No Evidence Vs Evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-05-2015, 01:34 PM
RE: No Evidence Vs Evidence
(06-05-2015 12:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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.

I like you Smile You always keep debates fun! And even though I don't agree with you, kudos to you for trying to take on a forum full of atheists. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2015, 01:37 PM
RE: No Evidence Vs Evidence
(06-05-2015 01:32 PM)jennybee Wrote:  
(06-05-2015 12:43 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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?

We haven't accepted the Bible as evidence. So there's that. 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, 01:49 PM
RE: No Evidence Vs Evidence
(06-05-2015 01:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(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.

I flipped a coin; philosophy was tails and A&T was heads.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2015, 02:05 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.

There is actually quite a difference in saying that there is "no evidence" for god and "no evidence" for evolution. In the case of a god, you are saying that the existence of god is your explanation of the existence of the humans on earth. An alternate hypothesis is that humans were produced by a process called evolution. I have seen no objectively observable evidence that supports the existence of a god. If you have any, we can discuss it. On the contrary, there is plenty of objectively observable evidence of evolution. With that in mind, we can reasonably conclude that some evidence for one hypothesis (evolution did it) is better than no evidence for the other hypothesis (god did it).

If you have objectively observable evidence of a god or gods, please share it and we can discuss whether it truly supports or negates one or the other of those two hypothesis. Do you have any to share?

I just wanted to let you know that I love you even though you aren't naked right now. Heart
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2015, 03:47 PM
RE: No Evidence Vs Evidence
(06-05-2015 09:20 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Since all these explanations incorporate these observations, could we accuse any of these explanations of having "no evidence" at all? Or is it only the true and accurate conclusion that has evidence, while the other ones don't?
There is a difference between facts and evidence.
Facts are simply factual observations.
e.g. A gun shot wound
a nearby gun
A dead body
Fingerprints

The task is to build up a case in support of a hypothesis. In the process of building the case the facts are evaluated regarding which facts support the hypothesis and which facts contradict the hypotheses. Those that contradict can be considered as evidence against.
For the facts that support the hypotheses these are still not yet considered evidence. If the fact supports the hypothesis and contradicts a competing hypothesis then it can be used to distinguish the viability of the hypothesis in comparison to the competing hypothesis. In this case it can be considered evidence.
Also, if the hypothesis is falsifiable whereas the fact could have contradicted it but instead was consistent then this is considered evidence for the hypothesis e.g. The fossil record is evidence for evolution because the fossil record is consistent with the predictions of evolution even though the fossil record had the potential to conflict(human bones with dinosaur bones in the Jurassic layer).
A hypothesis such as the Catholic assertion of transubstantiation cannot ever have evidence for it. It does not offer falsifiable criteria and the facts (bread and wine in the stomach) do not distinguish it from the competing hypothesis that the person has merely eaten bread and wine.
The hypothesis such as the assertion of the virgin birth of Jesus cannot ever have evidence for it. There are no documented medical records attesting to how the state of Mary's body couldn't have been consistent with a woman who had experienced sex.
The religious organisations are smart enough to know never to make testable claims.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stevil's post
06-05-2015, 03:51 PM
RE: No Evidence Vs Evidence
(06-05-2015 01:49 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(06-05-2015 01:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  Not really - it is a philosophical one. We are trying to establish what constitutes evidence.

I flipped a coin; philosophy was tails and A&T was heads.

Do you have any evidence of that? Consider

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
06-05-2015, 04:06 PM
RE: No Evidence Vs Evidence
(06-05-2015 01:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-05-2015 12:43 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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

It always seems to boil down to this ^
Amazing gyrations, contortions, sematics and philosophical wanderings are all fun to watch but in the end yield not a smidgen of evidence.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2015, 04:12 PM
RE: No Evidence Vs Evidence
(06-05-2015 09:20 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Let's say we come across a dead body, perhaps a scene of a crime, we see a variety of things like ruffled clothes, some bruises, etc...And a variety of people draw a seemingly infinite number of conclusion based on these things, a nearly infinite series of explanations.

Since all these explanations incorporate these observations, could we accuse any of these explanations of having "no evidence" at all? Or is it only the true and accurate conclusion that has evidence, while the other ones don't?
It would seem to me in this situation the "variety of people " will have a possible infinite number of interpretations , of what they see, or smell,etc.. Some might not care and not draw any conclusions. Some might think God struck him/her down. Some might think Aliens left the shell of a body after inhabiting it. You are fixing the game when you assume any of them will draw a conclusion at all.

Let's look at it from the other side..you have a dead body laying there, died of natural causes. And no one around to observe..are there still "observations"? Or conclusions? The fact of the body being there is independent to whether someone is there to observe it. It is either there or not. Now someone comes along and spots him. If he observes him, doesn't care and moves on, no need for evidence because there is nothing to prove. If he fears for his own safety, he would look for clues or "evidence " of what caused the death. He may pick out evidence that he interprets and is satisfied with, that does not mean that he is right with his conclusion. But it satisfies his requirements and life goes on. If he tries to convince everyone else that they are in danger , he will have to satisfy not his requirements of evidence, but everyone else's. Obviously some will require more than he did (most likely) and some might require less.

So, I would think "evidence" is not universal, but something agreed upon by one, several, or many individuals. The more individuals involved, the more consensus of what qualifies for "evidence " need be. So..without agreed upon parameters, its all interpretive? Just spit balling here, could be way off. Thoughts ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2015, 04:15 PM
RE: No Evidence Vs Evidence
(06-05-2015 01:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  Present your evidence for God and we can discuss its interpretation. Drinking Beverage

But isn't the evaluation of the evidence for a god still putting the cart before the horse of you have yet to even define what you mean by 'god'?

I just spent almost 3 weeks in a debate trying to get a theist to supply a meaningful (i.e. falsifiable) definition of their god concept and got nowhere.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2015, 04:36 PM
RE: No Evidence Vs Evidence
(06-05-2015 04:15 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(06-05-2015 01:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  Present your evidence for God and we can discuss its interpretation. Drinking Beverage

But isn't the evaluation of the evidence for a god still putting the cart before the horse of you have yet to even define what you mean by 'god'?

I just spent almost 3 weeks in a debate trying to get a theist to supply a meaningful (i.e. falsifiable) definition of their god concept and got nowhere.

and that surprises you? Tongue

"I don't have to have faith, I have experience." Joseph Campbell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: