What is Evidence?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Baseless nonsense ...

What is your non-mental evidence for the fact that it is baseless nonsense. What are the natural, material and physical properties of baseless nonsense?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Would be nice to hear the explanation, how they come to that conclusion.

Ask the oil companies, who pay big bucks to geologists who use modern geology to tell them where to drill.
Ask them why they don't waste money on bible flood believers instead.

I think it makes better predictions.

Don't just claim it. Show it.
Show me drilling companies that have more success drilling for oil using "flood geology" as opposed to modern geology for example.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Or in your version the correct standard for all standards. So what is your evidence that your standard is correct?

Its consistency in producing successful results.

 

[Nakosis]

The problem is one of infinite regress. Let us say there is a standard of evidence. That means that you have to show meta-evidence that the standard for evidence is correct and meta-meta-evidence and so on for the meta-evidence. It is a part of Agrippa's Trilema as for the problem of justifications for justifications. Or in your version the correct standard for all standards. So what is your evidence that your standard is correct?

The ability to objectively affect reality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The ability to objectively affect reality.

Can you explain that?

 

[Nakosis]

Can you explain that?

You apply a measurable force or energy and get a consistent/measurable response you've shown you can objectively affect reality.

 

[Heyo]

The current theory can be wrong.

That's in the nature of theories. But it hasn't been wrong in the past.

One prediction is that everything levels up, which means, mountains don't actually rise, if measured from the center of planet earth.

You'll have to explain "level up", that's a term I'm not familiar with.
And for mountains rising, you say they don't, if measured from the centre of Earth?
How do you suppose we measure that to falsify your prediction.

Would be nice to hear the explanation, how they come to that conclusion.

I'm not a geologist, and even if I were, the explanation would be too complicated for a single post.
And I'm pretty sure you wouldn't understand it anyway. But if you promise to read it, I can find a paper or video for you.

I think it makes better predictions.

You should open a prospect corporation, put your money where your mouth is. Or point to a flood geologist who did that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You apply a measurable force or energy and get a consistent/measurable response you've shown you can objectively affect reality.

Yeah, that is a part of the everyday world, but not all of it.

 

[Brian2]

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.

Evidence seems to be in the eye of the beholder.
Certainly there are many parts of the Bible which continue to hold us spell bound and offer the potential for evidence, if not actual evidence for many.
Eg:
Zechariah 12: 2“Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of drunkenness to all the surrounding peoples. Judah will be besieged, as well as Jerusalem. 3 On that day, when all the nations of the earth gather against her, I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who would heave it away will be severely injured.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Evidence seems to be in the eye of the beholder.
Certainly there are many parts of the Bible which continue to hold us spell bound and offer the potential for evidence, if not actual evidence for many.
Eg:
Zechariah 12: 2“Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of drunkenness to all the surrounding peoples. Judah will be besieged, as well as Jerusalem. 3 On that day, when all the nations of the earth gather against her, I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who would heave it away will be severely injured.

Yeah, I do evidence differently than you and I am not a part of your "us".

 

[Nakosis]

Yeah, that is a part of the everyday world, but not all of it.

If you can't get a measurable response then how would you know you are affecting anything in reality?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you can't get a measurable response then how would you know you are affecting anything in reality?

I know that when I do 1st person cognitive theraphy techniques on myself. I changes my mood and that is affecting something is reality, which is not objective or physical.

 

[Nakosis]

I know that when I do 1st person cognitive theraphy techniques on myself. I changes my mood and that is affecting something is reality, which is not objective or physical.

Can you prove that it is not physical?
Mood is obviously affected by a physical process. They have pills for that. How do you know that you are not simply altering the physically process of your brain by these techniques?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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'm not sure if this is a common approach, but here's my take on what constitutes "evidence":

"Evidence" is any fact needed to establish the premises that lead to some conclusion.

With this perspective, the Bible is both evidence for the existence of God AND evidence for the non-existence of God, since we can imagine arguments for God that hinge on the Bible as well as arguments against God that also hinge on it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Can you prove that it is not physical?
Mood is obviously affected by a physical process. They have pills for that. How do you know that you are not simply altering the physically process of your brain by these techniques?

Prove and evidence are not the same.
Now here is the problem.
The word physical is at its core about a certain limited set of human behaviour in relationship to some but not all aspects of the everyday world.
So if I ask you to show that the brain is physical you can do so, but if I ask you to show as physical that the correlation between mental experinces and physical processes is physical, then you can''t. How? Because that is philosophical metaphysics and without proof or evidence.

So I can't prove that it is not physical, but you can't prove it is.

 

[Nakosis]

Prove and evidence are not the same.
Now here is the problem.
The word physical is at its core about a certain limited set of human behaviour in relationship to some but not all aspects of the everyday world.
So if I ask you to show that the brain is physical you can do so, but if I ask you to show as physical that the correlation between mental experinces and physical processes is physical, then you can''t. How? Because that is philosophical metaphysics and without proof or evidence.

So I can't prove that it is not physical, but you can't prove it is.

Everything we know about the brain can be show to be a physical process. There is nothing about the brain that can be shown to be a non-physical process. Therefore the only reasonable argument is that there are no non-physical processes necessary for the brain to function.

There exists nothing to support any other argument.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Everything we know about the brain can be show to be a physical process. There is nothing about the brain that can be shown to be a non-physical process. Therefore the only reasonable argument is that there are no non-physical processes necessary for the brain to function.

There exists nothing to support any other argument.

No, you can't show this No as a physical process in the brain. There is no No is the brain and no meaning of the No in the brain.
In short you can't show as show external to the mind and actually in the brain a no or a non-.

 

[Trailblazer]

That the world is natural is not verifiable and thus a belief without evidence.

Natural means physical.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Natural means physical.

Yes, and from there doesn't follow that all of the world is physical, just because someone say so. You have to give postive evidence for that.

 

[Nakosis]

No, you can't show this No as a physical process in the brain. There is no No is the brain and no meaning of the No in the brain.
In short you can't show as show external to the mind and actually in the brain a no or a non-.

Then how do you understand no as a non-physical process?