No Evidence Vs Evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-05-2015, 12:43 PM
RE: No Evidence Vs Evidence
(06-05-2015 12:14 PM)TurkeyBurner Wrote:  Anything that is objectively observable could be used as evidence for something.

The "something" is usually a preliminary hypothesis or set of hypotheses formed to explain some phenomenon, event or thing. Most of these hypotheses are based on similarity to previously encountered scenarios and the probability that the new thing is probably a result of the same basic circumstances as the previous things. This is really just to save time and energy. However, we then evaluate the available evidence to determine if it: a) supports the hypothesis, b) negates the hypothesis, or c) neither supports nor negates the hypothesis.

I likely agree with you here.

But let's take a common statement like there is "no evidence" for God, in reality it doesn't seem to mean that there is in fact is "no evidence", but the hypothesis, the conclusion drawn from the evidence is not supported? You're saying more about the explanation, the conclusion, than the evidence itself.

It seems common for people to use the term "no evidence" almost exclusively for any view that they don't agree with or believe. Most creationist will say there's "no evidence" for evolution, and most atheists would say there's "no evidence" for God. In some way they both mean the same thing, but not particularly what the words imply.

That seems to be what I gather.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2015, 12:46 PM
RE: No Evidence Vs Evidence
(06-05-2015 12:32 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  Did you run this person over with your car because he was wearing an atheist shirt?

Why would I do that? I like atheists. I don't think some of them care for me too much, but that's besides the point.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2015, 12:50 PM
RE: No Evidence Vs Evidence
(06-05-2015 10:15 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(06-05-2015 10:08 AM)Dom Wrote:  Of course they're evidence - everything you can see is evidence of something.

So in your view, the "clues" as pablo put it, are evidence from the beginning, regardless if the correct conclusion has been drawn from them?

Of course it's evidence. It may not be the evidence needed to form a conclusion, but a bruise still is evidence of physical harm. Whether this piece of evidence has anything to do with the case is a whole other story.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2015, 01:09 PM (This post was last modified: 06-05-2015 01:21 PM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: No Evidence Vs Evidence
Did anyone see Tomasia before this victim mysteriously showed up dead?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
06-05-2015, 01:16 PM
RE: No Evidence Vs Evidence
Tomasia, if there were evidence for god you would have shown it by now. Instead you've tried to do an 'end run' around showing actual evidence by trying to somehow change what is considered evidence.
It's no more than a distraction to avoid the fact that your belief in god is not defendable by any rational means.
If you want to believe in god, fine go ahead, just keep it to youself and there is no problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
06-05-2015, 01:27 PM
RE: No Evidence Vs Evidence
(06-05-2015 12:08 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(06-05-2015 11:57 AM)Chas Wrote:  If it is an observable fact, confirmable by others, it is evidence. You may not know what it is evidence of, but it is most certainly evidence of something.

So every "observable condition" as was previously put, is evidence. The ruffled clothing, the bruises are all evidence, prior to any conclusion being drawn from them.

The Bible is evidence, the only question is, evidence for what?

Precisely.

The stories in the Bible are evidence of nothing but fiction/myth until demonstrated to be fact by something external to the Bible.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
06-05-2015, 01:28 PM
RE: No Evidence Vs Evidence
(06-05-2015 12:16 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Thread moved to A&T. This isn't a scientific discussion, but a theological one.

Not really - it is a philosophical one. We are trying to establish what constitutes evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
06-05-2015, 01:30 PM
RE: No Evidence Vs Evidence
(06-05-2015 12:12 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(06-05-2015 12:06 PM)pablo Wrote:  I'm sure you've heard that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As your claims escalate in absurdity, my requirements for evidence of these claims also escalates.

Extraordinary claims don't require extraordinary evidence, except for you. If someone accepted less than extraordinary evidence to believe something you'd consider extraordinary, it's just to each his own.

In fact the very notion of what is and what isn't extraordinary is subjective, a qualitative value.

A human body rising from the dead, dead saints walking around town, jesus floating up to heaven on a cloud, jesus curing blindness with his spit, jonah being swallowed (and surviving) inside a whale, god appearing as a burning bush, angels flying around with hot coals, Lot's wife being turned into a pillar of salt...I'd say that's all pretty extraordinary stuff Tongue

"Let the waters settle and you will see the moon and stars mirrored in your own being." -Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jennybee's post
06-05-2015, 01:31 PM
RE: No Evidence Vs Evidence
(06-05-2015 12:43 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(06-05-2015 12:14 PM)TurkeyBurner Wrote:  Anything that is objectively observable could be used as evidence for something.

The "something" is usually a preliminary hypothesis or set of hypotheses formed to explain some phenomenon, event or thing. Most of these hypotheses are based on similarity to previously encountered scenarios and the probability that the new thing is probably a result of the same basic circumstances as the previous things. This is really just to save time and energy. However, we then evaluate the available evidence to determine if it: a) supports the hypothesis, b) negates the hypothesis, or c) neither supports nor negates the hypothesis.

I likely agree with you here.

But let's take a common statement like there is "no evidence" for God, in reality it doesn't seem to mean that there is in fact is "no evidence", but the hypothesis, the conclusion drawn from the evidence is not supported? You're saying more about the explanation, the conclusion, than the evidence itself.

It seems common for people to use the term "no evidence" almost exclusively for any view that they don't agree with or believe. Most creationist will say there's "no evidence" for evolution, and most atheists would say there's "no evidence" for God. In some way they both mean the same thing, but not particularly what the words imply.

That seems to be what I gather.

Present your evidence for God and we can discuss its interpretation. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
06-05-2015, 01:32 PM
RE: No Evidence Vs Evidence
(06-05-2015 12:43 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(06-05-2015 12:14 PM)TurkeyBurner Wrote:  Anything that is objectively observable could be used as evidence for something.

The "something" is usually a preliminary hypothesis or set of hypotheses formed to explain some phenomenon, event or thing. Most of these hypotheses are based on similarity to previously encountered scenarios and the probability that the new thing is probably a result of the same basic circumstances as the previous things. This is really just to save time and energy. However, we then evaluate the available evidence to determine if it: a) supports the hypothesis, b) negates the hypothesis, or c) neither supports nor negates the hypothesis.

I likely agree with you here.

But let's take a common statement like there is "no evidence" for God, in reality it doesn't seem to mean that there is in fact is "no evidence", but the hypothesis, the conclusion drawn from the evidence is not supported? You're saying more about the explanation, the conclusion, than the evidence itself.

It seems common for people to use the term "no evidence" almost exclusively for any view that they don't agree with or believe. Most creationist will say there's "no evidence" for evolution, and most atheists would say there's "no evidence" for God. In some way they both mean the same thing, but not particularly what the words imply.

That seems to be what I gather.

Other than the Bible, what evidence do you have for God?

"Let the waters settle and you will see the moon and stars mirrored in your own being." -Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: