What is Evidence?

[Yerda]

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.

This is a good point.

If I say it has rained and you say it hasn't at all, we might go look at the wet ground as evidence supporting my claim. But then you might say that the neighbour has been out with her hose and soaked the ground. The wet ground itself doesn't tell us which of these is true as we would expect it under either case. It isn't evidence in the context of our discussion.

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

Like the above, if there were a being who, made the world, wants to communicate with us, has some concerns about diet and sex and rounding the corners of beards, we might expect that we might find communication from said being. Any document claiming to be correspondence from God might be considered evidence if it raises the plausibility of God. However, if we also suspect that the Bible was written by people the existence of the Bible doesn't offer us any insight into whether God gave us the Bible (or wisom therein) or people did.

So, no. I don't think so.

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?

It has to be a fact (or some set of facts) that elevates the plausibility or probability of one claim over another. Ideally, we agree before hand what kind of finding would qualify.

In the example I used above, we could both agree that if the neighbour hasn't been home this weekend it less likely they were in the garden with the hose.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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.

Personal evidence is evidence for that person but not for the others.

 

[1213]

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

Evidence = Something indicative; an indication or set of indications

The Bible indicates that things went as told in the Bible, because it is something that we would have, if things went as told.

 

[Heyo]

Evidence = Something indicative; an indication or set of indications

The Bible indicates that things went as told in the Bible, because it is something that we would have, if things went as told.

And the Illiad is evidence that things went as told in the Illiad, because it is something that we would have, if things went as told.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Bible indicates that things went as told in the Bible, because it is something that we would have, if things went as told.

And the quran indicates that things went as told in the quran, because it is something that we would have, if things went as told.

And the bagavhad ghita indicates that things went as told in the bagavhad ghita, because it is something that we would have, if things went as told.

And the book of the dead indicates that things went as told in the book of the dead, because it is something that we would have, if things went as told.

etc


Are we seeing a pattern here?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

Exactly. The Bible is evidence for the existence of writers who thought God existed, but that is hardly evidence for the exsistence of God. In exactly the same way, as @Altfish suggested above, that J.K. Rowling wrote about witches and wizards, but is hardly evidence for the existence of wizards and witches.

 

[RestlessSoul]

In a court of law, the judge decides what is admissible as evidence. So the question here becomes, what court is this, who is the judge, and who or what is on trial?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In a court of law, the judge decides what is admissible as evidence. So the question here becomes, what court is this, who is the judge, and who or what is on trial?

No, that is not the question.

 

[F1fan]

Evidence = Something indicative; an indication or set of indications

The Bible indicates that things went as told in the Bible, because it is something that we would have, if things went as told.

Yet no evidence of a global flood, so it works both ways.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Exactly. The Bible is evidence for the existence of writers who thought God existed, but that is hardly evidence for the exsistence of God. In exactly the same way, as @Altfish suggested above, that J.K. Rowling wrote about witches and wizards, but is hardly evidence for the existence oof wizards and witches.

No, not really. Although I realise you have a very low opinion of religious people in general and Christians in particular, I suspect most of them are at least smart enough to discern the difference between mythology and fantasy. A distinction which appears to have escaped both you and @Altfish , however…

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No, not really. Although I realise you have a very low opinion of religious people in general and Christians in particular, I suspect most of them are at least smart enough to discern the difference between mythology and fantasy. A distinction which appears to have escaped both you and @Altfish , however…

Tell me what was not fanciful about Balaam's donkey having a chat -- in Aramaic, yet! Or speaking of talking animals, Eve's serpent. I'll have to assume it was speaking in Parseltongue, and Eve understood it.

 

[RestlessSoul]

No, that is not the question.

Thanks for illustrating my point so concisely, your honour..,

 

[RestlessSoul]

Tell me what was not fanciful about Balaam's donkey having a chat -- in Aramaic, yet! Or speaking of talking animals, Eve's serpent. I'll have to assume it was speaking in Parseltongue, and Eve understood it.

Oh please. You’re not that one dimensional a thinker, so why pretend you are simply in order to make a point?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Oh please. You’re not that one dimensional a thinker, so why pretend you are simply in order to make a point?

I use it to make an important point! The Bible is chock-full of myth and magic, and invented history, carefully orchestrated by its writers and editors (e.g. Ezra) to implant specific beliefs in people, where no other actual reason exists to support those beliefs. This is as much true of the New Testament as the OT, in all the various miracles and episodes like the magical deaths of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-11. And I consider the Resurrection to be just such a purposeful myth.

 

[Heyo]

In a court of law, the judge decides what is admissible as evidence. So the question here becomes, what court is this, who is the judge, and who or what is on trial?

As I pointed out above, different fields have different standards for evidence. Before we can ask "who or what is on trial", we have to ask if we are in court or at a science convention or on a forum of philosophers or somewhere else.

(And if we decide that we are in court, the case is brought by the believers who accuse god of existing.)

 

[RestlessSoul]

I use it to make an important point! The Bible is chock-full of myth and magic, and invented history, carefully orchestrated by its writers and editors (e.g. Ezra) to implant specific beliefs in people, where no other actual reason exists to support those beliefs. This is as much true of the New Testament as the OT, in all the various miracles and episodes like the magical deaths of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-11. And I consider the Resurrection to be just such a purposeful myth.

I doubt anyone would disagree that the Bible is full of myth, allegory, metaphor etc. And you could certainly find some Christians, perhaps at the most liberal end of the spectrum, who regard the miracles as metaphor and the resurrection as myth. I understand that Leo Tolstoy wrote a redacted Russian Gospel, with the miracles completely written out, though I haven’t read it; I have read Julian Baggini’s Godless Gospel. It’s an interesting concept, and honourably intentioned imo, but Christianity without the divinity of Christ is a bit like decaffeinated coffee or alcohol free beer. What, really, is the point?

Okay, the Bible is not the sort of evidence for the existence of God which is likely to convince m the committed sceptic. But the enduring cultural influence of The Bible, the Mahabharata, the Buddhist canon, The Quran etc, do collectively provide convincing evidence of a need in humanity which only religion can fulfil. And there are those who, having come to scoff, remained to pray.

 

[Alien826]

Exactly. The Bible is evidence for the existence of writers who thought God existed, but that is hardly evidence for the exsistence of God. In exactly the same way, as @Altfish suggested above, that J.K. Rowling wrote about witches and wizards, but is hardly evidence for the existence of wizards and witches.

Without disagreeing in principle, a significant difference is that Rowling never presented her books as anything but fiction. If we could resurrect the Biblical writers, I imagine they would claim that they were recording facts.

The Bible is a collection of writings of different genres and must be treated as such. For example, the Psalms are poetry, which doesn't have to be factual to have value. I think though that what we are discussing is writing that was intended to be historical, and there are distinct methods to determine the accuracy of historical documents. This site sets it out quite clearly.

How to evaluate the accuracy of a historical source

Evaluating the accuracy of historical sources is a critical skill that enables historians, researchers, and students to decide how much they can believe the information offered by a source. Since all historical sources are written people who have a particular perspective and bias, some of the...

www.historyskills.com

Here's a snippet

To assess the accuracy of a source, ask questions like:

• Is the information corroborated by other reliable sources?
• Are there clues of bias in the source that may suggest it may be inaccurate?
• Is the information offered in the source plausible?

Note that it is difficult to establish the accuracy of historical documents 100%. The events can't be repeated as one would for a scientific claim, so other methods are used. It is also possible that parts of a document are accurate and other parts are not. The Bible can be believed when it talks about, say, famous personages that are mentioned elsewhere, but supernatural claims tend to fail the "plausibility" test, and many claims are not "corroborated by other reliable sources". This applies to all historical documents of course, not picking on the Bible specifically.

 

[RestlessSoul]

As I pointed out above, different fields have different standards for evidence. Before we can ask "who or what is on trial", we have to ask if we are in court or at a science convention or on a forum of philosophers or somewhere else.

(And if we decide that we are in court, the case is brought by the believers who accuse god of existing.)

Or perhaps the non-believers who accuse God of being too morally and logically inconsistent to exist?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Without disagreeing in principle, a significant difference is that Rowling never presented her books as anything but fiction. If we could resurrect the Biblical writers, I imagine they would claim that they were recording facts.

The Bible is a collection of writings of different genres and must be treated as such. For example, the Psalms are poetry, which doesn't have to be factual to have value. I think though that what we are discussing is writing that was intended to be historical, and there are distinct methods to determine the accuracy of historical documents. This site sets it out quite clearly.

How to evaluate the accuracy of a historical source

Evaluating the accuracy of historical sources is a critical skill that enables historians, researchers, and students to decide how much they can believe the information offered by a source. Since all historical sources are written people who have a particular perspective and bias, some of the...

www.historyskills.com

Here's a snippet



Note that it is difficult to establish the accuracy of historical documents 100%. The events can't be repeated as one would for a scientific claim, so other methods are used. It is also possible that parts of a document are accurate and other parts are not. The Bible can be believed when it talks about, say, famous personages that are mentioned elsewhere, but supernatural claims tend to fail the "plausibility" test, and many claims are not "corroborated by other reliable sources". This applies to all historical documents of course, not picking on the Bible specifically.

Not disagreeing, but I doubt that Homer presented his stories as fiction, but more as history. And without a doubt, Schliemann found Troy -- so what does that tell us about Circe?

 

[Alien826]

Not disagreeing, but I doubt that Homer presented his stories as fiction, but more as history. And without a doubt, Schliemann found Troy -- so what does that tell us about Circe?

Good question. The Iliad is of course a poem, which suggests a measure of embellishment, perhaps? I did a quick search, and found this

Greek mythology, body of stories concerning the gods, heroes, and rituals of the ancient Greeks and Classical antiquity. That the myths contained a considerable element of fiction was recognized by the more critical Greeks, such as the philosopher Plato in the 5th–4th century bce. In general, however, in the popular piety of the Greeks, the myths were viewed as true accounts.

So, did Homer realize he was writing mythology, though the stories were based on factual events, like the Trojan war? I don't know. There may be a fine line there between accurately reproducing stories that were generally believed and actually believing them himself.