What is evidence, and to what extent?

[quatona]

Suppose that for the sake of argument, we entertain the possibility that there exists an entity for which no human being can successfully define exactly how it acts, reacts, and operates. Would we then have to abandon any attempt to discuss such an entity under the paradigm of evidence, or would we then consider different understandings of the idea of evidence?

Given the premise in the first the sentence I wouldn´t even know what the "such an entity" in the second part of the sentence is supposed to mean (beyond the statement of the premise - that it is beyond human comprehension, which by definition transcends it beyond my abilities).
As far as I am concerned, I give allowance for billions of entities that are beyond human understanding to exist. I´m just not going to occupy myself with entities that are defined merely ex negativo (and particularly not when you define them out of human comprehension or cognitive accessibility).
I´m going to slowly become curious about your concepts when you are able to define them positively. I will be even more curious when the definitions point to any relevance (for any practical purpose or intent) of this entity´s existence.

 

[AlexBP]

Then for the sake of argument that entity would lack evidence.

I'm not asking that you understand the entity "exactly" but you have to at least try to begin to give me info on it that fit's into this idea that I can access if you want to call what your doing evidence, rather than say supposition.

If you don't have any understanding of any of these things with regard to the entity in question then what you are putting forward is simply not evidence.

Consider the great chain of being as the Scholastics understand it:

Inanimate matter = lowest
Plants
Animals
Humans
Angels & other spirit beings
God = highest

We can understand a progression regarding how much we can understand things merely in terms of information. For inanimate matter, information can completely describe it. If I have a rock, there is no life or thought or self-awareness or consciousness within the rock. The measurable, verifiable information about the rock tells us everything about the rock.

If we move up the chain to plants and then animals, we find that information tells us most of what we might want to know, but not all. If I look at my dog I might get plenty of information how he acts, reacts, and operates. Nonetheless he has interior thoughts, perceptions, and so forth. Thus visible information cannot fully describe how he acts, reacts, and operates. Part of his existence is purely interior, not accessible to measurement.

If we take another step up the chain to humans, we find beings whose life is to a considerable extent interior and not accessible to measurement. We can measure a human being's body and talk about how that acts, reacts, and operates. There's plenty of information to be had there. But the interior life consisting of a human's consciousness, intellect, and so forth is not measurable. I have no direct access to the interior of any other human besides myself. Hence I have no information about the important aspects of a human being; that is to say, I have no measurable, verifiable facts that would meet the standard you've set for "evidence".

So if spirit beings and God exist and have the nature that traditional Christian theology ascribes them, being higher on the great chain of being, it would make logical sense that the progression would continue for them. Their life would be more interior, and thus less measurable or scientifically verifiable. God, being highest on the chain, would be entirely so.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Suppose that for the sake of argument, we entertain the possibility that there exists an entity for which no human being can successfully define exactly how it acts, reacts, and operates.

You've decapitated any possibility of discussing this entity right out of the gate.

 

[variant]

Consider the great chain of being as the Scholastics understand it:

Inanimate matter = lowest
Plants
Animals
Humans
Angels & other spirit beings
God = highest

You've started with the conclusion and worked your way back to the evidence as you would like to see it.

Your great chain is lacking two links.

You have nothing like what I would call evidence for that in bold.

We can understand a progression regarding how much we can understand things merely in terms of information. For inanimate matter, information can completely describe it. If I have a rock, there is no life or thought or self-awareness or consciousness within the rock. The measurable, verifiable information about the rock tells us everything about the rock.

If we move up the chain to plants and then animals, we find that information tells us most of what we might want to know, but not all. If I look at my dog I might get plenty of information how he acts, reacts, and operates. Nonetheless he has interior thoughts, perceptions, and so forth. Thus visible information cannot fully describe how he acts, reacts, and operates. Part of his existence is purely interior, not accessible to measurement.

If we take another step up the chain to humans, we find beings whose life is to a considerable extent interior and not accessible to measurement. We can measure a human being's body and talk about how that acts, reacts, and operates. There's plenty of information to be had there. But the interior life consisting of a human's consciousness, intellect, and so forth is not measurable. I have no direct access to the interior of any other human besides myself. Hence I have no information about the important aspects of a human being; that is to say, I have no measurable, verifiable facts that would meet the standard you've set for "evidence".

Sure you do. You have both the direct experience of being human that gives you unique insight into what humans are, how they operate and what we would expect both if humans exist and if they do not.

We can even define human activity in a falsifiable way, anthropologists do this all the time when looking for past human activity, and differentiating it from the surrounding environment.

It's EASY to find human activity, complex beings as we know them leave the most distinctive scars on the world. Until of course we get to the next step of your chain where you seem to think more complex beings start to disappear entirely.

So if spirit beings and God exist and have the nature that traditional Christian theology ascribes them, being higher on the great chain of being, it would make logical sense that the progression would continue for them. Their life would be more interior, and thus less measurable or scientifically verifiable. God, being highest on the chain, would be entirely so.

So, in your theory of evidence, we should expect the lack of evidence to be evidence?

That doesn't even vaguely meet my standard of a falsifiable hypothesis or even a definition.

God can be the logical consequence of unfalsifiable string of logic, but we can never call that evidence.

Expecting everyone to redesign the rules of evidence so you can fit your pet concept into the world of the known is more than a bit odd in my opinion.