Faith Is Not Belief Without Evidence

[E. Nato Difficile]

A house is demonstrable evidence that there was an intelligent designer and builder.

A piece of wood with someone's name on it is demonstrable evidence of a designer and wood carver.

A living cell, millions of times more complex than either of the above, is demonstrable evidence of a supreme Intelligent Designer and Maker. To say nothing of the millions of species of plants and animals, all demonstrating brilliant design and construction. And on and on the evidence grows.

What is Affirming the Consequent?

Thanks, Alex, I'm going to stick with Logical Fallacies for $400.

-Nato

 

[rusra02]

What is Affirming the Consequent?

Thanks, Alex, I'm going to stick with Logical Fallacies for $400.

-Nato

It may be a logical fallacy to you, but it is common sense to me. As Hebrews 3:4 says: "Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God."

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

It may be a logical fallacy to you, but it is common sense to me.

I don't doubt that. Oddly enough, religious belief has a secular counterpart in the conspiracy theory. Both are sort of cognitive mirages where literally any observation confirms the hypothesis, and the adherents claim that people's skepticism toward the hypothesis is motivated by bias rather than critical thinking.

You illustrated the truth of this by saying that the "demonstrable evidence" of God's existence is that the things he has created exist. In other words, the only disconfirming evidence of God's existence would be if nothing existed.

Convenient, but hardly persuasive.

-Nato

 

[ImmortalFlame]

People have this idea that all of we that have faith, have it without any evidence. I want to make it clear that we do have evidence. Some of you may not accept it as evidence, and some of you will probably see it as faulty evidence, but it is with evidence that we have the faith. I don't expect anyone else to accept the evidence that I have for my own faith.

Any other thoughts on this?

Evidence, by definition, is objectively verifiable. If you do not expect anybody else to accept it, then it is not evidence - it is just personal testimony. So, you believe without evidence, which is what faith is.

 

[Storm]

Evidence, by definition, is objectively verifiable. If you do not expect anybody else to accept it, then it is not evidence - it is just personal testimony. So, you believe without evidence, which is what faith is.

1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

3. Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.


I don't see anything in there about objectivity. Probably because there's no such thing.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

Since personal experiences which are not objectively verifiable cannot prove something, they are not evidence.

2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

A personal experience does not make something plain or clear, and indicates nothing beyond the person involved.

3. Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Since personal experience presents no actual data, it doesn't fit that either.

I don't see anything in there about objectivity. Probably because there's no such thing.

I said "objectively verifiable" meaning "anyone can test and observe the evidence for themselves".

 

[Storm]

Since personal experiences which are not objectively verifiable cannot prove something, they are not evidence.



A personal experience does not make something plain or clear, and indicates nothing beyond the person involved.


Since personal experience presents no actual data, it doesn't fit that either.


I said "objectively verifiable" meaning "anyone can test and observe the evidence for themselves".

OK, let's try this again. You said evidence was "BY DEFINITION objectively verifiable." I provided the definition, which lacks that stipulation. IOW, you were wrong, and Christine was perfectly justified in applying the word 'evidence' to personal experiences which persuaded her.

 

[cottage]

A house is demonstrable evidence that there was an intelligent designer and builder.

A piece of wood with someone's name on it is demonstrable evidence of a designer and wood carver.

A living cell, millions of times more complex than either of the above, is demonstrable evidence of a supreme Intelligent Designer and Maker. To say nothing of the millions of species of plants and animals, all demonstrating brilliant design and construction. And on and on the evidence grows.

A house is factual evidence that there was a human designer/builder. A piece of wood with a person’s name on it is factual evidence for the person. Facts are not demonstration! Cells, species of plants, humans and animals are factual! They are not demonstrable, either in themselves or as part of any argument that supposes to venture outside the phenomenal world. Your argument wants to absurdly apply features of the actual world to argue to other worlds (God) by supposing a deity who is dependent upon those same features. This demonstrates the logical problem of inferring the existence of other worlds while expecting to use phenomena from the actual world. And if it is maintained that such causal phenomena are necessary then it must be the case God cannot work without them, but we then have a direct contradiction because God answers to what is merely factual, rather than being necessary. And btw, nor is the world all ‘brilliant design and construction.’

 

[ImmortalFlame]

OK, let's try this again. You said evidence was "BY DEFINITION objectively verifiable." I provided the definition, which lacks that stipulation. IOW, you were wrong, and Christine was perfectly justified in applying the word 'evidence' to personal experiences which persuaded her.

No, you provided three definitions - all which actually work under my definition. Observe:

1. To "prove" something means "to demonstrate the truth of it". To demonstrate something requires objective verfication.

2. In order for something to be "plain or clear" it also needs to be verified objectively.

3. "Data" is objectively verifiable information.

I aleady explained what I meant by "objective verification". Just because the definition doesn't use those exact words doesn't mean my definition is wrong just because of how I choose phrase it. Read your definitions again.

 

[Storm]

No, you provided three definitions - all which actually work under my definition. Observe:

1. To "prove" something means "to demonstrate the truth of it". To demonstrate something requires objective verfication.

Wrong. It only needs to persuade the person in question.

2. In order for something to be "plain or clear" it also needs to be verified objectively.

Wrong again, for the same reason.

3. "Data" is objectively verifiable information.

Strike three, you're out. Data is raw information. I would provide the definition, but you'd just ignore that one, too.

I aleady explained what I meant by "objective verification". Just because the definition doesn't use those exact words doesn't mean my definition is wrong just because of how I choose phrase it. Read your definitions again.

Never said your understanding was wrong. I merely objected to your implicit claim that it was superior/ exclusive. Christine's usage was perfectly valid.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Wrong. It only needs to persuade the person in question.

No, you are wrong. For something to be "proven" it must be demonstrated to be so. Since personal experiences cannot be demonstrated, they do not "prove" anything. They may convince the person in question, but they do not "prove" their supposition true.

Strike three, you're out. Data is raw information. I would provide the definition, but you'd just ignore that one, too.

There's no need to be rude. Please explain to me how the definition you have provided in any way contradicts the definition I've provided.

Never said your understanding was wrong. I merely objected to your implicit claim that it was superior/ exclusive. Christine's usage was perfectly valid.

Except it's not, as I've explained. If something is entirely personal, it cannot be considered evidence. When I say "there is no evidence of God" I do not mean "there is no objective or subjective reason for anyone to conclude the existence of a God even on the basis of personal experience". I mean "there are no objectively verifiable facts that support the supposition that a God exists", because that's precisely what evidence is. Countering this by saying "I do have evidence - it's just entirely personal and I cannot demonstrate it" defeats the whole purpose of evidence in the first place, since the point of evidence is to objectively verify a claim. This is the reason personal testimonies that are unsupported by facts are almost universally thrown out of court.

 

[Storm]

There's no need to be rude.

Need? No. Cause? Absolutely: you're not paying attention.

Case in point:

Please explain to me how the definition you have provided in any way contradicts the definition I've provided.

IT DOESN'T. Again, I never said your usage was invalid. I said Christine's was valid as well, demonstrated my point, and rejected your attempt at rebuttal. All of which was ignored, as I suspect this will be.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

IT DOESN'T.

Then why did you say it was "wrong"?

Again, I never said your usage was invalid. I said Christine's was valid as well, demonstrated my point, and rejected your attempt at rebuttal. All of which was ignored, as I suspect this will be.

Excuse me? I just responded to every claim you made.

 

[Storm]

Then why did you say it was "wrong"?

Because of your insistence that your understanding is the sole valid understanding.

Excuse me? I just responded to every claim you made.

And ignored every point. Neat trick.

 

[ChristineES]

Personal evidence is not evidence.

Sure it is. But at the same time, if it were evidence for everyone, then I couldn't call it a faith. If it were evidence for the masses- it would be a fact.

 

[Storm]

ImmortalFlame, if all evidence must be intersubjectively verifiable, then why do we have subcategories at all (scientific evidence, anecdotal evidence)?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Because of your insistence that your understanding is the sole valid understanding.

Isn't that what you're doing now?

And ignored every point. Neat trick.

Stop accusing me of ignoring your point when I responded to every point you made. You're starting to sound childish now. Can we not have a grown-up discussion?

ImmortalFlame, if all evidence must be intersubjectively verifiable, then why do we have subcategories at all (scientific evidence, anecdotal evidence)?

Anecdotal evidence is still only considered evidence if it can be independantly verified. An anecdote, that is, the recollection of a particular real world event, is obviously completely different from a subjective personal experience which nobody else experienced and left behind no evidence whatsoever of the individual's claim.

In other words, why wouldn't there be different categories of objective verification?

 

[Storm]

Isn't that what you're doing now?


Stop accusing me of ignoring your point when I responded to every point you made. You're starting to sound childish now. Can we not have a grown-up discussion?

Not as long as you put words in my mouth like you just did, no.

Seriously, how do you get "MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE ONLY VALID ONE" from "both of you have valid understandings"? I haven't even mentioned my own understanding, only beaten my head against the wall trying to get you to back down from your ridiculously absolutist, exclusive bs.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not as long as you put words in my mouth like you just did, no.

I put words in your mouth? Where?

Seriously, how do you get "MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE ONLY VALID ONE" from "both of you have valid understandings"?

Because you didn't say that. You said I was wrong, repeatedly. Only now you're rowing back all the way to the boat house and saying "you're both right". Hell, even then you're still claiming that your understanding is more correct than my own.

I haven't even mentioned my own understanding, only beaten my head against the wall trying to get you to back down from your ridiculously absolutist, exclusive bs.

I fail to see how using the actual definition of a word makes me "ridiculously absolutist" or "exclusive". Could your knee jerk a little less in future?

 

[Storm]

Anecdotal evidence is when evidence is drawn from the personal testimonies of a group, not an individual, and is still only considered evidence if it can be independantly verified. An anecdote, that is, the recollection of a particular real world event, is obviously completely different from a subjective personal experience which nobody else experienced and left behind no evidence whatsoever of the individual's claim.

In other words, why wouldn't there be different categories of objective verification?

From the Wiki for anecdotal evidence: The expression anecdotal evidence refers to evidence from anecdotes.

Anecdote:
1. a short account of a particular incident or event, especially of an interesting or amusing nature.

2. a short, obscure historical or biographical account.

Nothing in there about groups. Stop making things up.



While I'm at it, the firs t line of the Wiki on "evidence" is: Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

Translation: anything persuasive may be fairly described as "evidence."

Deal with it.