Evidence

[Kyuuketsuki]

What Evidence Is
Kyuuketsuki

Introduction
Recently, in forum, I was asked what evidence was i.e. what is a definition for evidence ... I admit I was shocked, frankly I had never even given the matter any though before, so I sat back to give the matter some thought.

Definitions
An "assertion" is something we can say about the universe in which we live or is relevant to some state of that universe. For the purpose of this discussion I am interested only in assertions as they pertain to the real (natural or materialistic) universe.

"Evidence" is anything that may support an assertion or increase its likelihood of being correct. All assessment of evidence is a form of probability, an interpretation, and is dependent upon the observer or interpreter.

In common usage the word "observe" simply means to see, to view something, but in scientific terms an observation (or rather a relevant observation) is a piece of evidence that has been agreed by all relevant parties to be correctly and accurately associated with the assertion which it is claimed to be. It is important to note that the use of the word "observation" in a scientific sense can refer to data that has not been directly observed, for example if the population of the United States is said to be around 350 million it is understood that that is backed up by population data … no single individual is capable of directly observing all 350 million individuals simultaneously.

An observation should be regarded evidence when it is:
•   Compatible with the assertion … it is pointless to observe that trees are tall and assert that that is why they are green as the observation has no direct relevance to the assertion.
•   Not compatible with other assertions ... it is further pointless to observe that trees are tall and assert that that is why they are green when the (more logical) assertion that chlorophyll (abundant in the leaves of trees) better explains why the tree is green.

It is important to note that a lack of evidence, whilst not obstructing a given assertion, may not be used as a supporting observation for a given assertion i.e. it is not, in scientific terms, evidence.

Assume, for instance, that a respected scientist says there is a very strong case for life on Mars … should people who hear of this necessarily take this as evidence that there is life on Mars? Under normal circumstances people will tend to take the word of such a scientist and assume that what that worthy says is fact however if there is reason to doubt then they might start to ask themselves if that scientist might say that there was life on Mars when he or she had no specific evidence. If such doubt exists the first action would be to question whether that scientists statement actually does constitute evidence … is the scientists sphere of expertise compatible with his or her statement, has that scientist made such statements before and how were they evaluated at that time, has that scientist a hidden agenda or ulterior motive in making such a statement?

Despite the fact that the logic is, itself, self-evident there is a human tendency to ignore the second condition and it is common for individuals to regard as evidence observations which are accepted as compatible with other assertions. Sometimes this is because they simply refuse to consider the alternatives and will, instead, consider only a subset of possible assertions whilst at other times it is simply because they like the observation and assertion in question.

It is also important to understand that the conditions for an observation being acceptable as evidence are entirely independent of the nature of the observation i.e. an observation is valid evidence for a given assertion once verified (agreed to be true), once compatibility with the assertion is established and provided it is not also compatible with others.

Conclusion
When making an assertion about the state of our universe it is important to establish that the observational data used to justify that assertion is both fact (true, verifiable), compatible with the assertion and incompatible with others competing assertions.

For instance when someone claims that the diversity (observation) around us can only be explained by the actions of deity (assertion) not only is their no observed link between deity and diversity (and indeed no observation of deity) but there exists (in the theory of evolution) a perfectly plausible assertion that is supported by a huge number of observations.

References
"What Is Evidence", Yahouda Harpaz

Kyu

[perspective]

Uhmm, good point. The best case for something in court would be to have both testimony and physical evidence. So, how do you get physical evidence of God who is not physical. Thats quit a problem. But I think atheist might have some of the same problems. Like proving the big bang. It's never been physically experienced. So could we not say that both Christians and atheist are in the same boat as far as evidence is concerned? Ever scientific discovery can be both explained from a atheist scientific point of view and equally from a Christian scientific point of view. The Problem is not in the evidence, but in how it is interpreted. I see the sediment layers as the result of a world-wide flood. Most of you would see it a result of millions of years. It can be shown by experiment that these types of layers can form in a flood like situation. So evidence is there, Would you all agree that it is a matter of interpratation?? let me know

[parllagio]

So could we not say that both Christians and atheist are in the same boat as far as evidence is concerned?

Yes, please, let us NOT say that both christians and atheist are in the same boat as far as evidence is concerned.

Ever scientific discovery can be both explained from a atheist scientific point of view and equally from a Christian scientific point of view. The Problem is not in the evidence, but in how it is interpreted.

I don't even know how to respond... Are you arguing that evolution and creationism are two different perspectives based of the same evidence?

Would you all agree that it is a matter of interpratation?? let me know

No.

[BadPoison]

But I think atheist might have some of the same problems. Like proving the big bang. It's never been physically experienced. So could we not say that both Christians and atheist are in the same boat as far as evidence is concerned? Ever scientific discovery can be both explained from a atheist scientific point of view and equally from a Christian scientific point of view. The Problem is not in the evidence, but in how it is interpreted.

Where do I begin?

The big bang has never been directly observed. Yet, as Kyu pointed out above:

It is important to note that the use of the word "observation" in a scientific sense can refer to data that has not been directly observed, for example if the population of the United States is said to be around 350 million it is understood that that is backed up by population data … no single individual is capable of directly observing all 350 million individuals simultaneously.

The key words here, are that data backs up the observation. Just as there is a multitude of data that backs up the assertion of a big bang.
If you were to make an assertion such as "Light was created in route to the earth by a diety, and the observation of an expanding universe was created already in such a state" you could not rightly use the same data to support your assertion. When you ask me "How do you know that the universe wasn't created like this - can you disprove my assertion?" My obvious answer will be "No." But I could just as easily make an equally fantastic assertion: "We were all created today. We were created with our previous experiences and memories implanted in our brains. Yesterday does not exist." And could you rightly disprove me? You can not - because a lack of evidence against an assertion is never ever evidence for its truth.

[BadPoison]

Perspective-

What you will need to show here, is why I should take your assertion without data that supports it. In essence, why I am wrong in not taking a lack of evidence against your assertion as evidence. What makes your claim worthy of this, while mine - that we and the universe were all created today - is not?

-BP

[jcm]

Never heard of a cured amputee, but people come back from the died all the time. They just haven't be dead very long. If I am not mistaken the record for being dead and coming back was 3 days, well one night, a full 24 hours, and then a morning.

Any of those people victims of being burned to the point they had to be identified by their dental records? Heck, I’d give them a whole week, but I doubt those people come back from the dead either.

Very good point. Its hard to reconcile all of the hurt that goes on in the world.

It is easy for me.

However, I in on way imply that God created sickness to take it away to prove He exist. That would be quit outrageous. What I am saying is that people talk about experiences like this and they are dismissed.

If that is the evidence for god, shouldn’t you believe that was what god wanted you to see?  

If I witnessed a murder and testified to it, the person would be found guilty in our court system, and the sentence might be death. So we can send someone to death on the testimony of people, but if millions testify about God, it doesnt count? let me get some feedback on this.

A little more goes into convicting someone of murder than saying I saw Joe kill Kate, like an investigation.

Or better yet, try telling the judge, I saw god and he revealed the murderer to me. See how that goes over.

[Whitney]

If I witnessed a murder and testified to it, the person would be found guilty in our court system, and the sentence might be death. So we can send someone to death on the testimony of people, but if millions testify about God, it doesnt count? let me get some feedback on this.

Eye witness testimony is not considered strong evidence by itself in court because it has been shown that eye witness testimony is often faulty even if the person is intending to give an accurate account.  If all you had was one witness and no hard evidence the jury would have to decide not guilty due to reasonable doubt.

[Whitney]

Uhmm, good point. The best case for something in court would be to have both testimony and physical evidence. So, how do you get physical evidence of God who is not physical. Thats quit a problem. But I think atheist might have some of the same problems. Like proving the big bang. It's never been physically experienced. So could we not say that both Christians and atheist are in the same boat as far as evidence is concerned? Ever scientific discovery can be both explained from a atheist scientific point of view and equally from a Christian scientific point of view. The Problem is not in the evidence, but in how it is interpreted. I see the sediment layers as the result of a world-wide flood. Most of you would see it a result of millions of years. It can be shown by experiment that these types of layers can form in a flood like situation. So evidence is there, Would you all agree that it is a matter of interpratation?? let me know

I don't depend on the big bang being true to be an atheist; I could just as easily be a theist (or even a Christian) and accept the big bang theory. However, I do think that there is evidence with supports the Big Bang theory that it has a big leg up over young earth creationism.

Of course all scientific discoveries can be incorporated into a religious view...the question is which one is the actual explanation and which one was just trying to make reality fit the story.

How would a flood from 40 days and 40 nights of rain produce the grand canyon?  That, my friend, is much more extraordinary of a claim than thousands of years of river erosion.  However, I think we should save the flood topic for a different thread (there are actually a couple old flood threads deposited throughout the forum).

All I require is a logical argument for god that doesn't have false premises or leaps in logic  You don't even have to come up with hard evidence.  That should be easy, right?  You'd think so...but philosophers have been trying to do that for quite some time now.

[Wechtlein Uns]

Wait, I always thought that evidence could be defined as "phenomena whose existence indicates the existence of some other phenomena about which we are referring to through a statement or hypothesis."?

Is that correct?  or am I wrong?

[parllagio]

Never heard of a cured amputee, but people come back from the died all the time. They just haven't be dead very long. If I am not mistaken the record for being dead and coming back was 3 days, well one night, a full 24 hours, and then a morning.

Any of those people victims of being burned to the point they had to be identified by their dental records? Heck, I’d give them a whole week, but I doubt those people come back from the dead either.

No, it's a joke. Get it?

[wheels5894]

Perspective, you said

Very good point. Its hard to reconcile all of the hurt that goes on in the world. I will save the problem of evil topic for another post. However, I in on way imply that God created sickness to take it away to prove He exist. That would be quit outrageous. What I am saying is that people talk about experiences like this and they are dismissed. If I witnessed a murder and testified to it, the person would be found guilty in our court system, and the sentence might be death. So we can send someone to death on the testimony of people, but if millions testify about God, it doesnt count? let me get some feedback on this.

You are only partly right here. I don't know in what country you live, but most countries have rules for what can be used as evidence in a trial and nin general a witness may only testify to something of which they are a direct witness - someone being attacked for example. A witness may not tell of what someone else saw or did - that is called hearsay.

[bowmore]

So, how do you get physical evidence of God who is not physical. Thats quit a problem.

I agree, and it is a great justification for my strong agnosticism. We cannot ever know if a supernatural god exists or not.

Some of you may now be pointing at my worldview that says atheist. (although atheism isn't in itself a worldview)
Well, I believe no gods exist. That's certainly different from knowing so, but ample to be called an atheist.

But I think atheist might have some of the same problems. Like proving the big bang.

That's more a problem for science, but at least the big bang is a physical phenomenon. With physical consequences, which have measurable and detectable results today. The big bang model has been used to predict certain observations, which were later confirmed. That is a strong form of evidence.

It's never been physically experienced.

That's not really true. The big bang theory does not only describe early conditions, it describes conditions up to and past our present time. In a very real sense, the big bang is still going on.

So could we not say that both Christians and atheist are in the same boat as far as evidence is concerned?

Concerning the existence of god, yes. Of course some gods that theists propose are logically impossible, which gives atheists evidence for their non existence.

I see the sediment layers as the result of a world-wide flood. Most of you would see it a result of millions of years. It can be shown by experiment that these types of layers can form in a flood like situation. So evidence is there, Would you all agree that it is a matter of interpratation?? let me know

I'm no geologist, but afaik there is no disagreement among geologists concerning the age and way of forming of certain sediment layers. At least not enough to allow for a young earth theory.

[perspective]

Every scientific discovery can be both explained from a atheist scientific point of view and equally from a Christian scientific point of view. The Problem is not in the evidence, but in how it is interpreted.

I don't even know how to respond... Are you arguing that evolution and creationism are two different perspectives based of the same evidence?

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. I know none of us here are experts in ALL scientific fields, but I have studied scientific research. What I have seen is that the evidence can go both ways. The problem is not the phenomina, but the cause of it. Further, there is no one that can claim that they absolutely know the origin of life. Whether it be evolutionist of Christians. Fair enough. Thats what I mean when I say that we are in the same boat. We both can not claim with absolute cartainty (from the evidence) that we are right. I would further argue that if you tried, you would be making claims way beyond the scientist who are masters in their fields. So then the question really becomes, What explains ALL of the phenomina of this life BETTER. I am arguing that a true and honest answer would be God. Further, that it is the God of Christianity, because all other religions contridict themselves or just arent logical. So would you all agree, that it really is a matter of preference?

[curiosityandthecat]

Further, that it is the God of Christianity, because all other religions contridict themselves or just arent logical.

[Kyuuketsuki]

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2322&start=15

Kyu