Hello again. I have lots going on, some personally inflicted of the bad sort, so sorry I'm late.
Let me restate my point position (minus the elephant):
"I see "evidence" and "proof" as two different things. So I would say Faith relies on evidence but not proof. And proof moves us from Faith to knowledge (full understanding)." I believe this is what you're attempting to discredit: evidence and proof are different, and lead to different things.
Okay. Now I see the problem. You are using an idiosyncratic definition of "proof" that appears unique to you.
Have I ever said how much I enjoy fallacious arguments? It really makes it so much easier to respond. You are attacking me, rather than my argument (it's false because it's unique to me). Unique and untrue are not logically related.
In law, proof represents all the evidence one presents to establish a claim as true.
Yep. And I agree, as you have defined evidence and proof as different things; one used to establish the other. Just like I did. And you explained my elephant example perfectly. Awesome!
So I don't see a problem.... um... uhoh...
The standard of proof is the amount of evidence/proof the plaintiff or prosecuting attorney must present to win.
The standard of proof is the
amount of proof presented? You've used the fallacy of self-definition: Proof is the amount of proof used to prove something.
I would actually agree with this hypothetical if you didn't use circular reasoning -- remove "evidence/proof" and make it simply "evidence."
It seems to me that you don't want to recognize evidence and proof as different things, so you join them as if they are one thing: "evidence/proof." Then later, you cite the dictionary which clearly states proof is made up of
evidence. I find this a bit nonsensical. Are they the same or not? If so, why different words? If not, why use the conjunction to link them?
Faith is based on evidence. Evidence is different than proof.
Common standards are "preponderance" (more likely than not), which generally applies in civil trials, and "reasonable doubt," which generally applies in criminal trials.
Appeal to Numbers.... "common standards" Whose standards? Common where?
You appear to be limiting "proof" to the evidence necessary to establish something conclusively, a standard beyond even that of reasonable doubt. If this were what people meant by proof, then it would make "standards" of proof meaningless, for there could be only one. What could it possibly mean to prove something by a preponderance of the proof when proof necessarily entails proving it to the level that no doubt is possible?
Well, at least I didn't define "proof" as "proof" and "evidence" both!
More seriously though... You actually misinterpreted me, so your summary of my words is incorrect. (And dictionary.com defines proof as something established conclusively -- you quoted it!)
Re-reading my post, you can see I said, "
And what of the person who needs to see the tusks in order to declare "proof!" vs. a person who must see the trunk before they've proven the elephant?"
I probably should have stated this explicitly, so my bad: I meant this illustration to convey that evidence can be deemed sufficient means to constitute proof at different times for different people. We can call that "conclusive" if we want. We can call it "beyond a reasonable doubt." But my point was that different people can have different standards of what constitutes "proof."
This is also the common definition used by the lay public.
You
have to know what I'm going to say here! Starts with an F....
I'm not trying to be mean or flame or anything, but these really are fallacies that you're using. Your argument holds no logical grounds when you do so.
You have previously expressed your preference for definitions from "Dictionary.com" so here are the top two definitions of "proof" from that site:
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth
2. anything serving as such evidence
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof?s=t
You can see that they are consistent with how proof is used in the law.
Yes I agree with this definition. It does not contradict anything in my previous posts.
By the way, "sufficient to establish a thing as true" is also called
conclusive.
And evidence is defined as "(b) something that furnishes or tends to furnish proof : means of making proof : medium of proof."
That's Merriam Webster. "Furnish," "means of making," "medium..." all point to evidence being a building block of proof. Not proof itself.
Let us now return to the Dictionary.com definition of "faith" with which you previously agreed: "belief that is not based on proof."
...
Applying the universally accepted meaning of proof rather than your uniquely personalized one, this means belief that is not based upon evidence. Applying this definition, your entire argument crumbles.
Dude, seriously!!! Two fallacies in one. Are you trying to make a reasoned argument, or just play a numbers game? Given the amount of fallacies here, I think it's numbers!
Actually, this fallacy I will address. Your argument falls apart here. There is no provable or even demonstrable "universally accepted meaning of proof." You cite your fallacious appeal to numbers to conclude that belief is not based on evidence -- you cite a logical fallacy as support of your claim. Thus your claim is illogical, and itself either false or just non-sustainable.
Next probably could have just cited the dictionary definition, as that would not be fallacious -- the only problem then? I agreed with it.
You define knowledge as belief based on proof, but once again, this is not what people mean by knowledge. Knowledge reflects justified true belief.
Yes. And that's what you're saying too. Knowledge reflects proof: justified
true belief.
Ordinarily, that knowledge would be justified by evidence/proof. But those relying on faith propose that knowledge can be justified through a different epistemological framework. The problem is that they never adequately define that framework or demonstrate that it is even remotely reliable -- much less that it is more reliable than an epistemology based upon evidence/proof.
Let's talk left field! Or not.
I have proposed no such "different epistemological framework." I have merely stated that "The Bible defines Faith as being based on Evidence." Same framework, different day!
In my previous post, I suggested you read through the thread on "Logic and Faith." All the points you raise are addressed in that thread. If after reading it, you feel you still have a plausible argument for your position, please let me know how you would counter all the objections raised there.
LOL. Well, this is quite an insult. Not that I'm offended, but find it more than funny.
Did you count your fallacies? I pointed them out to help.
Now, even though you attempted to define evidence as proof, you failed: they are not the same thing. Evidence is a means to proof (Webster). But it is not proof itself... not until there is "evidence sufficient to establish such a thing as true."
So evidence remains evidence, proof proof, and faith, well...
Faith is the evidence of things not seen. as the Bible says.
-Pie
