what it means to say something is 'evidence'

Author: n8nrgim

Posts

Total: 20
Topic's author
#1
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,023
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
can evidence exist for something that doesn't exist? 

what if you saw foot prints in the woods, and claimed that was evidence of big foot? and, we'll assume big foot doesn't exist. is it fair to call that evidence to begin with, then, if big foot doesn't exist? 

or we have more speculative things. we have lots of credible people like pilots who say they see flying objects doing things in the skies that aren't possible to our understanding of physics. is that evidence of UFOs? would it be evidence if UFOs didn't in fact exist?

an atheist at this forum made a good point once... he said, we shouldn't be so quick to call things 'evidence' if all it is is 'consistent' with a certain theory. 

i know, to get more religious, a lot of philosophic arguments for God exist, but they could just as easily be called 'merely consistent' with the the God theory than 'evidence for' the God theory.  when it comes to these philospohic arguments, for everyone you can make, there is a at least plausible alternative non God argument that could be made. 

then there's more scientific arguments, less philosohical. i do think when we get into things that look like supernatural healings, and atheists becoming theists during NDEs, that those are more in the realm of evidence and less about merely consistent with the God theory. but, it would be possible to spin even those things, if you have a darkened heart and mind, into things that are merely 'consistent' with the God theory and not look at them as evidence. 
#2
ponikshiy
ponikshiy's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 604
3
3
6
ponikshiy's avatar
ponikshiy
3
3
6
Yes evidence for things that are fake are possible
#3
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,608
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@n8nrgim

Proof and evidence have related meanings, but they are not the same thing. Proof proves something is true, while evidence is like a clue. The difference between evidence vs proof lies in how conclusive it is.
#4
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgim
Check the dictionary.

There is no necessity for evidence to be prove anything.



It's a shame that we cannot recount Dead Experiences.

Only Not Dead ones...Otherwise known as Alive Experiences.
#5
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@n8nrgim
what if you saw foot prints in the woods, and claimed that was evidence of big foot? and, we'll assume big foot doesn't exist. is it fair to call that evidence to begin with, then, if big foot doesn't exist? 

No.  It is simply evidence of a foot print.  
Like a tomb that was found empty, is only evidence that a tomb was found empty.


#6
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@n8nrgim


n8nrgim,

Addressing your initial post, you are skating on thin ice when you want something proven beyond any doubt!  The last thing we need to hear is some hell bound Atheist to bring forth Jesus' actual validity subsequent to his death in approximately 30AD, where there is absolutely NOTHING, and I repeat, NOTHING mentioned about Jesus until Josephus Flavius in his Antiquities that were written in 97AD mentioning through hearsay and non eyewitness accounts, a Jesus “character" existed!  Huh?  Therefore, the Bible Jesus in being the one God creator of the universe and man wasn't FIRST MENTIONED until  64 YEARS later after His death! That is like the United States first landing on the moon, where there is no mention of this FACT until 64 years later! Get it?

The other historical writings mentioning Jesus subsequent to Josephus Flavius, are also hearsay accounts and even further away form Jesus' death in 30AD that are too embarrassing to bring forth to substantiate Jesus' existence in the first place!  :(

Therefore, don't go to far on your topic of wanting proof that something exists, where Jesus' existence is embarrassingly sparse to say the least after His death, therefore shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, mums the word! Understood? Get it? Huh?

Always remember, in trying to prove Jesus existed subsequent to His death, SILENCE IS GOLDEN AND JUST STFU to save further embarrassment!

.
#7
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Therefore, don't go to far on your topic of wanting proof that something exists, where Jesus' existence is embarrassingly sparse to say the least after His death.

And less sparse before he is said to have died, Brother D.
#8
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@n8nrgim
can evidence exist for something that doesn't exist? 
Intriguing question.  

what if you saw footprints in the woods, and claimed that was evidence of Big Foot? and, we'll assume Big Foot doesn't exist. is it fair to call that evidence, to begin with, then, if Big Foot doesn't exist? 
Footprints in the woods prove not much at all. It is evidence of something. Someone would need a theory for evidence to be relevant. Assuming Big Foot doesn't exist is anti-scientific since scientists don't make assumptions and is therefore irrelevant.  But if someone wanted to know whether Big Foot did exist, then one a theory is proposed, data could be collected, and perhaps then this footprint might be analysed and weighed against the tests for determining Big Foot's existence, and then the data collected would be used as evidence either for or against the proposition. Or it might be discarded entirely since it didn't fit within the parametres. 

or we have more speculative things. we have lots of credible people like pilots who say they see flying objects doing things in the skies that aren't possible to our understanding of physics. is that evidence of UFOs? would it be evidence if UFOs didn't in fact exist?
Same as above. 

an atheist at this forum made a good point once... he said, we shouldn't be so quick to call things 'evidence' if all it is is 'consistent' with a certain theory. 
At first glance, I read this and agreed with you that it was a good point. But now after considering it, I don't. It really is an unscientific way of looking at evidence and theories. It presumes much and it denies the purpose of evidence which is neutrality.  

i know, to get more religious, a lot of philosophic arguments for God exist, but they could just as easily be called 'merely consistent' with the the God theory than 'evidence for' the God theory.  when it comes to these philospohic arguments, for everyone you can make, there is a at least plausible alternative non God argument that could be made. 
Let's see, an atheist presented this as an argument. It's a fallacy of course. Fallacies can often sound pretty good.  It doesn't stop them from being fallacies. 


then there's more scientific arguments, less philosohical. i do think when we get into things that look like supernatural healings, and atheists becoming theists during NDEs, that those are more in the realm of evidence and less about merely consistent with the God theory. but, it would be possible to spin even those things, if you have a darkened heart and mind, into things that are merely 'consistent' with the God theory and not look at them as evidence. 

We could also throw the theory of evolution into this list, along with wormholes, dark matter, the Big Bang theory and love to name a few. We could just ditch the word evidence and pretend it doesn't actually mean anything. 

Topic's author
#9
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,023
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@Tradesecret
i agree, that 'evidence' in its most simple form, legally, is whether something is 'probative', whether it makes the liklihood of something being more true or not. it's not a high standard. 
Topic's author
#10
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,023
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
"At first glance, I read this and agreed with you that it was a good point. But now after considering it, I don't. It really is an unscientific way of looking at evidence and theories. It presumes much and it denies the purpose of evidence which is neutrality.  "

back to the big foot example. if big foot dont exist, the foot print is more accurate to say consistent with big foot, but it'd be sketchy to call it evidence. if big foot does exist, then it'd obviously be evidence. but what if we dont know? i guess that is your point... we'd have to be neutral. but at that point, is it, or is it not, evidence of big foot, if we dont know if big foot exists? i know you said the footprint is evidence of something... but on that specific point, how do you answer it if we dont know if big foot exists? 
Topic's author
#11
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,023
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
maybe i'm making it too complicated. if we dont know if big foot exists, then we can't call it evidence and we can't call it not evidence... it might be evidence. so on weaker arguments for God, if we can't say it's evidence and we can't say it's not evidence.. we'd have to say it might be evidence. right? 
#12
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@n8nrgim
i agree, that 'evidence' in its most simple form, legally, is whether something is 'probative', whether it makes the liklihood of something being more true or not. it's not a high standard. 
I think that perhaps we need to take a step back and ask ourselves - what is the purpose of evidence? Evidence doesn't exist in a vacuum. Evidence is distinguished from facts. Facts exist. But a fact is not necessarily the same thing as evidence.  

For us to even consider what evidence is - we need to have a theory or an idea or speculative thoughts for us to test the so-called evidence against. 

In your scenario - you have one fact, one theory and one assumption.  One is footprints in the woods. The other is a theory about Big Foot. And an assumption about Big Foot; i.e. Big Foot doesn't exist.  And then you ask the question - is this evidence of  Big Foot or just evidence that is consistent with the idea of Big Foot? 

If the assumption is fact, that Big Foot doesn't exist, then the footprints are neither evidence of Big Foot nor consistent with the idea of Big Foot.  They would simply not be considered evidence of anything to do with Big Foot.  

"At first glance, I read this and agreed with you that it was a good point. But now after considering it, I don't. It really is an unscientific way of looking at evidence and theories. It presumes much and it denies the purpose of evidence which is neutrality.  "

back to the big foot example. If Big Foot doesn't exist, the footprint is more accurate to say consistent with big foot, but it'd be sketchy to call it evidence. If Big Foot does exist, then it'd obviously be evidence. but what if we don't know? i guess that is your point... we'd have to be neutral. but at that point, is it, or is it not, evidence of Big Foot, if we don't know if Big Foot exists? I know you said the footprint is evidence of something... but on that specific point, how do you answer it if we don't know if Big Foot exists? 
I think I answered this above.  In my view, if we don't know whether Big Foot exists or not, you could say the evidence was evidence consistent with Big Foot, presuming of course that the measures you have in place enable you to reach this conclusion reasonably.  After all, a footprint in the Woods is just a footprint.  It might also be correct to say it is evidence of Big Foot if, in fact, it was Big Foot who produced the footprint. Of course, even that depends entirely on your theory.  Interestingly, enough, if there is a footprint in the woods, that was produced by a giant rabbit for instance, and assuming Big Foot does exist, would the fact that the footprint was made by a rabbit be evidence that Big Foot didn't exist, even if we know that he in fact did exist?


#13
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7



MISS TRADESECRETS LONG-WINDED WORD SALAD ON PROOF OF SOMETHING:  "I think I answered this above.  In my view, if we don't know whether Big Foot exists or not, you could say the evidence was evidence consistent with Big Foot, presuming of course that the measures you have in place enable you to reach this conclusion reasonably.  After all, a footprint in the Woods is just a footprint.  It might also be correct to say it is evidence of Big Foot if, in fact, it was Big Foot who produced the footprint. Of course, even that depends entirely on your theory.  Interestingly, enough, if there is a footprint in the woods, that was produced by a giant rabbit for instance, and assuming Big Foot does exist, would the fact that the footprint was made by a rabbit be evidence that Big Foot didn't exist, even if we know that he in fact did exist?"

I am going to enter into Miss Tradesecrets lengthy dissertation the name of Jesus instead of Big Foot, and the Bible for obvious reasons:

"I think I answered this above.  In my view, if we don't know whether Jesus exists or not, you could say the evidence was evidence consistent with Jesus (Bible), presuming of course that the measures you have in place enable you to reach this conclusion reasonably.  After all, the Bible is just the Bible.  It might also be correct to say it is evidence of Jesus if, in fact, it was Jesus who produced the Bible. Of course, even that depends entirely on your theory.  Interestingly, enough, if there is a Bible, that was produced by Jesus, and assuming Jesus does exist, would the fact that the Bible was made by a Jesus be evidence that Jesus didn't exist, even if we know that he in fact did exist?"


Since you are still RUNNING AWAY from my post #7 in front of the membership, you have turned yourself into a COWARD in front of Jesus (Hebrews :13) and you will definitely pay for your infraction upon you going straight to HELL upon your demise, because none other than Jesus' inspired words state this fact herewith: “But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” (Revelation 21:8)"


NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN LIKE "N8NRGIM" THAT CAN'T HANDLE ALL OF THE TRUTH ABOUT JESUS AS SHOWN IN POST #7, WILL BE ...?

.
#14
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
MISS TRADESECRETS LONG-WINDED WORD SALAD ON PROOF OF SOMETHING:  "I think I answered this above.  In my view, if we don't know whether Big Foot exists or not, you could say the evidence was evidence consistent with Big Foot, presuming of course that the measures you have in place enable you to reach this conclusion reasonably.  After all, a footprint in the Woods is just a footprint.  It might also be correct to say it is evidence of Big Foot if, in fact, it was Big Foot who produced the footprint. Of course, even that depends entirely on your theory.  Interestingly, enough, if there is a footprint in the woods, that was produced by a giant rabbit for instance, and assuming Big Foot does exist, would the fact that the footprint was made by a rabbit be evidence that Big Foot didn't exist, even if we know that he in fact did exist?"

I am going to enter into Miss Tradesecrets lengthy dissertation the name of Jesus instead of Big Foot, and the Bible for obvious reasons:

"I think I answered this above.  In my view, if we don't know whether Jesus exists or not, you could say the evidence was evidence consistent with Jesus (Bible), presuming of course that the measures you have in place enable you to reach this conclusion reasonably.  After all, the Bible is just the Bible.  It might also be correct to say it is evidence of Jesus if, in fact, it was Jesus who produced the Bible. Of course, even that depends entirely on your theory.  Interestingly, enough, if there is a Bible, that was produced by Jesus, and assuming Jesus does exist, would the fact that the Bible was made by a Jesus be evidence that Jesus didn't exist, even if we know that he in fact did exist?"
Such is the ease in which the Reverend Tradesecret's gobbledegook can be dismantled when s/he attempts to sound intelligent, Brother D. 


#15
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
And further to my reply to you above#14, Brother D.

The Reverend Tradesecret also wrote: 

After all, a footprint in the Woods is just a footprint

Like an empty tomb in a garden owned by one of Jesus' very rich friends is just an empty tomb.

 The Reverend Tradesecret certainly likes to have his cake and eat it, doesn't he Brother. D.?
#16
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@Stephen

.
Stephen,

As we both know as a FACT, when Miss Tradesecret becomes habitually Bible Stupid all the time, we have to biblically correct her, and this IS NOT HARASSMENT on our part, but only the outcome in her being so God Damned Bible Stupid in the first place!

Your empty tomb scenario was truthful to your post showing my "revised" statement to Miss Tradesecrets undeniable "word salad"relating to my post #13.

I fondly looked back on my files on Miss Tradesecret and their links, and remember when she said in no uncertain terms that offspring that curse their parents should be put to death?  Those were the good ol' days of making her the Bible fool, remember?

Her quote above is within her POST #203; https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3557/posts/192409

.



#17
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
I remember perfectly well, Brother D. 

When I challenged him on the same, the Reverend went into full rewrite scripture mode, claiming  the biblical words "curse" meant 'murder' and  "children"  meant 'adults'.

#18
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@Stephen


.
Stephen,

YOUR REVEALING QUOTE IN HOW UTTERLY UNGODLY MISS TRADESECRET TRULY IS:  "When I challenged him on the same, the Reverend went into full rewrite scripture mode, claiming  the biblical words "curse" meant 'murder' and  "children"  meant 'adults'."

YES! I remember that comedy act by Miss Tradesecret as well, and when we had to easily bury her misguided biblical notions to the point where she had to go into HIDING again for a long time!  Ah, the good ol' days!  

My favorite of Miss Tradesecret's ungodly Bible rewrites, was within the Noah's Ark thread a while back.   Whereas because of my direct biblical axiom of having 8 pairs of each kind of animal upon the Ark (Genesis 7:2) and there being 1.2 million animal species alone, without fish, birds, dinosaurs, etc., then with the math being done, there were 19.2 million animal species upon the Ark that was only approximately 500 feet long, and 60 feet wide, with three separate decks! (Genesis 6:13-16)

To try and cover this biblical axiom and blatant FACTS shown above, Miss Tradesecret had the audacity to state that my serial killer Jesus as God put "infants" upon the Ark instead of full grown animals! LOL!   But, in turn, Miss Tradesecret forgot that said "infants" needed their mothers to nurse them to begin with!  When I pointed this out to Miss Tradesecret, she remained SILENT, and then went into embarrassing HIDING again in front of the membership for a very long time.  Priceless Devil Speak on her part, but what did we expect from her?

Seriously, Miss Tradesecret should go on the road with a "Pseudo-Christian Comedy Act" with her ungodly Devil Speak rewrites of the scriptures!  There would be sell out crowds everywhere!  Can you imagine Miss Tradesecret being on Saturday Night Live, or on Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Fallon, and other late night shows, where we can say "we knew her when" upon this Religion Forum in making us laugh with her ungodly comical rewrites of the Bible!  LOL!


Priceless entertainment by Miss Tradesecret that continues to this day!

.

#19
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
My favorite of Miss Tradesecret's ungodly Bible rewrites, was within the Noah's Ark thread a while back.   Whereas because of my direct biblical axiom of having 8 pairs of each kind of animal upon the Ark (Genesis 7:2) and there being 1.2 million animal species alone, without fish, birds, dinosaurs, etc., then with the math being done, there were 19.2 million animal species upon the Ark that was only approximately 500 feet long, and 60 feet wide, with three separate decks! (Genesis 6:13-16)

To try and cover this biblical axiom and blatant FACTS shown above, Miss Tradesecret had the audacity to state that my serial killer Jesus as God put "infants" upon the Ark instead of full grown animals!

So that made all the difference then😒. This thread is all about the meaning of evidence, Brother D.  When has the Reverend ever offered a single piece of evidence for any of his claims, never mind proof?



#20
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@Stephen


.
Stephen,

YOUR REVEALING QUOTE RELATING TO MISS TRADESECRET ACTUALLY GIVING FACTUAL EVIDENCE:  "When has the Reverend ever offered a single piece of evidence for any of his claims, never mind proof?"

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE within any of Miss Tradesecrets long-winded posts, but only her perceived unsubstantiated claims that are NOT backed up with any peer reviewed FACTS, and if biblically presented, there are absolutely no biblical axioms whatsoever from her, other than her ungodly Devil Speak to make her spin-doctored points!

Miss Tradesecret will pay upon Judgement Day for sure in going to HELL upon her demise, praise Jesus' revenge upon the Bible Stupids®️ like her where she is guilty of the bold type in the inspired words of Jesus shown herewith:   “But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” (Revelation 21:8)

.