Facts vs evidence

[danieldemol]

I'm not sure why you focus on miracles. They just seem to be one rather doubtful detail of some religious narratives.

I guess because I'm trying to come up with a coherent approach to assessing evidence, and if testimony are evidence and miracle claims are testimony then I believe miracle claims are some sort of evidence - even if they are only fabricated evidence or evidence that is the product of delusion.

In my opinion

 

[PureX]

I believe that would make them arguments from ignorance, ie "I don't know what happened therefore the laws of nature were broken". Can you spot the fallacy there?

Not all claims are arguments. And we humans are ignorant of much. In fact, of everything if we want to get absolutist about it. So all of our arguments are "from ignorance" in that regard. The fallacy is in presuming that there shouldn't be any.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I guess because I'm trying to come up with a coherent approach to assessing evidence, and if testimony are evidence and miracle claims are testimony then I believe miracle claims are some sort of evidence - even if they are only fabricated evidence or evidence that is the product of delusion.

In my opinion

Okay, this ends in if you like philosophy and/or psychology.

If a given human makes a claim for which there is no evidence, does that mean that it is a product of delusion?

The problem is this in the formal sense.
For all variants of X is Y and not Z, X is Z and not Y, and so on for X is W and ...; you end up with that most people hold at least one claim, which is delusional and that in effect has nothing to do with religion.
Rather it is this. If an reason to act as subjective can be "dressed up" as an objective claim, it doesn't matter it is a delusion as long as the reason to act works.

So here it is with a version of delusion. There are 2 kinds, those that work and those that doesn't.

 

[PureX]

Okay, this ends in if you like philosophy and/or psychology.

If a given human makes a claim for which there is no evidence, does that mean that it is a product of delusion?

The claim itself is evidence. So is the reason the claim is being posited. There is always evidence.

But does the evidence create a plausible narrative? And is it plausible enough that you will choose to accept it as true?

This is all a subjective decision, of course.

The problem is this in the formal sense.
For all variants of X is Y and not Z, X is Z and not Y, and so on for X is W and ...; you end up with that most people hold at least one claim, which is delusional and that in effect has nothing to do with religion.
Rather it is this. If an reason to act as subjective can be "dressed up" as an objective claim, it doesn't matter it is a delusion as long as the reason to act works.

So here it is with a version of delusion. There are 2 kinds, those that work and those that doesn't.

 

[Hawkins]

It seems to me that when a scientist or a scientifically minded person asks "what is the evidence that supports your claim?", what they are really asking is "what facts support your claim?"

In the very contrary, that's a big lie introduced by Satan to fool all mankind. Humans, in terms the mass majority, never even rely on any evidence to reach a truth. Satan single handedly blinded all mankind with such a single lie!

I dire you to list some facts, then ask yourself where's your evidence!

Some examples:
President Lincolm won the majority vote to become the presisent of the United State. Do you have the evidence?
Triump said he won the election while Joe Biden claimed the same, did you have the evidence to identify who lied?
Oh, science now, black holes exist. Do you have the evidence?
...
<you name it>


Humans never ever rely on evidence to get to truths of any kind. They on the other hand, almost exclusively rely on human testimonies in a form to reach a truth by faith. To dive deep, it's your faith in the eyewitnesses (our scientists) which tells you that black hole exists!

Who said Bible prophecies don't come to pass?

2 Corinthians 4:4:
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

You thus cannot see the light once you are fooled by the question "what is the evidence that supports your claim?", as in the process of how humans approaching a truth, only the eyewitnesses are supposed to have the evidence. All others somehow are the believers (of a truth, such as the existence of black holes).


That said. It's even the smartest humans falling for such a lie which actually serves as an evidence that an angelic being much more intelligent than humans is behind it. You believe in evidence, don't you?

 

[danieldemol]

In the very contrary, that's a big lie introduced by Satan to fool all mankind. Humans, in terms the mass majority, never even rely on any evidence to reach a truth. Satan single handedly blinded all mankind with such a single lie!

I dire you to list some facts, then ask yourself where's your evidence!

Some examples:
President Lincolm won the majority vote to become the presisent of the United State. Do you have the evidence?
Triump said he won the election while Joe Biden claimed the same, did you have the evidence to identify who lied?
Oh, science now, black holes exist. Do you have the evidence?
...
<you name it>


Humans never ever rely on evidence to get to truths of any kind. They on the other hand, almost exclusively rely on human testimonies in a form to reach a truth by faith. To dive deep, it's your faith in the eyewitnesses (our scientists) which tells you that black hole exists!

Who said Bible prophecies don't come to pass?

2 Corinthians 4:4:
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

You thus cannot see the light once you are fooled by the question "what is the evidence that supports your claim?", as in the process of how humans approaching a truth, only the eyewitnesses are supposed to have the evidence. All others somehow are the believers (of a truth, such as the existence of black holes).


That said. It's even the smartest humans falling for such a lie which actually serves as an evidence that an angelic being much more intelligent than humans is behind it. You believe in evidence, don't you?

Well scientists have shown us the pictures of stars being sucked into nearby black holes, so there is evidence of that, but I accept that for a historical claim such as Abraham Lincoln winning the vote im relying on historical scholars using a method to assess the likelihood of historical testimony. So yeah I agree I basically do rely on witness testimony at times.

But i still hold that it is reasonable to assess miracle testimony as unlikely to be true as miracles are not known by me to exist.

In my opinion.

 

[PureX]

But i still hold that it is reasonable to assess miracle testimony as unlikely to be true as miracles are not known by me to exist.

They exist by the definition of unexplained physical or circumstantial phenomena that results in an extraordinarily positive outcome. It's completely irrational to deny this just to support a bias against the idea that "unnatural" phenomena can exist.

 

[danieldemol]

They exist by the definition of unexplained physical or circumstantial phenomena that results in an extraordinarily positive outcome. It's completely irrational to deny this just to support a bias against the idea that "unnatural" phenomena can exist.

You use 2 definitions here, the first is "unexplained physical or circumstantial phenomena". The second definition of miracles you use is "unnatural phenomena"

You then conflate the two to alledge bias on my part, however this appears to me unjustified since "unexplained physical or circumstantial phenomena" could well be unexplained *natural* phenomena.

Therefore in the absence of knowledge that the unnatural phenomena exist it seems to be putting the cart ahead of the horse to assume something is unnatural just because it is unexplained.

Additionally I do believe in the spirit realm, although not due to a reasoned thought process, so I have no bias against the unnatural in my view. I simply feel it is not honest to call assuming things which aren't demonstrated to be true as logical.

In my opinion.

 

[PureX]

You use 2 definitions here, the first is "unexplained physical or circumstantial phenomena". The second definition of miracles you use is "unnatural phenomena"

You then conflate the two to alledge bias on my part, however this appears to me unjustified since "unexplained physical or circumstantial phenomena" could well be unexplained *natural* phenomena.

The fact that the phenomena is unexplained rules out the insistence that it must nevertheless be a natural phenomena. So by definition a miracle can be either natural or unnatural because it's unexplained.

Therefore in the absence of knowledge that the unnatural phenomena exist it seems to be putting the cart ahead of the horse to assume something is unnatural just because it is unexplained.

The term 'miracle' does not assume that as it refers to an unexplained phenomena. It's our individual bias that wants to us assume it refers to either naturally or unnaturally occurring phenomena.

Additionally I do believe in the spirit realm, although not due to a reasoned thought process, so I have no bias against the unnatural in my view. I simply feel it is not honest to call assuming things which aren't demonstrated to be true as logical.

In my opinion.

Again, by definition, a miracle is not something we can demonstrate to be true or logical. Nevertheless, such circumstances and phenomena do occur, quite often. And when they do, and they are especially fortuitous, we call them "miracles".

 

[danieldemol]

The term 'miracle' does not assume that as it refers to an unexplained phenomena. It's our individual bias that wants to us assume it refers to either naturally or unnaturally occurring phenomena.

Again, by definition, a miracle is not something we can demonstrate to be true or logical. Nevertheless, such circumstances and phenomena do occur, quite often. And when they do, and they are especially fortuitous, we call them "miracles".

It might be bias to assume with certainty that it is natural, but it doesn't seem like bias to me to assume it is more likely to be a result of that which is known to exist - the natural - vs that which is not known to exist - the unnatural.

In my opinion.

 

[PureX]

It might be bias to assume with certainty that it is natural, but it doesn't seem like bias to me to assume it is more likely to be a result of that which is known to exist - the natural - vs that which is not known to exist - the unnatural.

In my opinion.

I think you are trying to excuse/justify your bias. As by definition, there is no information related to a "miracle" by which you should presume natural or unnatural causes.

 

[Ponder This]

I think there are some testimonies a reasonable person would consider to exclude the source as being reliable even if they were otherwise known to be reliable. For example if I just claimed to have seen a shape shifting cat, would you believe it even if I was known for my reliablility? Or would you doubt my reliability based on the content of my testimony?

Judging the arguments is something observers of the debate do. If someone "reliable" claims to have seen a shapeshifting cat, observers of the testimony will draw their own conclusions. They may doubt the person's reliability, or not, on the basis of their entire testimony. The same goes for science. People make claims about science and the reliability of those claims are judged by the observers. If a scientist makes claims about science and then goes on to tell everyone that the moon landing was faked... some observers will question the reliabilty of his scientific claims and some will be more assured of the reliability of the scientific claims he made. You can argue that that claims of science are not a matter for debate, but they are, in fact, a matter of debate, if for no other reason that anyone, including scientists, can make false claims.

And why couldn't science be used to determine that miracles are (if they exist at all) of such statistical rarity that they are in the highly unlikely to be true basket? After all, science is about observation, and I have never personally observed anything which could certainly be described as suspension of the laws of nature, nor have all the scientists I've ever known observed it.

You could use statistics to say that a miracle is not a normal occurrence. Some miracles may be more common than others.

However, just because you aren't observant enough to notice the things science has not yet explained, doesn't mean that there aren't things happening that science has not yet explained. If science were finished explaining everything, then there would be no need for further experiments. You are also not likely to be observant enough in everyday ordinary life to notice that the laws of science are being followed. One does not simply casually observe that the Earth is round instead of flat. Rather, it is the result of some degree of investigation.

 

[Ponder This]

Is that why the vast majority of innocent people that were nonetheless convicted for crimes they didn't commit, were convicted based on such "testimonial evidence"?
Because it "works"?

It is estimated that approximately 5% of people incarcerated in US prisons are actually innocent.

Not just via experimentation. Rather via independently testable predictions that naturally flow from the hypothesis. Not all such tests require experimentation.
And that's why science is so good at obtaining accurate answers to questions.

That's why the vast majority of innocent people convicted to jail time based on "testimony" that are set free, see their conviction reversed based on scientific evidence instead.

If only they had those scientific results during trial. The problem here is that either science hadn't advanced enough yet or evidence wasn't gathered for the trial. The problem is not that trials go on and on and on and on while someone takes years to conduct a science experiment.

There doesn't seem to be an alternative if and when we are going to consider it important that we get accurate answers to questions.
So if for whatever reason we can't get to an answer through science, we should perhaps more often dare to say that we simply don't know (yet?).

95% accuracy in courts appears to be a practical degree of certainty to the alternative of saying we don't know anything (yet).

 

[Valjean]

The fact that the phenomena is unexplained rules out the insistence that it must nevertheless be a natural phenomena. So by definition a miracle can be either natural or unnatural because it's unexplained.

But that makes miraculous synonymous with unexplained. Were tides, seasons, earthquakes and disease once miracles?

The term 'miracle' does not assume that as it refers to an unexplained phenomena. It's our individual bias that wants to us assume it refers to either naturally or unnaturally occurring phenomena.

Again, by definition, a miracle is not something we can demonstrate to be true or logical. Nevertheless, such circumstances and phenomena do occur, quite often. And when they do, and they are especially fortuitous, we call them "miracles".

I think of a miracle as something unexplainable; something that violates natural law.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

It seems to me that when a scientist or a scientifically minded person asks "what is the evidence that supports your claim?", what they are really asking is "what facts support your claim?"

I think it may help resolve our debates on whether such things as alleged witness testimonies of the Bible constitute "evidence", because whilst a testimony could be factual or fabricated it may be considered "evidence" from a purely legal perspective, the legal perspective considers there to be "false evidence".

From wikipedia;
'False evidence, fabricated evidence, forged evidence, fake evidence or tainted evidence is information created or obtained illegally in order to sway the verdict in a court case.'

Source: False evidence - Wikipedia.

By comparison i would argue there is no such thing as a false fact, only things believed justifiably or unjustifiably to be fact.

So I think it would help to separate witness testimony which could be considered admissible in a court as evidence whether false or true from fact and instead ask the question, "what facts support your claim" in the place of "what evidence supports your claim" so as not to invite the potentially false evidence of testimony being presented as valid where I think it can be argued that it is not such as with regard to supernatural or miracle claims.

Your thoughts?

It is not only about evidences or facts. But it is also about the conclusion from those evidences or facts.
Most people's conclusion is effected by their own bias. They like to conclude what will be in favor of their own self, and resist that which is contrary to their desire.
But truth or the true conclusion is often not what people wish. So, they trick themselves.

 

[danieldemol]

I think you are trying to excuse/justify your bias. As by definition, there is no information related to a "miracle" by which you should presume natural or unnatural causes.

Let us examine an analogy. We have an abundance of known elements on earth and come across a metal, but as we are not metallurgists (in this hypothetical analogy) we don't know which elements it is made from.

Is it more probable that it is;
a) composed of the known elements on earth?
b) composed of an element unknown to exist?
C) composed of pure spirit?

If you answered option b or c I doubt I'm the one with the bias.

In my opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

However, just because you aren't observant enough to notice the things science has not yet explained, doesn't mean that there aren't things happening that science has not yet explained.

It seems you are using a similar definiyion switch to @PureX
I never claimed unexplained events don't happen, rather I claimed it is unlikely from a pure logic perspective that unnatural events happen or events which defy the laws of nature.

 

[danieldemol]

It is not only about evidences or facts. But it is also about the conclusion from those evidences or facts.
Most people's conclusion is effected by their own bias. They like to conclude what will be in favor of their own self, and resist that which is contrary to their desire.
But truth or the true conclusion is often not what people wish. So, they trick themselves.

Agreed, but I believe people want miracles and the supernatural to be real, because many people want to live forever or live without suffering.
In my opinion.

 

[PureX]

But that makes miraculous synonymous with unexplained. Were tides, seasons, earthquakes and disease once miracles?

If they were fortuitous, and unexplained, yes. You seem to think the word defines the phenomena. It doesn't. It defines our experience and valuation of the phenomena. If, by our experience, it is unexplained (as it is by definition), it's illogical to then presume it must be explainable as a natural or unnatural phenomena.

I think of a miracle as something unexplainable; something that violates natural law.

But if it's not explainable, then you can't know if it violated natural law or not. You are just blindly presuming it to be so. Which is not especially logical unless you have some other means apart from knowledge for choosing such a presumption. (Like you really WANT miracles to be supernatural whether they are or not.)

 

[PureX]

Let us examine an analogy. We have an abundance of known elements on earth and come across a metal, but as we are not metallurgists (in this hypothetical analogy) we don't know which elements it is made from.

Is it more probable that it is;
a) composed of the known elements on earth?
b) composed of an element unknown to exist?
C) composed of pure spirit?

If you answered option b or c I doubt I'm the one with the bias.

In my opinion.

By definition, a miracle does not generate probabilities because it is an unexplained phenomenon. How desperately you are trying to explain it away (by determining that it's naturally explainable) is your own issue.