How does one come to believe something?

[Freodin]

Let me ask you this:

When the prosecution makes an opening statement, claiming the defendant is guilty of the crime, does the court consider this evidence the defendant has committed the crime? Or, does the prosecution actually have to produce evidence, independent of the opening statement, to support their claim?

I have to (marginally) agree with Chriliman here. A claim is "evidence".

"Evidence" alone is meaningless. "Evidence" only gets meaning in connection with something else... evidence for or against what?

So Chriliman is making a correct statement in his "claim 2".

It is correct... and meaningless as long as he doesn't provide the connection. It still remains meaningless, because the only connection that he can provide is self-referential.

 

[Freodin]

"Evidence" for what?

Evidence of what?

BINGO!

 

[bhsmte]

I have to (marginally) agree with Chriliman here. A claim is "evidence".

"Evidence" alone is meaningless. "Evidence" only gets meaning in connection with something else... evidence for or against what?

So Chriliman is making a correct statement in his "claim 2".

It is correct... and meaningless as long as he doesn't provide the connection. It still remains meaningless, because the only connection that he can provide is self-referential.

That was my point. Anybody can pile on claim after claim. If the claim is not directly connected to reliable evidence, it is absolutely meaningless and they are a dime a dozen.

In other words, claims are basically opinion, until they can be backed with reliable evidence.

 

[quatona]

I have to (marginally) agree with Chriliman here. A claim is "evidence".

"Evidence" alone is meaningless. "Evidence" only gets meaning in connection with something else... evidence for or against what?

So Chriliman is making a correct statement in his "claim 2".

Yes, a claim is evidence in the same way a house is evidence.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Claims can contain facts and information and they do exist in reality for all to see, so I'm really not sure why they can't be considered as evidence...

Claims can contain evidence that the assertion is true, but they typically do not (e.g. "Claim: State or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof" Oxford English Dictionary). The mere fact of a claim is not itself evidence of anything but the existence of a claim - in the trivial sense that any thing is evidence for itself.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Augmental...

Augmenting what, and why?

 

[HitchSlap]

I have to (marginally) agree with Chriliman here. A claim is "evidence".

"Evidence" alone is meaningless. "Evidence" only gets meaning in connection with something else... evidence for or against what?

So Chriliman is making a correct statement in his "claim 2".

It is correct... and meaningless as long as he doesn't provide the connection. It still remains meaningless, because the only connection that he can provide is self-referential.

It's chrilis assertion that every claim is a truth claim.

 

[ScottA]

In other words, claims are basically opinion, until they can be backed with reliable evidence.

That is a convoluted way of viewing anything factual.

Just because we are debating a matter that has not been determined to be a fact...does not automatically become a "claim" or an "opinion" because it has not been established. Facts are facts regardless. To call an unsubstantiated fact a "claim" is correct, but to call an unsubstantiated fact an "opinion", is not correct. And to call a unsubstantiated fact a "belief", is only one of two possibilities - a complete guess.

 

[Chriliman]

I have to (marginally) agree with Chriliman here. A claim is "evidence".

"Evidence" alone is meaningless. "Evidence" only gets meaning in connection with something else... evidence for or against what?

So Chriliman is making a correct statement in his "claim 2".

It is correct... and meaningless as long as he doesn't provide the connection. It still remains meaningless, because the only connection that he can provide is self-referential.

How can something that's correct be meaningless?

 

[bhsmte]

Claims can contain evidence that the assertion is true, but they typically do not (e.g. "Claim: State or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof" Oxford English Dictionary). The mere fact of a claim is not itself evidence of anything but the existence of a claim - in the trivial sense that any thing is evidence for itself.

If a claim also contains evidence of the claim, it is no longer just a claim, but a claim made in conjunction with evidence.

If the prosecutor states; the defendant is guilty of the crime and his DNA would found on the murder weapon, that is a claim and evidence combined. If the prosecutor states; the defendant is guilty of murder, that is a different story. And when you get into the nitty gritty, the court would still not find the prosecutors statement of DNA as evidence, until the science was presented in the court as legit.

Than of course, all evidence is open to cross examination, to determine if the evidence actually points where it claims to be pointing.

 

[Freodin]

How can something that's correct be meaningless?

Check the term "tautology".

 

[bhsmte]

How can something that's correct be meaningless?

What are you claiming is correct?

 

[HitchSlap]

Hey Hitchslap, my definition proposes that since it's a fact that you've made that claim, your claim is evidence. It does not propose that since it's a fact that you made that claim, your claim is true. There is a big difference

To make it more clear, consider the difference between following claims:

Claim 1) "His claim is true, since it's a fact that he made a claim"

Claim 2) "His claim is evidence, since it's a fact that he made a claim"

Can you see and understand the difference? I'm claiming #2, not #1.

Hope that helps

Ah, I see you've taken what we've all been trying to tell you to heart. A claim is only as goods as the evidence to support it.
Good on ya'!

 

[bhsmte]

That is a convoluted way of viewing anything factual.

Just because we are debating a matter that has not been determined to be a fact...does not automatically become a "claim" or an "opinion" because it has not been established. Facts are facts regardless. To call an unsubstantiated fact a "claim" is correct, but to call a fact an "opinion", is not correct. And to call a unsubstantiated fact a "belief", is only one of two possibilities - a complete guess.

I don't think you are following along.

 

[HitchSlap]

How can something that's correct be meaningless?

In the same way something meaningless can be correct.

 

[ScottA]

I don't think you are following along.

Oh, but I am...you have been using this convoluted method to argue against me every time...and it is wrong.

 

[HitchSlap]

Oh, but I am...you have been using this convoluted method to argue against me every time...and it is wrong.

I'm not so sure "convoluted" would be the word I would use to describe a request for evidence to support one's claims.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The matter of time, free will, and prayer, is better understood in a "story" analogy. If, then, in the story someone prays and it comes true...it is because that is the way it is written. And if someone in the story decides to change their mind from not believing there is a God, to believing there is...that is his story, and just how it is written (already - even if he is last to know). In that analogy, we are indeed last to know...just as we would not know the end of a story that we are now reading, that was written long ago.

That simply reiterates the problem - if what you will do is already 'written', you have no free will because you cannot choose to do otherwise. How does your interpretation resolve this?

As for "forever", "everlasting", or "eternal", those are simply terms of language that best define "once upon a time" within the different context possibilities.

In theology, there is a difference between 'eternal' and 'everlasting'; eternal is without beginning or end, and outside time (literally 'timeless'), and everlasting is within time (i.e. time-like), starting (in the case of God, starting with respect to the universe) and continuing forever. As usual, bible translations don't have consistent usage.

But, if you prefer, just consider the arguments to refer to outside time and within time respectively.

 

[Chriliman]

Check the term "tautology".

We can't acknowledge the correctness of something unless it has meaning.

It's even meaningful to say something is meaningless.

The meaning in it is that you're claiming it's meaningless.

 

[Chriliman]

In the same way something meaningless can be correct.

Please explain.

Oh and don't use meaning in your explanation