After the Tower of Babel 1.0 everyone was confused and ancient science was lost in its entirety. The universal Ancient Language was the very metaphysics of ancient science. Cavemen were certainly able to deduce and observe the cause of rain and evaporation and they said so;
1140c. (he is dried) by the wind of the great Isis, together with (which) the great Isis dried (him) like Horus.
1146a. N. is the pouring down of rain; he came forth as the coming into being of water;
1146b. for he is the Nḥb-kȝ.w-serpent with the many coils;
"Nehebkau" was the hydraulic cycle as seen from the inside. We can't see it because we can't think as they did. Bees probably have a fair understanding of the hydraulic cycle.
That, written in response to, "The Bible writers didn't know where the rain came from or where the sun went at night, nor that bats aren't birds nor that insects are hexapods," was unconvincing. These are just fantastic claims, and not from the writers of the Bible. The Bible writers thought that the rain was leakage from a great body of water resting on a dome with holes for it to leak through.
Nor are those words the testimony of cavemen. Cavemen didn't write. Writing appeared with civilization. Those words were written by civilized, ancient Egyptians.
I have no idea on what your personally mean by evidence.... I can't know if there is evidence for god nor for anything
Let's distinguish between what is evidence (discussed in this section) and what can we conclude from any piece of evidence (coming up next).
I will define the former, because that is what you are asking: what is evidence. Evidence is anything evident to the senses. Evidence is the noun form of the adjective evident.
And it's not limited to the external senses (sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch - also called objective evidence because it is available to all, although more can be said about the use of the word objective in this context). We also receive sensory input from within the body such as a leg cramp (somatic or outer body), heartburn (visceral or inner body), or thirst (chemistry) - also called subjective evidence.
By this reckoning, all of conscious content is evidence, including feelings, thoughts, memories, and desires. We can call this latter group evidence from the brain, distinct from external evidence, somatic evidence, visceral evidence, and chemical evidence.
And I'd like to comment on the phrase "valid evidence," which I consider a category error. Evidence can't be valid or invalid. What can be valid or invalid is the reasoning leading to whatever inferences have been drawn from that evidence.
Also, terms like scientific evidence don't make sense to me. What does that mean - what a scientist sees through a telescope? What is it when I look through that telescope? Lay evidence? It's all just evidence
I am asking for an objective metric , presisly because I what to avoid answers such as "it's not evidence because I say so"
The standard for evaluating what evidence is evidence of is the rules of critical thought or valid reasoning combined with memory (knowledge acquired through prior experience). Your premise is the evidence. If the reasoning connecting it to your conclusion is valid, i.e., fallacy free, that conclusion is sound, i.e., correct, and testing it will produce the desired result: successfully anticipating future outcomes.
I am asking in general for an objective standard that would allow us to determine if something is evidence or not.
Hopefully, you can now see why this isn't a well-formed idea. We don't determine if something is evidence. We experience evidence and determine what it is evidence of. We begin with a bare apprehension. First, we realize that we are looking at a human face (for example). Then comes the cognitive and affective content. Realizing that it is a face is the first cognitive conclusion arrived at. We understand that another person is in eyeshot. This might be followed with recognition ("I've seen this face before"), then memories such as "This is my friend Bill" and "We're meeting for lunch."
Then the affective content - how you feel about this. Maybe you're happy to see him and anticipating a nice lunch, or maybe you're annoyed because he's 30 minutes late, another cognitive conclusion derived from the memory of your agreed upon meeting time and the evidence your watch provides, which also has to be interpreted from bare apprehension (lights on my wrist) to conclusion (they mean it's 12:30 PM).
You asked about a metric for validating this process. Your metric is the relative success of your conclusions to lead to desired outcomes, which confirms the soundness of one's conclusions. If it rains 7 times out of 10 when the weatherman says that there is a 70% chance of rain. that confirms that his methods of going from whatever evidence he is using (weather measurements) to prognosis is valid. That's your metric.
So testimonies of people having seen ghosts support the claim that Ghost exist…………therefore these testimonies are evidence for the existence of ghost…………agree?
Yes, but the evidence is too weak to support belief in ghosts. It does, however, support the belief that people think they've seen ghosts.
I personally Remember my 10yo self , saying “íll believe in god just in case” which is a childish version of PASCL WAGER.......................in my opinion it is a reasonable conclusion
If you don't mind a little help with English - not your first language as I understand it - the word you want is childlike, not childish. The first is the word you use when you approve or are indifferent, as with "childlike innocence." Childish is generally used for behaviors one doesn't approve of, as with a "childish tantrum."
Another pair of words with a similar relationship are simple and simplistic. The former (in the literal sense; the word is also used as a euphemism for unintelligent) is generally neutral to positive (a "simple recipe"), whereas simplistic is generally used derogatorily, as in too simple (a "simplistic solution")
You are making the dishonest “debate” strategy of asking many complex questions, because you know that it is impossible to address everything in a proper way
This is perhaps your least endearing quality - understanding your deficiencies in terms of malice and character flaws in others. You'd do well to eliminate that kind of language. I assure you that she is not being dishonest nor playing games with you. She's doing exactly what I'm doing. Hopefully, you don't experience my arguments here as dishonest, but if you do, it is a mistake to express that if you might be wrong, and you shouldn't trust your judgment in such matters. You should question it and keep it to yourself.
In that case PW would apply
And here's another habit that you might want to reconsider: the use of non-standard abbreviations. I had to backtrack to figure out that this was Pascal's Wager. Yesterday, I saw you use DM, and it was the same. I had to go back a few posts to determine that you meant dak matter. Generally, my attitude is that if the person can't be bothered to write out a couple of words for the sake of clarity over taking a shortcut, I lose interest and scroll on. Take that for what it's worth. Maybe none of that matters to you.
