What is Evidence?

[Nakosis]

Do you get to decide for yourself what is evidence and what conclusion that evidence supports?

Or is there a standard that something must surpass to be considered evidence and a methodology to showing how the evidence necessarily supports the conclusion being claimed by it.

For example, is the Bible evidence of the existence of God?
Is the Bible evidence because I say it is evidence? Or is the Bible evidence because surpasses a standard of evidence necessary to be considered evidence.

And, if we except the latter, is it evidence of God's existence because I say it is or because I have methodically show that it necessarily leads to that conclusion?

Bonus question: If you think there is a standard that must be surpassed for something to be considered evidence, what is it and does the Bible meet that?

 

[Altfish]

"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid"

So, yes, the Bible is evidence of the existence of god, but on its own not very convincing.
Similarly, "Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone" is evidence that Harry Potter exists, but we know that he is an invention by J K Rowling.

As per the definition evidence is not one piece of information, it is a collection, group, body of facts that all together indicate that a proposition is true. The Bible is just one piece of evidence.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Do you get to decide for yourself what is evidence and what conclusion that evidence supports?

As best we can, given our abilities and what evidence is available to us or which we might seek out.

Or is there a standard that something must surpass to be considered evidence and a methodology to showing how the evidence necessarily supports the conclusion being claimed by it.

If we have the abilities (to discern inaccuracies, bad data, wrong assumptions or conclusions, etc.), trust the sources, and respect the process as to what is presented, then we might form a conclusion as to whatever, but we still might just hold such as 'provisional' until much more evidence arrives to support such. Which is what most rational people might do - rather than accepting whatever belief system happens to be the one promoted in any particular country - as religions often are such.

For example, is the Bible evidence of the existence of God?
Is the Bible evidence because I say it is evidence? Or is the Bible evidence because surpasses a standard of evidence necessary to be considered evidence.

The Bible is evidence of writing existing. It passes no test as to truth (apart from general truths which might be found elsewhere as well), just as no other does when such describes events happening but where distortions creep in from the writer's viewpoint. It might gain more validity if there were substantial impartial sources around at the time - but apparently this was not so.

And, if we except the latter, is it evidence of God's existence because I say it is or because I have methodically show that it necessarily leads to that conclusion?

Bonus question: If you think there is a standard that must be surpassed for something to be considered evidence, what is it and does the Bible meet that?

As above. The Bible, and most other religious texts hardly pass the test as to proper evidence but mainly pass as to being biased and having an agenda. A good test as to evidence might be as to anyone being able to prove for themselves as to the evidence being correct - starting off with jumping off a cliff to prove gravity exists. The wise ones might incorporate a parachute in their testing however - to enable further tests.

But this is what science tends to do - have a process as to how claims can be tested, checked, and proven, especially as to looking at all the various options that might explain any theory so as to disprove the one claimed. Which is why the ToE has lasted for so long - being the best explanation so far.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid"

So, yes, the Bible is evidence of the existence of god, but on its own not very convincing.

Let's see ...

evidence is​

"the available body of facts or information indicating ..." [ @Altfish ]​

information is​

facts about a situation, person, event, etc. [Cambridge Dictionary]​

So, apparently ...

evidence is a body of facts or facts indicating ...​

​

The point being, irrespective of colloquial usage the term evidence must mean something more than indication or claim, and the only way "the Bible is evidence of the existence of god" is by virtue of rendering the term evidence worthless.

 

[McBell]

Let's see ...

evidence is​

"the available body of facts or information indicating ..." [ @Altfish ]​

information is​

facts about a situation, person, event, etc. [Cambridge Dictionary]​

So, apparently ...

evidence is a body of facts or facts indicating ...​

​

The point being, irrespective of colloquial usage the term evidence must mean something more than indication or claim, and the only way "the Bible is evidence of the existence of god" is by virtue of rendering the term evidence worthless.

My experience with common usage would define it as "that which convinces"

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My experience with common usage would define it as "that which convinces"

Thanks for sharing.

 

[ChristineM]

Bonus question: If you think there is a standard that must be surpassed for something to be considered evidence, what is it and does the Bible meet that?

For me, evidence is as per this OED definition.

The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.​

I will add that it has more value if it is repeatable or can be falsified.

There seems to be another definition that i can only describe as

That which i believe to be evidence ​

It's my belief that many belivers opt for the second definition.

 

[Audie]

For me, evidence is as per this OED definition.

The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.​

I will add that it has more value if it is repeatable or can be falsified.

There seems to be another definition that i can only describe as

That which i believe to be evidence ​

It's my belief that many belivers opt for the second definition.

The bible is more like Sign, than evidence per se.

As per the girl I was walking with when she found a
Nice autumn maple leaf fallen at our feet.

" Oh look, it's a Sign from God, it represents the Triinty!"

As in " that which I ( choose to) believe...".

 

[SalixIncendium]

Do you get to decide for yourself what is evidence and what conclusion that evidence supports?

Yes.

 

[osgart]

Do you get to decide for yourself what is evidence and what conclusion that evidence supports?

If your philosophical assumption is physicalism then everything becomes a matter of evidence from physical facts and nothing else is relevant.

If you recognize abstract qualities in your philosophical assumptions, then there is more to infer from evidence beyond the physical. If there's more beyond the physical then science isn't going to be the tool to discover it. One can incorporate scientific methods in exploring abstract reality, but it's not going to be demonstrated with the level of certainty one can have with just physical facts. So religious, and philosophical truths are far more challenging to find, and easier to deny.

Beyond that convincement is a matter of how you perceive reality philosophically. Everyone starts with assumptions they make that appear self evident.

 

[Stevicus]

Do you get to decide for yourself what is evidence and what conclusion that evidence supports?

Or is there a standard that something must surpass to be considered evidence and a methodology to showing how the evidence necessarily supports the conclusion being claimed by it.

For example, is the Bible evidence of the existence of God?
Is the Bible evidence because I say it is evidence? Or is the Bible evidence because surpasses a standard of evidence necessary to be considered evidence.

And, if we except the latter, is it evidence of God's existence because I say it is or because I have methodically show that it necessarily leads to that conclusion?

Bonus question: If you think there is a standard that must be surpassed for something to be considered evidence, what is it and does the Bible meet that?

I don't know that I would consider the Bible to be evidence of God. The Bible is evidence that claims are made about God. From the very first sentence, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," we see a claim, not evidence. Who is the observer here? Who is the eyewitness claiming to have seen God do this? The scriptures give us evidence of claims made about God thousands of years ago, but they would still just be unproven claims.

 

[Spice]

Do you get to decide for yourself what is evidence and what conclusion that evidence supports?

To a small degree. There are boundaries.

Or is there a standard that something must surpass to be considered evidence and a methodology to showing how the evidence necessarily supports the conclusion being claimed by it.

That is determined by "laws."

For example, is the Bible evidence of the existence of God?

No. Only evidence in the belief of the existence of God.

Is the Bible evidence because I say it is evidence? Or is the Bible evidence because surpasses a standard of evidence necessary to be considered evidence.

It's only relationship to evidence is that it provides some "laws" to standardize good and bad as guidelines to judging evidence, though these laws are of man with strong connection to the Mysteries.

And, if we except the latter, is it evidence of God's existence because I say it is or because I have methodically show that it necessarily leads to that conclusion?

There's no connection to the existence of God other than the foundational content has endured many tests. And here I refer only to the 10 laws of Moses, as mentioned.

Bonus question: If you think there is a standard that must be surpassed for something to be considered evidence, what is it and does the Bible meet that?

Evidence must be weighed against the law. The Bible gives 10 fine laws and many examples of evidence to weigh against them to verify their mettle. But, in my view, a better set of laws to weigh life's evidence of the existence of God against might be found through science -- the laws NOT dictated by man.

 

[Quintessence]

Do you get to decide for yourself what is evidence and what conclusion that evidence supports?

Setting aside the philosophy of hard determinism for the moment - which would mean that nobody actually decides anything - obviously. That is, this is intuitively obviously the case beyond any reasonable doubt - there is no hidden puppeteer or alien mind control beam or government brainwashing device forcing one to behave and think a certain way. Each individual always and necessarily decides things for itself and behaves of its own volition and will, as mediated by external influences and awareness. It is just so for all things.

Or is there a standard that something must surpass to be considered evidence and a methodology to showing how the evidence necessarily supports the conclusion being claimed by it?

Again, obviously. It's the standard one decides for oneself. Said standard may or may not be applied and projected onto others. Kind of weird this is presented as an either/or scenario when both of these are true. If you meant to ask after some universally-held standard that all humans share, it is also obvious that is not the case.

 

[sun rise]

What are the types of evidence CDC?

The Evidence Project proposes a comprehensive framework for understanding evidence and evidence-based decision making that includes three types of evidence (best available research evidence, contextual evidence, and experiential evidence). Understanding Evidence |Violence Prevention|Injury Center|CDC

3) Experiential Evidence - is the collective experience and expertise of those who have practiced or lived in a particular setting. It also includes the knowledge of subject matter experts. These insights, understandings, skills, and expertise are accumulated over time and are often referred to as intuitive or tacit knowledge. Experiential evidence is systematically gathered from multiple stakeholders who are familiar with a variety of key aspects about populations in specific settings who have knowledge about the community in which a prevention strategy is to be implemented (i.e., knowledge about what has/has not worked previously in a specific setting with particular populations; insight on potential implementation challenges; insight regarding the needs and challenges of the community and those who live in it). Experiential evidence provides distinctive guidance in the form of real world experience. Some examples of data sources and methods for eliciting experiential evidence include: reflective questions, communities of practice, expert panels, team decision making, and other consensus processes.

So from that the cited definition for "evidence" is not what is used by the CDC and others. "Experiential evidence" is, in the medical realm and elsewhere, but it needs to be included in the continuum of evidence.

To answer the follow-up question, my view is that the Bible, IF you assume it's accurate, meets the experiential evidence test but nothing beyond that. That is also true of the Quran, Gita and other holy books.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Or is there a standard that something must surpass to be considered evidence and a methodology to showing how the evidence necessarily supports the conclusion being claimed by it.

This.

Bonus question: If you think there is a standard that must be surpassed for something to be considered evidence, what is it and does the Bible meet that?

The Bible (as a whole) doesn't meet historical standards and scientific facts. For example:

Based on scientific interpretation of archaeological, genetic, and linguistic evidence, most mainstream Bible scholars consider Genesis to be primarily mythological rather than historical.

Book of Genesis - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Do you get to decide for yourself what is evidence and what conclusion that evidence supports?

No, not really. If that were true, people could simply say, "Well I feeeeeel that this is true," or "Well, but is my experience," and we know both of those two methods to be absolutely dismal in finding the truth.

Truth is found via scientific method or a well reasoned argument (meaning without fallacies).

The fact that someone concludes that something is true is not the same as it being true. There are people who say Leprechauns are true.

 

[Nakosis]

No, not really. If that were true, people could simply say, "Well I feeeeeel that this is true," or "Well, but is my experience," and we know both of those two methods to be absolutely dismal in finding the truth.

Truth is found via scientific method or a well reasoned argument (meaning without fallacies).

The fact that someone concludes that something is true is not the same as it being true. There are people who say Leprechauns are true.

I've found myself recently saying to myself that "I" the individual decides for themselves what constitutes evidence and the conclusion the evidence point to. It seems to be the way many folks use the term. In a conversation that is the usual meaning.

However, when I was an engineer, that would never fly. I think in that case I would say something like @ChristineM posted. Evidence has to be tested and shown to affect or be an affect of whatever the subject is as well as being falsifiable. Also through testing, it has to be shown its connection and affect on the conclusion.

However, as stated, some people use the other definition that I found myself starting to use. I'd suppose it is necessary to be aware of when others use the term which definition they mean by it. When people claim evidence of God, they usually mean the former and when they ask for evidence of God they usually mean the latter. So everyone gets frustrated.

 

[Heyo]

Do you get to decide for yourself what is evidence and what conclusion that evidence supports?

Nope.

Or is there a standard that something must surpass to be considered evidence and a methodology to showing how the evidence necessarily supports the conclusion being claimed by it.

"The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose from." - Andrew S. Tanenbaum

There are standards, but each field has its own. In court, witness testimony has a (much too high) value as evidence, whereas testimony is basically worthless in the hard sciences.

So, to expand on question #1: you can't decide what is evidence, but you can choose the standard that fits your needs.

 

[Heyo]

"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid"
[...]
As per the definition evidence is not one piece of information, it is a collection, group, body of facts that all together indicate that a proposition is true. The Bible is just one piece of evidence.

I find that dictionary definition to be lacking. It doesn't say that the evidence must support only the proposition.
If evidence can support a position as well as its opposite, it isn't much of evidence. (I'm willing to argue that the Bible is evidence that god doesn't exist.)
Also, evidence may point to a conclusion and a different set of facts may point away from it. So only the body of all the facts should be considered as evidence.

And it is difficult to be precise in one's thinking. As @Spice has pointed out, the Bible is evidence that people have believed in gods for a long time - which is not the same as saying that it is evidence for the existence of gods.

A good measurement for the value of evidence is the comparison to similar cases. Are the Upanishads evidence for the Hindu gods? Is Starwars evidence for the truth of Jediism?

 

[Madsaac]

Evidence is something religions do not like, because they don't have any.

Call it whatever you like, proof, verification, religions don't have any......at all

They have faith