What is evidence?

[hobelim]

Gee...here I thought for sure that with all of the theists on this forum insisting that they have 'evidence" to support their positions, that they would be happy to illuminate for everyone what they mean when they use the term "evidence"...

There is conclusive evidence that life could not have evolved on it's own. What does that leave us with?

You making that claim does not answer the question in the OP. What is evidence? I am not asking what your evidence of the existence of a creator is. I am asking what your understanding of the term evidence is.

When talking about the Torah, which means instruction not history, you have to know from the start that the challenge to the reader is to discover the teaching which is hidden and not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used in the same way the moral of a fairy tale is not obvious and requires intelligent thought to grasp.

The evidence for that teaching is not like DNA left at the scene of a crime. Its an entirely different matter. You have to have a knowledge of Jewish expressions and historical literary techniques used in instructional stories, not a knowledge of beakers, chemicals, and microscopes.

Where science is effective is as a constraint as to whether any possible interpretation of any given story or event is possible or not.

To people who base their beliefs on the bible the evidence for any given claim would have to be found in the bible.

Some people claim that Jesus is God and provide a few verses as shoddy evidence upon which that claim is based. Others say thats impossible and cite volumes of existing teaching in the same book as evidence that refutes that claim.

You get to examine that evidence presented by both sides and decide what the truth is like a member of a jury. You get to use your knowledge of science, history, psychology, philosophy, literature, etc., as reliable constraints in your efforts to comprehend the truth.

Seeking physical evidence for incorporeal realities is as silly as using a microscope, test tubes and beakers to discover whether there is any truth in the story about Jack and the Beanstalk or using a telescope to see if a giant is really living in the castle in the sky.

It makes it look like you just have an ax to grind, aren't interested in the teaching or the truth at all, or are just plain stupid like someone wandering around the deserts of the holy land looking for evidence of God with a shovel.

Its as if that giant that you do not believe in because you can't see it is still keeping the goose that lays the golden eggs out of your reach because you don't have the stones to climb that beanstalk into a higher realm of thought and perception.

 

[Czernobog]

Gee...here I thought for sure that with all of the theists on this forum insisting that they have 'evidence" to support their positions, that they would be happy to illuminate for everyone what they mean when they use the term "evidence"...

There is conclusive evidence that life could not have evolved on it's own. What does that leave us with?

You making that claim does not answer the question in the OP. What is evidence? I am not asking what your evidence of the existence of a creator is. I am asking what your understanding of the term evidence is.

When talking about the Torah, which means instruction not history, you have to know from the start that the challenge to the reader is to discover the teaching which is hidden and not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used in the same way the moral of a fairy tale is not obvious and requires intelligent thought to grasp.

The evidence for that teaching is not like DNA left at the scene of a crime. Its an entirely different matter. You have to have a knowledge of Jewish expressions and historical literary techniques used in instructional stories, not a knowledge of beakers, chemicals, and microscopes.

Where science is effective is as a constraint as to whether any possible interpretation of any given story or event is possible or not.

To people who base their beliefs on the bible the evidence for any given claim would have to be found in the bible.

Some people claim that Jesus is God and provide a few verses as shoddy evidence upon which that claim is based. Others say thats impossible and cite volumes of existing teaching in the same book as evidence for their disbelief.

You get to examine that evidence presented by both sides and decide what the truth is like a member of a jury. You get to use your knowledge of science, history, psychology, philosophy, literature, etc., as reliable constraints in your efforts to comprehend the truth.

Seeking physical evidence for incorporeal realities is as silly as using a microscope, test tubes and beakers to discover whether there is any truth in the story about Jack and the Beanstalk or using a telescope to see if a giant is really living in the castle in the sky.

It makes it look like you just have an ax to grind, aren't interested in the teaching or the truth at all, or are just plain stupid like someone wandering around the deserts of the holy land looking for evidence of God with a shovel.

Its as if that giant that you do not believe in because you can't see it is still keeping the goose that lays the golden eggs out of your reach because you don't have the stones to climb that beanstalk into a higher realm of thought and perception.

That entire ratn has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked. Why is it that none of you seem to want to answer the actual question I asked?

 

[hobelim]

Gee...here I thought for sure that with all of the theists on this forum insisting that they have 'evidence" to support their positions, that they would be happy to illuminate for everyone what they mean when they use the term "evidence"...

There is conclusive evidence that life could not have evolved on it's own. What does that leave us with?

You making that claim does not answer the question in the OP. What is evidence? I am not asking what your evidence of the existence of a creator is. I am asking what your understanding of the term evidence is.

When talking about the Torah, which means instruction not history, you have to know from the start that the challenge to the reader is to discover the teaching which is hidden and not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used in the same way the moral of a fairy tale is not obvious and requires intelligent thought to grasp.

The evidence for that teaching is not like DNA left at the scene of a crime. Its an entirely different matter. You have to have a knowledge of Jewish expressions and historical literary techniques used in instructional stories, not a knowledge of beakers, chemicals, and microscopes.

Where science is effective is as a constraint as to whether any possible interpretation of any given story or event is possible or not.

To people who base their beliefs on the bible the evidence for any given claim would have to be found in the bible.

Some people claim that Jesus is God and provide a few verses as shoddy evidence upon which that claim is based. Others say thats impossible and cite volumes of existing teaching in the same book as evidence for their disbelief.

You get to examine that evidence presented by both sides and decide what the truth is like a member of a jury. You get to use your knowledge of science, history, psychology, philosophy, literature, etc., as reliable constraints in your efforts to comprehend the truth.

Seeking physical evidence for incorporeal realities is as silly as using a microscope, test tubes and beakers to discover whether there is any truth in the story about Jack and the Beanstalk or using a telescope to see if a giant is really living in the castle in the sky.

It makes it look like you just have an ax to grind, aren't interested in the teaching or the truth at all, or are just plain stupid like someone wandering around the deserts of the holy land looking for evidence of God with a shovel.

Its as if that giant that you do not believe in because you can't see it is still keeping the goose that lays the golden eggs out of your reach because you don't have the stones to climb that beanstalk into a higher realm of thought and perception.

That entire ratn has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked. Why is it that none of you seem to want to answer the actual question I asked?

I answered your question by showing evidence for beliefs based on the bible is not the same thing as scientific evidence..

Shouldn't you ask why no one is giving you the answer you are looking for?

Listen up...

ITS A STUPID QUESTION.

like you are expecting evidence for a talking snake that can be captured on video or dissected in a laboratory as if you didn't have the sense to decipher such an extremely complicated metaphor intended to teach children lessons..

You saying that there is no evidence for God is like saying there is no evidence for Karma which is like saying there is no evidence for cause and effect.

numbskull.

Even your inability to see your foolishness is evidence that God reigns over the minds of mortal men by denying you comprehension of something so simple that was intended to understood by children..

 

[Czernobog]

Gee...here I thought for sure that with all of the theists on this forum insisting that they have 'evidence" to support their positions, that they would be happy to illuminate for everyone what they mean when they use the term "evidence"...

There is conclusive evidence that life could not have evolved on it's own. What does that leave us with?

You making that claim does not answer the question in the OP. What is evidence? I am not asking what your evidence of the existence of a creator is. I am asking what your understanding of the term evidence is.

When talking about the Torah, which means instruction not history, you have to know from the start that the challenge to the reader is to discover the teaching which is hidden and not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used in the same way the moral of a fairy tale is not obvious and requires intelligent thought to grasp.

The evidence for that teaching is not like DNA left at the scene of a crime. Its an entirely different matter. You have to have a knowledge of Jewish expressions and historical literary techniques used in instructional stories, not a knowledge of beakers, chemicals, and microscopes.

Where science is effective is as a constraint as to whether any possible interpretation of any given story or event is possible or not.

To people who base their beliefs on the bible the evidence for any given claim would have to be found in the bible.

Some people claim that Jesus is God and provide a few verses as shoddy evidence upon which that claim is based. Others say thats impossible and cite volumes of existing teaching in the same book as evidence for their disbelief.

You get to examine that evidence presented by both sides and decide what the truth is like a member of a jury. You get to use your knowledge of science, history, psychology, philosophy, literature, etc., as reliable constraints in your efforts to comprehend the truth.

Seeking physical evidence for incorporeal realities is as silly as using a microscope, test tubes and beakers to discover whether there is any truth in the story about Jack and the Beanstalk or using a telescope to see if a giant is really living in the castle in the sky.

It makes it look like you just have an ax to grind, aren't interested in the teaching or the truth at all, or are just plain stupid like someone wandering around the deserts of the holy land looking for evidence of God with a shovel.

Its as if that giant that you do not believe in because you can't see it is still keeping the goose that lays the golden eggs out of your reach because you don't have the stones to climb that beanstalk into a higher realm of thought and perception.

That entire ratn has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked. Why is it that none of you seem to want to answer the actual question I asked?

I answered your question by showing evidence for beliefs based on the bible is not the same thing as scientific evidence..

Shouldn't you ask why no one is giving you the answer you are looking for?

Listen up...

ITS A STUPID QUESTION.

like you are expecting evidence for a talking snake that can be captured on video or dissected in a laboratory as if you didn't have the sense to decipher such an extremely complicated metaphor intended to teach children lessons..

You saying that there is no evidence for God is like saying there is no evidence for Karma which is like saying there is no evidence for cause and effect.

numbskull.

Fuck off. It isn't a stupid question. You insist that The Bible is "evidence". Why? What do you consider the term evidence to mean? If it is such a stupid question it should be an easy one to answer.

 

[hobelim]

There is conclusive evidence that life could not have evolved on it's own. What does that leave us with?

You making that claim does not answer the question in the OP. What is evidence? I am not asking what your evidence of the existence of a creator is. I am asking what your understanding of the term evidence is.

When talking about the Torah, which means instruction not history, you have to know from the start that the challenge to the reader is to discover the teaching which is hidden and not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used in the same way the moral of a fairy tale is not obvious and requires intelligent thought to grasp.

The evidence for that teaching is not like DNA left at the scene of a crime. Its an entirely different matter. You have to have a knowledge of Jewish expressions and historical literary techniques used in instructional stories, not a knowledge of beakers, chemicals, and microscopes.

Where science is effective is as a constraint as to whether any possible interpretation of any given story or event is possible or not.

To people who base their beliefs on the bible the evidence for any given claim would have to be found in the bible.

Some people claim that Jesus is God and provide a few verses as shoddy evidence upon which that claim is based. Others say thats impossible and cite volumes of existing teaching in the same book as evidence for their disbelief.

You get to examine that evidence presented by both sides and decide what the truth is like a member of a jury. You get to use your knowledge of science, history, psychology, philosophy, literature, etc., as reliable constraints in your efforts to comprehend the truth.

Seeking physical evidence for incorporeal realities is as silly as using a microscope, test tubes and beakers to discover whether there is any truth in the story about Jack and the Beanstalk or using a telescope to see if a giant is really living in the castle in the sky.

It makes it look like you just have an ax to grind, aren't interested in the teaching or the truth at all, or are just plain stupid like someone wandering around the deserts of the holy land looking for evidence of God with a shovel.

Its as if that giant that you do not believe in because you can't see it is still keeping the goose that lays the golden eggs out of your reach because you don't have the stones to climb that beanstalk into a higher realm of thought and perception.

That entire ratn has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked. Why is it that none of you seem to want to answer the actual question I asked?

I answered your question by showing evidence for beliefs based on the bible is not the same thing as scientific evidence..

Shouldn't you ask why no one is giving you the answer you are looking for?

Listen up...

ITS A STUPID QUESTION.

like you are expecting evidence for a talking snake that can be captured on video or dissected in a laboratory as if you didn't have the sense to decipher such an extremely complicated metaphor intended to teach children lessons..

You saying that there is no evidence for God is like saying there is no evidence for Karma which is like saying there is no evidence for cause and effect.

numbskull.

Fuck off. It isn't a stupid question. You insist that The Bible is "evidence". Why? What do you consider the term evidence to mean? If it is such a stupid question it should be an easy one to answer.

Fuck off yourself.

I didn't say the bible is evidence . Pay attention.

I said the bible provides evidence for biblical beliefs.

People say Jesus claimed to be God. Where else are you going to look for evidence that would support that belief?

schmuck.

 

[Czernobog]

You making that claim does not answer the question in the OP. What is evidence? I am not asking what your evidence of the existence of a creator is. I am asking what your understanding of the term evidence is.

When talking about the Torah, which means instruction not history, you have to know from the start that the challenge to the reader is to discover the teaching which is hidden and not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used in the same way the moral of a fairy tale is not obvious and requires intelligent thought to grasp.

The evidence for that teaching is not like DNA left at the scene of a crime. Its an entirely different matter. You have to have a knowledge of Jewish expressions and historical literary techniques used in instructional stories, not a knowledge of beakers, chemicals, and microscopes.

Where science is effective is as a constraint as to whether any possible interpretation of any given story or event is possible or not.

To people who base their beliefs on the bible the evidence for any given claim would have to be found in the bible.

Some people claim that Jesus is God and provide a few verses as shoddy evidence upon which that claim is based. Others say thats impossible and cite volumes of existing teaching in the same book as evidence for their disbelief.

You get to examine that evidence presented by both sides and decide what the truth is like a member of a jury. You get to use your knowledge of science, history, psychology, philosophy, literature, etc., as reliable constraints in your efforts to comprehend the truth.

Seeking physical evidence for incorporeal realities is as silly as using a microscope, test tubes and beakers to discover whether there is any truth in the story about Jack and the Beanstalk or using a telescope to see if a giant is really living in the castle in the sky.

It makes it look like you just have an ax to grind, aren't interested in the teaching or the truth at all, or are just plain stupid like someone wandering around the deserts of the holy land looking for evidence of God with a shovel.

Its as if that giant that you do not believe in because you can't see it is still keeping the goose that lays the golden eggs out of your reach because you don't have the stones to climb that beanstalk into a higher realm of thought and perception.

That entire ratn has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked. Why is it that none of you seem to want to answer the actual question I asked?

I answered your question by showing evidence for beliefs based on the bible is not the same thing as scientific evidence..

Shouldn't you ask why no one is giving you the answer you are looking for?

Listen up...

ITS A STUPID QUESTION.

like you are expecting evidence for a talking snake that can be captured on video or dissected in a laboratory as if you didn't have the sense to decipher such an extremely complicated metaphor intended to teach children lessons..

You saying that there is no evidence for God is like saying there is no evidence for Karma which is like saying there is no evidence for cause and effect.

numbskull.

Fuck off. It isn't a stupid question. You insist that The Bible is "evidence". Why? What do you consider the term evidence to mean? If it is such a stupid question it should be an easy one to answer.

Fuck off yourself.

I didn't say the bible is evidence .

I said the bible provides evidence for biblical beliefs.

People say Jesus claimed to be God. Where else are you going to look for evidence that would support that belief?

schmuck.

Why do you believe the Bible provides evidence? What do you believe the term evidence to mean?

 

[hobelim]

When talking about the Torah, which means instruction not history, you have to know from the start that the challenge to the reader is to discover the teaching which is hidden and not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used in the same way the moral of a fairy tale is not obvious and requires intelligent thought to grasp.

The evidence for that teaching is not like DNA left at the scene of a crime. Its an entirely different matter. You have to have a knowledge of Jewish expressions and historical literary techniques used in instructional stories, not a knowledge of beakers, chemicals, and microscopes.

Where science is effective is as a constraint as to whether any possible interpretation of any given story or event is possible or not.

To people who base their beliefs on the bible the evidence for any given claim would have to be found in the bible.

Some people claim that Jesus is God and provide a few verses as shoddy evidence upon which that claim is based. Others say thats impossible and cite volumes of existing teaching in the same book as evidence for their disbelief.

You get to examine that evidence presented by both sides and decide what the truth is like a member of a jury. You get to use your knowledge of science, history, psychology, philosophy, literature, etc., as reliable constraints in your efforts to comprehend the truth.

Seeking physical evidence for incorporeal realities is as silly as using a microscope, test tubes and beakers to discover whether there is any truth in the story about Jack and the Beanstalk or using a telescope to see if a giant is really living in the castle in the sky.

It makes it look like you just have an ax to grind, aren't interested in the teaching or the truth at all, or are just plain stupid like someone wandering around the deserts of the holy land looking for evidence of God with a shovel.

Its as if that giant that you do not believe in because you can't see it is still keeping the goose that lays the golden eggs out of your reach because you don't have the stones to climb that beanstalk into a higher realm of thought and perception.

That entire ratn has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked. Why is it that none of you seem to want to answer the actual question I asked?

I answered your question by showing evidence for beliefs based on the bible is not the same thing as scientific evidence..

Shouldn't you ask why no one is giving you the answer you are looking for?

Listen up...

ITS A STUPID QUESTION.

like you are expecting evidence for a talking snake that can be captured on video or dissected in a laboratory as if you didn't have the sense to decipher such an extremely complicated metaphor intended to teach children lessons..

You saying that there is no evidence for God is like saying there is no evidence for Karma which is like saying there is no evidence for cause and effect.

numbskull.

Fuck off. It isn't a stupid question. You insist that The Bible is "evidence". Why? What do you consider the term evidence to mean? If it is such a stupid question it should be an easy one to answer.

Fuck off yourself.

I didn't say the bible is evidence .

I said the bible provides evidence for biblical beliefs.

People say Jesus claimed to be God. Where else are you going to look for evidence that would support that belief?

schmuck.

Why do you believe the Bible provides evidence? What do you believe the term evidence to mean?

since evidence means "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." when discussing beliefs that are claimed to be based on teaching in the bible evidence that would either support or refute those beliefs would have to be found in the bible.

 

[Meriweather]

I said the bible provides evidence for biblical beliefs.

Evidence is something physical, something measurable. Would it be more accurate to say that the Bible provides testimony for biblical beliefs? Setting the word "evidence" aside as something used in a science lab, is biblical testimony strong enough to make something evident?

 

[hobelim]

I said the bible provides evidence for biblical beliefs.

Evidence is something physical, something measurable. Would it be more accurate to say that the Bible provides testimony for biblical beliefs? Setting the word "evidence" aside as something used in a science lab, is biblical testimony strong enough to make something evident?

No, you are wrong. Evidence does not have to be physical. That would be physical evidence. Evidence can also be just facts and information.

Witnesses are called to testify in court. Their testimony is submitted as evidence.

 

[Meriweather]

No, you are wrong. Evidence does not have to be physical. That would be physical evidence. Evidence can also be just facts and information.

And generally, when people ask for evidence, something they can see or measure is what they expect. Interestingly enough, the term "Give evidence" is also used in court as synonymous with "Testimony." The next step is for this "giving evidence" is also providing proof.

Let's take the story of the Walls of Jericho. Biblical testimony (or giving of evidence, if you wish) is that the walls came tumbling down. However, it was archaeologists that provided physical evidence, thus proof, that the Biblical account is likely accurate.

I'm simply suggesting with various definitions in play for the same word it is sometimes useful to use very precise terminology to prevent common misunderstandings.

 

[Czernobog]

That entire ratn has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked. Why is it that none of you seem to want to answer the actual question I asked?

I answered your question by showing evidence for beliefs based on the bible is not the same thing as scientific evidence..

Shouldn't you ask why no one is giving you the answer you are looking for?

Listen up...

ITS A STUPID QUESTION.

like you are expecting evidence for a talking snake that can be captured on video or dissected in a laboratory as if you didn't have the sense to decipher such an extremely complicated metaphor intended to teach children lessons..

You saying that there is no evidence for God is like saying there is no evidence for Karma which is like saying there is no evidence for cause and effect.

numbskull.

Fuck off. It isn't a stupid question. You insist that The Bible is "evidence". Why? What do you consider the term evidence to mean? If it is such a stupid question it should be an easy one to answer.

Fuck off yourself.

I didn't say the bible is evidence .

I said the bible provides evidence for biblical beliefs.

People say Jesus claimed to be God. Where else are you going to look for evidence that would support that belief?

schmuck.

Why do you believe the Bible provides evidence? What do you believe the term evidence to mean?

since evidence means "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." when discussing beliefs that are claimed to be based on teaching in the bible evidence that would either support or refute those beliefs would have to be found in the bible.

That would be a valid position if two theists were discussing the position of the Bible on a particular subject. However, this doesn't answer the larger question of what evidence is. For instance what good is the bible, if you are discussing an issue with someone who doesn't view the Bible as an authoritative work? Then what the Bible does, or doesn't say on a particular subject would be useless as evidence, wouldn't it?

Also, simply copying and pasting the dictionary definition of evidence doesn't really answer the question of what you consider the term evidence to mean, now does it? For instance is evidence an internal mechanism? Something to confirm a person's belief in an idea? Or is it an external mechanism? An objective means to convince another of the validity of one's position?

 

[hobelim]

I answered your question by showing evidence for beliefs based on the bible is not the same thing as scientific evidence..

Shouldn't you ask why no one is giving you the answer you are looking for?

Listen up...

ITS A STUPID QUESTION.

like you are expecting evidence for a talking snake that can be captured on video or dissected in a laboratory as if you didn't have the sense to decipher such an extremely complicated metaphor intended to teach children lessons..

You saying that there is no evidence for God is like saying there is no evidence for Karma which is like saying there is no evidence for cause and effect.

numbskull.

Fuck off. It isn't a stupid question. You insist that The Bible is "evidence". Why? What do you consider the term evidence to mean? If it is such a stupid question it should be an easy one to answer.

Fuck off yourself.

I didn't say the bible is evidence .

I said the bible provides evidence for biblical beliefs.

People say Jesus claimed to be God. Where else are you going to look for evidence that would support that belief?

schmuck.

Why do you believe the Bible provides evidence? What do you believe the term evidence to mean?

since evidence means "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." when discussing beliefs that are claimed to be based on teaching in the bible evidence that would either support or refute those beliefs would have to be found in the bible.

That would be a valid position if two theists were discussing the position of the Bible on a particular subject. However, this doesn't answer the larger question of what evidence is. For instance what good is the bible, if you are discussing an issue with someone who doesn't view the Bible as an authoritative work? Then what the Bible does, or doesn't say on a particular subject would be useless as evidence, wouldn't it?

Also, simply copying and pasting the dictionary definition of evidence doesn't really answer the question of what you consider the term evidence to mean, now does it? For instance is evidence an internal mechanism? Something to confirm a person's belief in an idea? Or is it an external mechanism? An objective means to convince another of the validity of one's position?

You don't have to believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God to point out absurd conclusions based on those written words.

Anyway, for me, evidence would have to be satisfied both internally and by an objective external mechanism before I could ever believe in my own conclusions. Without that confirmation the truth was most likely to be that I was just as out of my tree as anyone else..I didn't need an objective external mechanism to convince anyone else, I needed it to convince myself that what I had come to believe was the truth is the truth.

It was worth the wait.

There is no greater joy than seeing what you believe conform to and confirmed by reality..

 

[Czernobog]

Fuck off. It isn't a stupid question. You insist that The Bible is "evidence". Why? What do you consider the term evidence to mean? If it is such a stupid question it should be an easy one to answer.

Fuck off yourself.

I didn't say the bible is evidence .

I said the bible provides evidence for biblical beliefs.

People say Jesus claimed to be God. Where else are you going to look for evidence that would support that belief?

schmuck.

Why do you believe the Bible provides evidence? What do you believe the term evidence to mean?

since evidence means "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." when discussing beliefs that are claimed to be based on teaching in the bible evidence that would either support or refute those beliefs would have to be found in the bible.

That would be a valid position if two theists were discussing the position of the Bible on a particular subject. However, this doesn't answer the larger question of what evidence is. For instance what good is the bible, if you are discussing an issue with someone who doesn't view the Bible as an authoritative work? Then what the Bible does, or doesn't say on a particular subject would be useless as evidence, wouldn't it?

Also, simply copying and pasting the dictionary definition of evidence doesn't really answer the question of what you consider the term evidence to mean, now does it? For instance is evidence an internal mechanism? Something to confirm a person's belief in an idea? Or is it an external mechanism? An objective means to convince another of the validity of one's position?

You don't have to believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God to point out absurd conclusions based on those written words.

Anyway, for me, evidence would have to be satisfied both internally and by an objective external mechanism before I could ever believe in my own conclusions. Without that confirmation the truth was most likely to be that I was just as out of my tree as anyone else..I didn't need an objective external mechanism to convince anyone else, I needed it to convince myself that what I had come to believe was the truth is the truth.

It was worth the wait.

There is no greater joy than seeing what you believe conform to and confirmed by reality..

You're still talking about convincing yourself. You seem to think that the purpose of evidence is to convince yourself of some position. Which begs the question of how one prevents confirmation bias when considering any position?

 

[hobelim]

Fuck off yourself.

I didn't say the bible is evidence .

I said the bible provides evidence for biblical beliefs.

People say Jesus claimed to be God. Where else are you going to look for evidence that would support that belief?

schmuck.

Why do you believe the Bible provides evidence? What do you believe the term evidence to mean?

since evidence means "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." when discussing beliefs that are claimed to be based on teaching in the bible evidence that would either support or refute those beliefs would have to be found in the bible.

That would be a valid position if two theists were discussing the position of the Bible on a particular subject. However, this doesn't answer the larger question of what evidence is. For instance what good is the bible, if you are discussing an issue with someone who doesn't view the Bible as an authoritative work? Then what the Bible does, or doesn't say on a particular subject would be useless as evidence, wouldn't it?

Also, simply copying and pasting the dictionary definition of evidence doesn't really answer the question of what you consider the term evidence to mean, now does it? For instance is evidence an internal mechanism? Something to confirm a person's belief in an idea? Or is it an external mechanism? An objective means to convince another of the validity of one's position?

You don't have to believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God to point out absurd conclusions based on those written words.

Anyway, for me, evidence would have to be satisfied both internally and by an objective external mechanism before I could ever believe in my own conclusions. Without that confirmation the truth was most likely to be that I was just as out of my tree as anyone else..I didn't need an objective external mechanism to convince anyone else, I needed it to convince myself that what I had come to believe was the truth is the truth.

It was worth the wait.

There is no greater joy than seeing what you believe conform to and confirmed by reality..

You're still talking about convincing yourself. You seem to think that the purpose of evidence is to convince yourself of some position. Which begs the question of how one prevents confirmation bias when considering any position?

I suppose that I wasn't very clear. This isn't the place for details. Suffice it to say the the objective external mechanism was suggested by Jewish friends, some atheists, some observant, who sought proof that what I had shared with them was either evidence of a divine visitation or a mental illness.

I submitted to their 'test' that they said was left by Moses as a way to discover the truth not so much to convince them, they had made up their minds and the proof wouldn't come for decades, but because it was the only logical way that I ever heard of to objectively confirm my existing conclusions.

Which btw was confirmed in a very specific verifiable and open way in full view of them all whatever they may have believed or not..What they once dismissed as an irrational hallucination from an overactive imagination or a symptom of a mental illness, a scientific impossibility, is now a historical fact. Now its impossible for them, even an atheist, to not believe what they have seen and heard with their own eyes and ears.

Its a good thing that they didn't bet their souls on the outcome.

 

[Czernobog]

Why do you believe the Bible provides evidence? What do you believe the term evidence to mean?

since evidence means "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." when discussing beliefs that are claimed to be based on teaching in the bible evidence that would either support or refute those beliefs would have to be found in the bible.

That would be a valid position if two theists were discussing the position of the Bible on a particular subject. However, this doesn't answer the larger question of what evidence is. For instance what good is the bible, if you are discussing an issue with someone who doesn't view the Bible as an authoritative work? Then what the Bible does, or doesn't say on a particular subject would be useless as evidence, wouldn't it?

Also, simply copying and pasting the dictionary definition of evidence doesn't really answer the question of what you consider the term evidence to mean, now does it? For instance is evidence an internal mechanism? Something to confirm a person's belief in an idea? Or is it an external mechanism? An objective means to convince another of the validity of one's position?

You don't have to believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God to point out absurd conclusions based on those written words.

Anyway, for me, evidence would have to be satisfied both internally and by an objective external mechanism before I could ever believe in my own conclusions. Without that confirmation the truth was most likely to be that I was just as out of my tree as anyone else..I didn't need an objective external mechanism to convince anyone else, I needed it to convince myself that what I had come to believe was the truth is the truth.

It was worth the wait.

There is no greater joy than seeing what you believe conform to and confirmed by reality..

You're still talking about convincing yourself. You seem to think that the purpose of evidence is to convince yourself of some position. Which begs the question of how one prevents confirmation bias when considering any position?

I suppose that I wasn't very clear. This isn't the place for details. Suffice it to say the the objective external mechanism was suggested by Jewish friends, some atheists, some observant, who sought proof that what I had shared with them was either evidence of a divine visitation or a mental illness.

I submitted to their 'test' that they said was left by Moses as a way to discover the truth not so much to convince them, they had made up their minds and the proof wouldn't come for decades, but because it was the only logical way that I ever heard of to objectively confirm my existing conclusions.

Which btw was confirmed in a very specific verifiable and open way in full view of them all whatever they may have believed or not..What they once dismissed as an impossibility or an irrational hallucination is now a historical fact. Now its impossible for them, even an atheist, to not believe.

See, I keep asking what you consider the term "evidence" to mean. And you keep telling me what you believe your evidence of the existence of God is. Of course, in doing so, you are indirectly answering my question.

All you did was tell me a story iof some alleged event that took place with an alleged group performing some arcane ritual for which there is no record, nor any evidence even existing, let alone being performed, which confirmed for you, and all of these alleged observers everything you believe.

In other words, all you gave me is an anecdote. Now, I understand that this anecdote of yours is quite enough to convince you that what you believe is real, and accurate. But, the question remains: how is that supposed to convince anyone else of anything?

 

[Czernobog]

Once again, theists seem to have a rather difficult time explaining what they believe the term "evidence" means, and what sort of evidence should be sufficient to convince another of one's premise.

 

[hobelim]

since evidence means "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." when discussing beliefs that are claimed to be based on teaching in the bible evidence that would either support or refute those beliefs would have to be found in the bible.

That would be a valid position if two theists were discussing the position of the Bible on a particular subject. However, this doesn't answer the larger question of what evidence is. For instance what good is the bible, if you are discussing an issue with someone who doesn't view the Bible as an authoritative work? Then what the Bible does, or doesn't say on a particular subject would be useless as evidence, wouldn't it?

Also, simply copying and pasting the dictionary definition of evidence doesn't really answer the question of what you consider the term evidence to mean, now does it? For instance is evidence an internal mechanism? Something to confirm a person's belief in an idea? Or is it an external mechanism? An objective means to convince another of the validity of one's position?

You don't have to believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God to point out absurd conclusions based on those written words.

Anyway, for me, evidence would have to be satisfied both internally and by an objective external mechanism before I could ever believe in my own conclusions. Without that confirmation the truth was most likely to be that I was just as out of my tree as anyone else..I didn't need an objective external mechanism to convince anyone else, I needed it to convince myself that what I had come to believe was the truth is the truth.

It was worth the wait.

There is no greater joy than seeing what you believe conform to and confirmed by reality..

You're still talking about convincing yourself. You seem to think that the purpose of evidence is to convince yourself of some position. Which begs the question of how one prevents confirmation bias when considering any position?

I suppose that I wasn't very clear. This isn't the place for details. Suffice it to say the the objective external mechanism was suggested by Jewish friends, some atheists, some observant, who sought proof that what I had shared with them was either evidence of a divine visitation or a mental illness.

I submitted to their 'test' that they said was left by Moses as a way to discover the truth not so much to convince them, they had made up their minds and the proof wouldn't come for decades, but because it was the only logical way that I ever heard of to objectively confirm my existing conclusions.

Which btw was confirmed in a very specific verifiable and open way in full view of them all whatever they may have believed or not..What they once dismissed as an impossibility or an irrational hallucination is now a historical fact. Now its impossible for them, even an atheist, to not believe.

See, I keep asking what you consider the term "evidence" to mean. And you keep telling me what you believe your evidence of the existence of God is. Of course, in doing so, you are indirectly answering my question.

All you did was tell me a story iof some alleged event that took place with an alleged group performing some arcane ritual for which there is no record, nor any evidence even existing, let alone being performed, which confirmed for you, and all of these alleged observers everything you believe.

In other words, all you gave me is an anecdote. Now, I understand that this anecdote of yours is quite enough to convince you that what you believe is real, and accurate. But, the question remains: how is that supposed to convince anyone else of anything?

My friends told me what would convince them. It did. I didn't expect it to convince you. You don't even know what happened.

What would you like to be convinced about and what would satisfy your understandable need for evidence?

 

[hobelim]

Once again, theists seem to have a rather difficult time explaining what they believe the term "evidence" means, and what sort of evidence should be sufficient to convince another of one's premise.

You are like the guy who is going deaf but thinks everyone else is whispering.

It seems to me that you are the one who is having difficulty understanding what I clearly defined as the meaning of evidence. You even seemed to be bothered by me cutting and pasting the definition that clearly expresses what I believe the word evidence means..WTF.

If you don't believe me, the evidence is in my previous posts.

Are you feeling OK? Maybe you should take a nap professor. Lack of sleep has been shown to result in decreased neural function.

its science man!

 

[Meriweather]

Which btw was confirmed in a very specific verifiable and open way in full view of them all whatever they may have believed or not..What they once dismissed as an irrational hallucination from an overactive imagination or a symptom of a mental illness, a scientific impossibility, is now a historical fact. Now its impossible for them, even an atheist, to not believe what they have seen and heard with their own eyes and ears.

Can you take this one step farther? The evidence some are seeking is that what happened to you can be replicated by others. This means writing out a step-by-step procedure for others to follow that would end with the same (or at least similar) results every time.

 

[zaangalewa]

Once again, theists seem to have a rather difficult time explaining what they believe the term "evidence" means,

evidence = intersubjective agreement about the logic (and result of this logic) which we use to solve a problem. For example:

and what sort of evidence should be sufficient to convince another of one's premise.

Moses spoke with a burning bush. Three women found the grave of Jesus open and he was not in it. ... You don't have to agree. But don't think 'theists' are really existing. "A-atheists" = "theists" is only your logic - not the logic of Jews, Christians, Muslim, Hindi, Buddhists ... who believe in different forms of spiritual "dimensions". Your belief in atheism is only a subset of the belief per se. Everyone is a believer. What doesn't mean the warnings of "unbelief" are superfluous. I'm quite sure you are not able to see, that you only believe god is not existing.