to make the concept of evidence as broad and as simple as I can make it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt
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.
My goal is to make the concept of evidence as broad and as simple as I can make it.
And I think this is a very broad and simple concept of evidence:
Anything man knows leading him to know another thing. (9 words)
You prefer your own:
"an observation by man submitted in support of a proposition" (10 words)
I think Luminous Truth has this concept (if I get him correctly):
Okay, let us then accept all three, or if you prefer you need not take mine seriously, but I still think that for broad embrace and in simple words, it is accessible to man in the street, though not in the laboratory or in the post-graduate classroom.
Here are the posts with examples of what evidence is.
Here are some samples of evidence including most importantly what target the evidence is substantiating to exist in objective reality or in concepts in the mind of man:
If I missed any examples, please add to this list.
And you can still add more examples, because from your examples we can get more and more precise on the generic concept of evidence that should apply to every field of human inquiry.
Okay, let us then accept all three, or if you prefer you need not take mine seriously, but I still think that for broad embrace and in simple words, it is accessible to man in the street, though not in the laboratory or in the post-graduate classroom.
Ryrge
My goal is to be as accurate and precise as I can in defining what evidence is because if we are going to logically build off what evidence is, and the term is not precisely defined, we increase the likelihood of coming to false conclusions, and negating the effort of the whole endeavor. Yes, the definition needs to be broad enough to apply to all applications of the word evidence, but it also needs to be narrow enough to define only evidence and not include things that might be related to the concept of evidence but are not evidence. And the definition should not be so sloppy that it could practically mean anything and thus means nothing, or is incomprehensible when specific examples (i.e., "rock") are plugged into variable words such as "thing".
Since you seem to be ok with keeping all three definitions on the table, I am fine with that so that we can proceed.
I also think we have enough examples on the table. Where do you want to go next?
Two directions: go to the mechanism how evidence operates or give more examples of evidence and explain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt
My goal is to be as accurate and precise as I can in defining what evidence is because if we are going to logically build off what evidence is, and the term is not precisely defined, we increase the likelihood of coming to false conclusions, and negating the effort of the whole endeavor. Yes, the definition needs to be broad enough to apply to all applications of the word evidence, but it also needs to be narrow enough to define only evidence and not include things that might be related to the concept of evidence but are not evidence. And the definition should not be so sloppy that it could practically mean anything and thus means nothing, or is incomprehensible when specific examples (i.e., "rock") are plugged into variable words such as "thing".
Since you seem to be ok with keeping all three definitions on the table, I am fine with that so that we can proceed.
I also think we have enough examples on the table. Where do you want to go next?
Two directions: go to the mechanism how evidence operates or give more examples of evidence and explain.
I was talking with GldnRule about the mechanism how evidence operates in connection with her insight that anything can be evidence of something.
So, I will take that up with her when she comes on online.
Let us go to examples of evidence.
But any example of evidence must state the evidence and also the target of the evidence which is to substantiate the existence of the target in objective reality or at least in the mind of man.
I already gave the example of a man all alone and hearing a big noise behind him, indicative of a huge heavy rock rolling toward him, that is the evidence: the hearing of the noise indicative of a heavy rock rolling toward him, and the target of the evidence?
The target of the evidence is danger to himself, and the resolution?
It would appear that unlike you the editors of the Wikipedia are themselves aware of the problematic character of the concept of evidence.
Evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof. Many issues surround evidence, making it the subject of much discussion and disagreement. In addition to its subtlety, evidence plays an important role in many academic disciplines, including science and law, adding to the discourse surrounding it.
Scientific evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Scientific evidence has no universally accepted definition but generally refers to evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.
Just the same we should not be fearful of going into the challenge to work together to come to a consensus on the generic concept of evidence that is applicable to every field of human inquiry where people are insisting on evidence.
Wanted: Adventure-some people to join in the formulation of a generic concept of evidence applicable to all fields of human inquiry where evidence is in demand.
But SeekerSA if you do have a universal concept of evidence, then I congratulate you, I for one am working for such a universal definition of evidence.
Have you contributed your own personally crafted definition of evidence, please forgive me if I overlooked it.
I gave three examples and pretty much refuted the idea of a universal definition. We all understand what the word evidence means, the problem is that theists do not understand what constitutes evidence. Belief is their only offering and statements of I have experienced god or it is a relationship... This is known as anecdotal which is a story or a tale.
Then we are offered the argumentum ad populum (appeal to numbers) suggestion because so many claim a belief in some deity, this somehow validates their claim. This claim is refuted solely on the grounds that no two people can agree on who or what this deity is and we are left with appeals to their holy texts.
Even after exhaustive presentation of contrary evidence that shows that their claims are based on incorrect indoctrination, the history they believe is false, all of this supported by mountains of contrary evidence, the idea of reasonable doubt still does not resonate. Holding onto such beliefs is what we term cognitive dissonance.
In a court of law, a prosecutor presents evidence to convince the jury of guilt, the defense counters and presents counter evidence that shows that which the prosecution presents is suspect or not reliable, the prosecutor then stands up and presents the same evidence again... There jury will get frustrated and the judge will rule a mistrial. Beyond reasonable doubt is not really a tall ask. When reasonable doubt exists, the jury defaults to the verdict of not guilty.
In the contexts of theist debates, when all counter evidence has been presented, the theist presents the same or deflects creating what is known as a strawman, then argues against the strawman he created.
They are left with only one final hail mary and that is they have faith and that is that. We say fine, but faith only proves that by their definition it is akin to wishful thinking and ergo, their evidence crumbles. Our position for no evidence for god(s) existing stands.
To the thread, you cold simply have posed a question or two what evidence would be considered by atheists for the concept (that is all it is really) that god exists. Theists cannot be swayed until they elect to do their own questioning and research.
So it comes down to us atheists continuously refuting their claims backed by counter evidence with the hope they will see the light. We have no threat to offer and as such do nothing else. Bear in mind most atheists are ex theists so we are very familiar with the canned arguments.
Okay, let us then accept all three, or if you prefer you need not take mine seriously, but I still think that for broad embrace and in simple words, it is accessible to man in the street, though not in the laboratory or in the post-graduate classroom.
This is simply dumbing down evidence to suit a dumbed down illiterate audience.
For theists this will work but sadly for science, one needs a better foundation of facts to work from.
A theist may expect a sound byte explanation for evolution - not possible
A theist expects to see a transitional fossil and by transitional they expect something like a crockoduck.
A theist expect to see evolution happening in their lifetime before their eyes, indoctrinated with a YEC concept, science is expected to fit everything in this time frame. Present them concrete evidence of a very old earth and still they do not consider the evidence as valid and accuse scientists of manipulating data.
Although evolution does not seek to define or explain a deity, the theist knows that it defeats their basic premise of original sin and creation and will be forced to concede/acknowledge this is plausible.
The reality is we have to educate them as most only regurgitate what they have been taught in sunday school and have not even tried to read opposing materials.
This is good...but there are potential "issues" to be "ironed out"...Nozz even made specific mention of it: You have to EXACTLY DEFINE what is the subject/issue of your claim.
It is contingent upon first getting agreement on the definition...and Good Luck with that.
Unless, of course, you just accept the one making the claim as who determines the definition.
Yes - I had thought that was implicit in my 3 steps but I can make it explicit if you like. During the the three steps it is up to the speaker to define what they are talking about.
The issue specifically with god for example is that there is no one definition of what "god" is. We have one word "god" describing a multitude of different ideas around the world. Even people sitting beside each other at the same church for 25 years can, when you sit them down and really unpick their beliefs, turn out to mean massively different things by that same word.
So it is up to the speaker to define what their claim actually is and who or what it entails. This is already true of scientific papers where the scientist sets out their claim in no uncertain terms. It is also already true in a court of law where the prosecution describes exactly what their case is. They do not walk in and say "The accused is accused of something.... something or other.... and I say he is guilty".
This is also a challange for the skeptic/atheist/defense. When one is considering the claims of someone one must denude oneself of the baggage attached to the words in question and focus on what the person you are speaking to is ACTUALLY claiming. So when someone says to me "There is a god" for example.... I have to ask them what THEY mean by that term and I have to do the work in my own brain of forgetting what I mean by that term. If I do not then I risk my own misconceptions getting in the way.
Alas the issue is such people can not even define themselves what they mean by words like "god". Search the forum for posts between me and MysticPHD. I had to ask in 2 threads more than 20 times for the user to tell me what they meant by "god" and the user just would not / could not do it. Kyle Butt in a debate against Dan Barker could not either. He kept calling god "spirit" and when asked again and again what "spirit" even means he could not define it. The best he could tell you was what spirit WASNT. He could not even once say what it WAS.
So yes, when presenting evidence for a claim it is monumentally important to explain exactly what it is you are claiming in the first place. If you can not even get that far, then you clearly do not even understand your own claim... and if you do not you will hardly get anyone else to either.
You have all the right to bring in God in relation to the concept....
I know. But thanks. It is not relevant or important really because... as I said.... you can swap out god and swap in anything else you want. The things I am saying do not change. So if you have any objection to my use of god as an example then feel free to imagine I mean... alien abductions.... or the efficacy of homeopathy.... or astrology..... or the existence of unicorns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge
Yes, you go ahead and mention God, I presume you are referring to God in the Christian faith
Not specifically. When I use the word "god" I mean any non human intelligence that is reported to be responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe. That applies to Christians just as much as to Muslims.
when applying my three step procedure to THAT... there has been no one EVER that has been able to do it. Even once. Even a little bit. There simply appears to be no evidence whatsoever that a "god" exists.
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.
Even editors of the Wikipedia find the concept of evidence problematic.
