What is evidence, and to what extent?

[KCfromNC]

You can't believe all the claims about Barack Obama since they contradict each other. Pick some at random? Or wait for more information before making a decision?

The latter. Until more information comes in, the default position is to not accept any of the claims at face value.

This is the atheist position on god. Thanks for demonstrating my point.

 

[ChristianT]

I dunno, what did Marty do?

Use an already built machine which doc created.

 

[AlexBP]

Do I really have to spell this out? I have cousins. I have evidence that cousins exist. If someone else claims to have a cousin it isn't exactly a ludicrous claim since I know that cousins and humans exist. If they claimed to have a cousin who is a purple Leprechaun, then I become highly skeptical.

Your approach raises obvious questions.

First, how do you set your categories? You divide leprechauns and humans into separate categories and then claim that it's reasonable to believe in things in the human category but not the Leprechaun category, but on what basis? Why wouldn't it be equally reasonable to put both humans and Leprechauns in the category of "beings" and then say that it's reasonable to believe claims about beings since we know beings exist? Perhaps your response is to say that Leprechauns have certain properties than the other beings that you've encountered. If so, then isn't it also true that cousin Joe has certain properties that the human beings we've all met don't have? So then why shouldn't we be equally skeptical of claims about cousin Joe?

Second, do you regard it as "a ludicrous claim" whenever someone claims that something exists, of which you don't have evidence that other things in the same category exist? Take, for instance, the Tunguska Event or the Bloop. These things existed only once; is it therefore ludicrous to claim that they existed at all?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Intro- not all claims require the same amounts of evidence.

"4+4=8." Why? Setup a demonstration of four objects merging with four other objects, and count the total it will be eight.

So lets say someone claims that God exists. What types of evidence would be accepted as valid, and how much (of each kind) would be required?

Many atheists claim that only a "sufficient" or "acceptable" amount or type of evidence is required. Please describe what sufficient and acceptable is, or whether an objective standard is possible for such descriptors.

I don't think that evidence plays all that big a role. Either way.

 

[AlexBP]

The latter. Until more information comes in, the default position is to not accept any of the claims at face value.

So do you actually refuse to accept any claim about the existence of Barack Obama, or do you believe that more information has come in? If so, how do you sort out what you'll accept as information, since certainly all the various sides claim to have information backing up what they say?

 

[quatona]

So do you actually refuse to accept any claim about the existence of Barack Obama, or do you believe that more information has come in? If so, how do you sort out what you'll accept as information, since certainly all the various sides claim to have information backing up what they say?

I´m not understanding the relevance of your comparison.
When it comes to the existence of Barack Obama I am not dependent on the statements of believers that this man exists. For whatever reason your comparison completely ignores the different nature of the claims "Obama exists" and "a God exists". After all, it´s the very definition of your "God" (supernatural, non-physical, singular, beyond human comprehension,...) that creates the fundamental difference between those two claims and the problems with verifying or falsifying the latter.

When two people give me conflicting information about Obama I can still verify that they are talking about the same person (I just would have to show them a photo. Even if I asked them whom they are talking about they would give me an overwhelming amount of the identical information which would point to a person whose existence is easily verifiable/falsifiable.)

 

[Tiberius]

Use an already built machine which doc created.

Exactly. And just as Marty didn't need to know how to build a flux capacitor in order to travel through time, I don't need to know what evidence would convince me, because I'm not the one providing it. As long as God knows, that's the important thing. All that is required is that I be convinced by it, just as Marty doesn't need to know how to build a flux capacitor.

 

[ChristianT]

Exactly. And just as Marty didn't need to know how to build a flux capacitor in order to travel through time, I don't need to know what evidence would convince me, because I'm not the one providing it. As long as God knows, that's the important thing. All that is required is that I be convinced by it, just as Marty doesn't need to know how to build a flux capacitor.

Lol my point was that (keeping in mind the analogy, the ancient writers of the bible being Marty), they couldn't be expected to know how doc made the car, and neither do they try to explain that. They merely tell us why the car was made, and in some cases, how to use it.

 

[KCfromNC]

So do you actually refuse to accept any claim about the existence of Barack Obama, or do you believe that more information has come in?

The latter.

If so, how do you sort out what you'll accept as information, since certainly all the various sides claim to have information backing up what they say?

Claiming to have information isn't evidence, for one thing.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your approach raises obvious questions.

First, how do you set your categories?

Based on evidence.

You divide leprechauns and humans into separate categories and then claim that it's reasonable to believe in things in the human category but not the Leprechaun category, but on what basis?

Because there is pre-existing evidence that humans exist, but not Leprechauns.

Why wouldn't it be equally reasonable to put both humans and Leprechauns in the category of "beings" and then say that it's reasonable to believe claims about beings since we know beings exist?

Because we have no evidence that Leprechauns exist.

Second, do you regard it as "a ludicrous claim" whenever someone claims that something exists, of which you don't have evidence that other things in the same category exist? Take, for instance, the Tunguska Event or the Bloop. These things existed only once; is it therefore ludicrous to claim that they existed at all?

We do have evidence that comets exist, and that comets hit planets. We also have evidence that sounds exist. If challenged, people can also produce evidence for the Tunguska event and recordings of the bloop. Not so with deities or Leprechauns.

Starting to see a pattern here?

 

[variant]

I don't think that evidence plays all that big a role. Either way.

That's the first part of the problem.

Writings about Gods didn't come about through study of the universe in an evidence based way.

Many atheists claim that only a "sufficient" or "acceptable" amount or type of evidence is required. Please describe what sufficient and acceptable is, or whether an objective standard is possible for such descriptors.

First you have to define God in a falsifiable way. What is God. How does it act, react and operate, and why. What observations should we expect if God exists. What observations we should expect if God doesn't exist. And, how can these be properly tested for validity and differentiated.

Without that, you can't begin approach this idea this way.

Most of the problem of talking about evidence for God with a theist is that they don't understand what the rules are when you introduce a subject/theory for which you wish to present evidence.

The problem here is not that the non-believer won't accept any evidence; the problem is that it is up to the person making the evidence based claim to assert their position in a non-assailable objective way.

It's up to you to present your hypothesis and defend it.

I await your detailed reply eagerly.

 

[ChristianT]

That's the first part of the problem.

Writings about Gods didn't come about through study of the universe in an evidence based way.

First you have to define God in a falsifiable way. What is God. How does act, react and operate, and why. What observations should we expect if God exists. What observations we should expect if God doesn't exist. And, how can these be properly tested for validity and differentiated.

Without that, you can't begin approach this idea this way.

Most of the problem of talking about evidence for God with a theist is that they don't understand what the rules are when you introduce a subject/theory for which you wish to present evidence.

The problem here is not that the non-believer won't accept any evidence; the problem is that it is up to the person making the evidence based claim to assert their poison in a non-assailable objective way.

It's up to you to present your hypothesis and defend it.

I await your detailed reply eagerly.

Thank you. I shall analyze my poison (position?) thusly.

 

[variant]

Thank you. I shall analyze my poison (position?) thusly.

I've been doing that a lot today, must be tired.

Thats a typo though not Freudian.

 

[Tiberius]

Lol my point was that (keeping in mind the analogy, the ancient writers of the bible being Marty), they couldn't be expected to know how doc made the car, and neither do they try to explain that. They merely tell us why the car was made, and in some cases, how to use it.

But the thing is, if Doc was telling Marty about the car, he could include descriptions of the underlying physics that allow the car to travel through time. Marty may not understand it, but he could certainly write it down.

And yet the people who lived 2000 years ago do nothing like this. If they had included a passage in the Bible that included information they could not possibly know (such as the bit in my signature), then I would indeed consider it evidence that they had access to a knowledge beyond what they could have had. But they never give any indication of this.

 

[variant]

But the thing is, if Doc was telling Marty about the car, he could include descriptions of the underlying physics that allow the car to travel through time. Marty may not understand it, but he could certainly write it down.

And yet the people who lived 2000 years ago do nothing like this. If they had included a passage in the Bible that included information they could not possibly know (such as the bit in my signature), then I would indeed consider it evidence that they had access to a knowledge beyond what they could have had. But they never give any indication of this.

I think the key point in the "back to the future" analogy was that it's fiction.

If it contained points that weren't explained because they were fictional plot devices, well, thats just how fiction is.

 

[Tiberius]

I think the key point in the "back to the future" analogy was that it's fiction.

If it contained points that weren't explained because they were fictional plot devices, well, thats just how fiction is.

Funny how the Bible is the same way.

 

[AlexBP]

Starting to see a pattern here?

The chief pattern is I see is you repeating "evidence, evidence, evidence" without actually dealing with the question. Let me explain again what the question is. You've made the argument that it reasonable to believe in something, such as my fiance's cousin Joe, because he's in the category of humans and there's evidence that humans exist. At the same time you won't believe in a purple leprechaun because it's in the category of leprechauns and there's no evidence that leprechauns exist. However, it's obvious that this argument depends on the categories that you choose. If you instead chose to group humans and leprechauns together under the category of beings, then both would be in a category for which there is evidence. If you chose different categories, you'd conclude that evidence for different things existed. So your concept of evidence is defined using a priori categories.

Then I asked why you chose those particular categories and your answers were all based on "evidence". But the existence of the evidence is based on the categories. The turtle stands on the elephant and the elephant stands on the turtle, or to use terminology more appropriate to this forum, you're employing circular reasoning. You're assuming the existence of evidence for certain things and not others to define whether or not evidence exists for those same things.

If saying "there's evidence, there's evidence, there's evidence" was all that was needed to achieve the truth, then we could easily train a parrot to be the world's greatest philosopher. But building a sound philosophical case for your viewpoint requires more than that. Your beliefs about being able to evaluate the truth of any claim based on evidence seem similar to logical positivism, albeit more simplistic. Logical positivism has been dead in the philosophical community for a long time.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

So lets say someone claims that God exists. What types of evidence would be accepted as valid, and how much (of each kind) would be required?

Many atheists claim that only a "sufficient" or "acceptable" amount or type of evidence is required. Please describe what sufficient and acceptable is, or whether an objective standard is possible for such descriptors.

If Yahweh exists, he knows exactly what would convince me.

 

[AlexBP]

First you have to define God in a falsifiable way. What is God. How does it act, react and operate, and why. What observations should we expect if God exists. What observations we should expect if God doesn't exist. And, how can these be properly tested for validity and differentiated.

Without that, you can't begin approach this idea this way.

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?

 

[variant]

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.

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.

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?

On what basis could we do such a thing? We would not have any evidence of the thing.

And, what changes would we make?