Is there evidence your god beliefs are true while other god beliefs are false?

[Skeptic Ginger]

...The reason is it not in the same category as IPU's is not because the perception of an IPU would be somehow different but because no one is claiming such an experience actually happened to them. It's a made up example without any actual testimonial evidence in support of it.

The IPU is used to illustrate a hypothetical point, it isn't used as a literal example. Change it then to a schizophrenic who hears voices. Are they evidence of sound external to his brain?

...Why shouldn't the testimony of witnesses be considered evidence when they are testifing for the existance of god? Eyewitness testimony is notoriously inaccurate, it certainly doesn't have to be believed as people can be mistaken or deliberately lying, but it IS evidence. That has been my sole contention throughout this thread.

You are again confusing "what is evidence" for "what is it evidence of"

The testimony and the experience are evidence, they just are not evidence of anything you falsely conclude from that evidence.

It's really not that hard of a concept, a conclusion is not evidence.

 

[Beth]

The IPU is used to illustrate a hypothetical point, it isn't used as a literal example.

Then stop using it and claiming there is no more evidence for god than the IPU. It's not a true statement.

Change it then to a schizophrenic who hears voices. Are they evidence of sound external to his brain?

You are again confusing "what is evidence" for "what is it evidence of"

The testimony and the experience are evidence, they just are not evidence of anything you falsely conclude from that evidence.

And how do you arrive at the conclusion that the conclusion is false in this case? It seem to me that you are assuming their conclusion is wrong because you've already come to the conclusion that no god exists, regardless of the definition and therefore, they must be mistaken about what their experience is evidence of. That seems more than a bit circular in my opinion.

You might also want to check out this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111908 on the subject we've been discussing here.

It's really not that hard of a concept, a conclusion is not evidence.

It's not a hard concept, just an erroneous one IMO. A conclusion in a peer-reviewed paper is usually considered evidence. Do you disagree? Can a conclusion never be evidence? Because if you claim that, then no matter how many studies one cites with results in agreement, they could not be considered evidence.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Invisible Pink Unicorns is a hypothetical illustration, Beth. I had no idea you didn't understand that and weren't grasping the analogy.

The circular argument is claiming a false conclusion means the evidence is evidence of both the false conclusion and whatever it is the evidence is really evidence of.

Again, the point you are missing is the difference between evidence and evidence of.

As to the conclusion in a peer reviewed paper, no, that is not evidence, the study provides the evidence. If you claimed the conclusion of the study drawn by the researchers was evidence, you'd be using the logic of argument from authority and that is considered a fallacy.

 

[Mobyseven]

The reason is it not in the same category as IPU's is not because the perception of an IPU would be somehow different but because no one is claiming such an experience actually happened to them.

I am. I have experienced the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

 

[Mobyseven]

People here are having trouble with Skeptigirl's point about evidence, and I honestly am not sure why.

Having an 'experience of god' is not evidence for the existence of god.

Having an 'experience of god' is evidence for something, but only in some situations. In others, it wouldn't be evidence at all.

This doesn't have anything to do with presupposing the conclusion that god does not exist and then saying that the experience cannot be evidence because of that.

This has to do with the fact that anecdotes are pretty much worthless as evidence for anything - even in a court of law, where the standard of evidence is significantly lower than what is required by science - one would not prosecute a person based on the account of a single witness, unbacked by corroborating evidence. Indeed, it wouldn't matter how many witnesses you had - unless there is some kind of evidence independant of the anecdotes of a group of witnesses, you can't prosecute a person. To use murder as an example: A thousand people can swear they saw me shoot a man, but if there is no evidence aside from their say so (e.g. No body, no weapon, no blood, no sign of disturbance, no missing person, etc.) then I'm not going to be going to jail.

 

[Piscivore]

People here are having trouble with Skeptigirl's point about evidence, and I honestly am not sure why.

Having an 'experience of god' is not evidence for the existence of god.

Yes, it is. It isn't sufficient evidence, it isn't conclusive evidence, it isn't even particularly good evidence, but it is "that which helps one make a conclusion".

Having an 'experience of god' is evidence for something,

It is also that. And probably better.

but only in some situations. In others, it wouldn't be evidence at all.

This doesn't have anything to do with presupposing the conclusion that god does not exist and then saying that the experience cannot be evidence because of that.

Yes it is exactly to do with that. SG says that "evidence" is the thing observed. Since the "thing observed" does not exist, it cannot help one make a conclusion.that the thing observed exists.

This rests entirely on the error of equivocation SG creates with her redefinition of evidence.

This has to do with the fact that anecdotes are pretty much worthless as evidence for anything - even in a court of law, where the standard of evidence is significantly lower than what is required by science - one would not prosecute a person based on the account of a single witness, unbacked by corroborating evidence.

That fact does not negate the fact that the witness tesimony is still evidence. It isn't sufficient evidence, it isn't conclusive evidence, it isn't good evidence, but it is still "that which helps one make a conclusion"

Indeed, it wouldn't matter how many witnesses you had - unless there is some kind of evidence independant of the anecdotes of a group of witnesses, you can't prosecute a person.

Really? I hardly think that's true.

To use murder as an example: A thousand people can swear they saw me shoot a man, but if there is no evidence aside from their say so (e.g. No body, no weapon, no blood, no sign of disturbance, no missing person, etc.) then I'm not going to be going to jail.

No, but the poilce are still going to investigate you on that basis. A thousnad people's testimony isn't sufficient evidence, isn't conclusive evidence, isn't good evidence, but it is still "that which helps one make a conclusion".

 

[Piscivore]

Sorry, SG, I was way too tired yesterday to engage in anything but frippery.

First, let's clarify what Beth is arguing that you, Piscivore, say you agree with. This statement from the above post, is not what Beth has been saying.

Well, with Beth still posting, I'm not going to argue over her head about what she's saying.

Indeed that has been the entire discussion. Beth is claiming the experience is evidence for god. She qualifies that claim by saying it doesn't meet the level of "scientific evidence" and that it might be an incorrect conclusion. But she considers the 'experience' thus interpreted as evidence of god, and that it differs from an experience one might claim was evidence for invisible pink unicorns.

And she's right. As I just told Moby, it isn't sufficient, conclusive, or even good evidence, but it is still something that helps one make a conclusion.

That couldn't be more wrong. I understand why you are making the error. But there is no way to see the error as having any merit when you put it in those terms.

Is it possible that's because it isn't an error?

Notice the bolded words below vs the italicized words in the numerous definitions of the word, evidence. The link contains a list of sources for these definitions of the word, evidence

A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion

I've already addressed the problem with the word "thing". It inclused both your "physical object" and my "observation". It is fraught with potential for eqivocation and as such is a poor version of the defintion to use scientifically or rationally.

Further, this definition says nothing at all about the conclusion being "correct".

That which raises or lowers the probability of a proposition.

Indeed. and the unobserved mountains of Venus do neither for the proposition that plate tectonics occurs on Venus.

Contrariwise, a feeling of deep inner peace, boundless joy, or of some higher power controlling one's life can raise the probability of the proposition "god exists" for someone. It isn't sufficient, conclusive, or even good evidence, but it is still something that raises the probability of the proposition.

This definition says nothing at all about the proposition being "correct" either.

"That" does not say anything about "that" being a physical object.

That which confirms

A feeling of deep inner peace, boundless joy, or of some higher power controlling one's life can confirm the idea "god exists" for someone. It isn't sufficient, conclusive, or even good evidence, but it is still something that confirms.

"That" does not say anything about "that" being a physical object.

Something visible or evident that gives grounds for believing in the existence or presence of something else:

"Visible" is a property of an object. "Being seen" is not.

In law, something (e.g., testimony, documents, or physical objects) presented at a judicial or administrative proceeding for the purpose of establishing the truth or falsity of an allegation of fact.

in law, material submitted

Any matter of fact that a party to a lawsuit offers to prove or disprove an issue in the case.

Proof presented at a trial by the parties through witnesses, records, documents, and concrete objects for the purpose of inducing the court or jury to believe their contentions.

Any thing properly presented to a court which will assist it to make a decision in a case. Testimony is evidence given orally.

Do you want to talk about law, or science? The two use different usages of the word, and to switch between them is an error of equivocation. We've already discussed that.

The most common form of evidence is the testimony of witnesses.

"the testimony of witnesses" is an observation, not a thing.

IN BRIEF: Something that shows or proves, or that gives reason for believing.

There's that word "thing" again.

A feeling of deep inner peace, boundless joy, or of some higher power controlling one's life can show, "prove" or give reason for someone to believe "god exists". It isn't sufficient, conclusive, or even good evidence, but it is still something that can show, prove or give reason for someone to believe.

Something "proven" with bad evidence or faulty logic may be incorrect, but that does not change the fact that evidence was used.

"belief" does not have to be correct to be a "belief".

Evidence in its broadest sense, includes anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

"Thing", again. Worst word in the English language.

A feeling of deep inner peace, boundless joy, or of some higher power controlling one's life can determine or demonstrate the "truth" of the assertion "god exists" for someone. It isn't sufficient, conclusive, or even good evidence, but it is still something that can be used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

Something determined or demonstrated to be true with bad evidence or faulty logic may be incorrect, but that does not change the fact that evidence was used.

In scientific research evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory. Scientific evidence usually goes towards supporting or rejecting a hypothesis.

You highlighted the wrong bit. I have no idea what you imagine highlighting "evidence is accumulated" shows.

There are two I left out for discussion in the next post because they go to the heart of Beth's and now your discussion and I think we need to resolve this matter of what evidence is and isn't before going on to the next problem which is looking at what personal experience is evidence of.

Waiting.

In each and every one of these definitions, 'evidence' is the noun.

Not all nouns are physical objects. "An observation" is a noun too.

It is separate from the observation

No, the observation is assumed. We've been over that.

and/or the conclusion

Well, without a conclusion being derived from it the word "evidence" is meaningless.

and/or the purpose of calling it evidence.

No, the purpose of calling it evidence is to note that it has been used to make a conclusion.

The observation is what you do with or to the evidence.

No, the conclusion is what you do with the evidence.

You can argue all you want that the purpose in inherent in the concept of evidence.

It is. It's in the definitions you posted.

But you cannot make the case that the observation is the evidence except when one is actually looking at observations and then the observations become the evidence for what you are looking at.

What?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, it is. It isn't sufficient evidence, it isn't conclusive evidence, it isn't even particularly good evidence, but it is "that which helps one make a conclusion".

So there must be evidence for ghosts, homeopathy, astrology, demonic possession, and visitations by fairies according to your position, just not sufficient evidence.

Pisci, I think you need to re-think what is means to say something is evidence for something. It implies that it actually represents the thing. Sufficient or not, to say something is evidence for something it has to be evidence for that thing. It can't just be that someone believes it.

I'm done repeating myself here. You couldn't be more wrong. I know that but the fact you and Beth don't is not something I need spend more time on. Articulett gets it, Mobyseven gets it, I get it. What more can I say?

It isn't my redefinition of evidence. It's the definition of evidence in a dozen sources straight from the standard sources. You and Beth are the ones with your personal redefined versions. I posted a dozen sources. Those were not my paraphrased versions.

 

[Piscivore]

So there must be evidence for ghosts, homeopathy, astrology, demonic possession, and visitations by fairies according to your position, just not sufficient evidence.

There is. Respectively: Bumps in the night/paraideola/inexplicable movements of small objects, "feeling better" after taking the treatment, recognising yourself in losse generalities, seizures/abberant behaviour, Paraideloa/mushroom rings/inexplicable movements of small objects.

People don't just believe thses things for no reason, because they like being deluded.

Pisci, I think you need to re-think what is means to say something is evidence for something.

I have. In depth.

It implies that it actually represents the thing.

No, it doesn't say, imply, or allude to that at all. Evidence for something only means that it is "that which helps on make a conclusion" about the thing.

Sufficient or not, to say something is evidence for something it has to be evidence for that thing.

If by "has to be" you mean "can only be", that's not correct. As has already been shown, a light in the sky is, for one person, evidence of alien spacecraft and for another an Air Force flare. Or Venus. Or swamp gas. Or epilepsy.

Neither the definition of "evidence" nor the definition of "conclusion" specify which conclusions are correct.

It can't just be that someone believes it.

It isn't. It is "did this help someone make a conclusion?"

I'm done repeating myself here. You couldn't be more wrong. I know that but the fact you and Beth don't is not something I need spend more time on.

Very well. I've enjoyed this discussion, thank you.

Articulett gets it, Mobyseven gets it, I get it.

Is that Appeal to Authority or Appeal to Popularity?

What more can I say?

"I'm sorry, I've been wrong all this time?"

It isn't my redefinition of evidence. It's the definition of evidence in a dozen sources straight from the standard sources. You and Beth are the ones with your personal redefined versions. I posted a dozen sources. Those were not my paraphrased versions.

And not one of those sources limited the idea of "evidence" to a physical object (in fact, they only made it possible to consider it a physical object by way of an egregiously equivocal word), only the legal ones called it a physical object specifically, and the scientific definition to which you linked specifically contradicted you, and mirrored mine. Without interpretation, refinment, or paraphrasing.

 

[Beth]

I'm done repeating myself here. You couldn't be more wrong. I know that but the fact you and Beth don't is not something I need spend more time on.

Perhaps you'll have more success with Athon and Dr. H on the subject in this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111908

 

[articulett]

I am. I have experienced the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

I AM the Invisible Pink Unicorn!

(ha. I win.)

 

[Mobyseven]

Yes, it is. It isn't sufficient evidence, it isn't conclusive evidence, it isn't even particularly good evidence, but it is "that which helps one make a conclusion".

Except, by such a standard of evidence, one would have to accept that if I have a dream about leprechauns, that dream is evidence that leprechauns exist.

I would concede that in the past such anecdotes may well have been considered evidence. But that was before we found out just how worthless anecdotal evidence is - nowadays, when we better understand how falliable human memory and observation is, anecdotes cannot be called 'evidence' for anything.

Yes it is exactly to do with that. SG says that "evidence" is the thing observed. Since the "thing observed" does not exist, it cannot help one make a conclusion.that the thing observed exists.

If that is indeed the case, then I have misunderstood SG's argument. She seems to be in agreement with me, however,

That fact does not negate the fact that the witness tesimony is still evidence. It isn't sufficient evidence, it isn't conclusive evidence, it isn't good evidence, but it is still "that which helps one make a conclusion"

By the standards of the courtroom it would be called evidence, yes. However, the standards for something to class as evidence in science or philosophy must be and are set at a higher level than those of the courtroom.

Really? I hardly think that's true.

It's really true. At least in Western countries...I don't know much about the judicial system of, for instance, Saudi Arabia, but I'd hardly be holding it up as a shining example of a legal system. You can't prosecute someone for a crime based entirely on the say so of witnesses, however. You need at the very least, for example, independant evidence that a crime actually took place!

No, but the poilce are still going to investigate you on that basis. A thousnad people's testimony isn't sufficient evidence, isn't conclusive evidence, isn't good evidence, but it is still "that which helps one make a conclusion".

Ah, but the testimony isn't evidence in situation. Indeed, you imply it in your own post - the police might find it a suitable basis to investigate me, but that doesn't make it in and of itself evidence. It makes it a starting point from which evidence can then be sought after. If I tell you that Billy shot Joe, that isn't evidence that Billy shot Joe, but it might well pique your curiousity enough that you investigate and discover the evidence for the crime (Joe's body, a gun with Billy's fingerprints, etc.)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If Piscivore and Beth wish to define magical evidence as actual evidence just because they say it is, then there is nothing a rational critical thinker can say to rationally address this magical thinking.

It would seem Beth believes the evidence has actual value and Piscivore believes it has to do with the definition of evidence requiring the inclusion of the preposition "of" or "for" even though if that were true, one would need to always include one of those prepositions. But one doesn't have to include one of those prepositions because evidence is a noun and as such describes the thing without regard to what it is evidence of or for.

I understand Beth's magical thinking because it is a common human view of the world. Lots of people believe in magical things.

I don't understand Piscivore's inability to comprehend the English language definition of 'evidence' unless he is just rationalizing his magical thinking and wording it differently than Beth is.

Nothing personal to either of you guys. This is just my version of how the world is constructed. I think it also happens to be the rational version, but I'll leave that to consensus of opinion. I do think though, Piscivore, that you would be hard pressed to find many skeptics defining evidence the way you are defining it.

 

[Piscivore]

Except, by such a standard of evidence, one would have to accept that if I have a dream about leprechauns, that dream is evidence that leprechauns exist.

Well, dreams were once considered evidence, as you say below. They still are, to some people. It's pretty crappy evidence, especially for someone who knows the first thing about... well, anything, but nonetheless is it "that which helps form a conclusion"

I would concede that in the past such anecdotes may well have been considered evidence. But that was before we found out just how worthless anecdotal evidence is - nowadays, when we better understand how falliable human memory and observation is, anecdotes cannot be called 'evidence' for anything.

Except that they are. Even in science, anecdotal evidence can cause someone to look at something in a new way, or formulate a new hypothesis. Even if it isn't strong enough to rigorously support a scientific conclusion, it is still evidence.

And again, there are hundreds of thousands of people that rely on just this kind of evidence, every day. The neighbor telling Mrs Smith that she saw Mr. Smith smooching the babysitter in the driveway. Your best friend telling you that a mutual acquaintence cheats at bridge. The tabloid headline screming about Brittney Spears.

It isn't scientific, but it is evidence.

By the standards of the courtroom it would be called evidence, yes. However, the standards for something to class as evidence in science or philosophy must be and are set at a higher level than those of the courtroom.

Indeed, and I thought I made that point somewhere.

It's really true. At least in Western countries...I don't know much about the judicial system of, for instance, Saudi Arabia, but I'd hardly be holding it up as a shining example of a legal system. You can't prosecute someone for a crime based entirely on the say so of witnesses, however. You need at the very least, for example, independant evidence that a crime actually took place!

Well, that must be a fairly recent development, because I'm pretty sure a black man could get hung on no better evidence than that within my lifetime- or at least my parents'.

Ah, but the testimony isn't evidence in situation. Indeed, you imply it in your own post - the police might find it a suitable basis to investigate me, but that doesn't make it in and of itself evidence.

It's evidence there is something to look at in the first place, isn't it?

It makes it a starting point from which evidence can then be sought after. If I tell you that Billy shot Joe, that isn't evidence that Billy shot Joe, but it might well pique your curiousity enough that you investigate and discover the evidence for the crime (Joe's body, a gun with Billy's fingerprints, etc.)

The other, better, corroborating evidence strengthens the probability the conclusion is correct, but that doesn't demote the inital evidence to something else.

 

[Piscivore]

If Piscivore and Beth wish to define magical evidence as actual evidence just because they say it is, then there is nothing a rational critical thinker can say to rationally address this magical thinking.

I nowhere said anything about "magical" anything, let alone magical thinking.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

But if it turns out that no one has been shot and Joe is alive and well, in fact drinking beer with Billy in the local pub. Does the “evidence” now suddenly disappear? And if it’s not evidence anymore, what was it in the fist place? Or is it evidence of a lie?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I nowhere said anything about "magical" anything, let alone magical thinking.

I realize you didn't make your claim using the terminology, magical thinking.

But tell me how what you are saying differs? You are claiming evidence is evidence for or of anything the person magically thinks it is evidence for or of.

If you are not saying that then what evidence is not some evidence of a magical thing? According to you, if I think it, therefore it is.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

But if it turns out that no one has been shot and Joe is alive and well, in fact drinking beer with Billy in the local pub. Does the “evidence” now suddenly disappear? And if it’s not evidence anymore, what was it in the fist place? Or is it evidence of a lie?

You have defined the essence of the problem. Once you have discovered the thing is not evidence of what you believed it to be evidence of, does the evidence somehow now change? It is no longer evidence of your false conclusion.

 

[westprog]

You have defined the essence of the problem. Once you have discovered the thing is not evidence of what you believed it to be evidence of, does the evidence somehow now change? It is no longer evidence of your false conclusion.

If evidence is taken to mean "conclusive proof" then there's a problem. If it's taken in it's normal way - as information helping one to form a conclusion - then there's no conflict whatsoever.

If someone is found not guilty, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses doesn't suddenly cease to be evidence. When Einstein brought out the General Theory, the observations which Newton relied on didn't suddenly cease to be evidence.

What happens is that what a piece of evidence points to will be qualified by another piece of evidence.

 

[Mobyseven]

This really is no more than a semantic quibble about what the definition of a word should be. It's reached the stage where we understand eachother's positions, but are arguing over which usage is preferable. I'm going to try something novel, and explain why I think the definition used by me is preferable to the one used by Piscovore. Up until this point the debate has focused upon the negative traits of the other definitions, and I think this might get things straightened out.

First, I believe my definition to be preferable because (not despite) it is a narrower definition. It does not admit as evidence that which is highly likely to lead to an incorrect conclusion, nor does it admit anything that could be used to support any conclusion. A less constrained definition such as is being used by Piscovore leads to a situation where anything and everything can be considered 'evidence', and a definition by which anything can be considered 'evidence' is next to useless, as it fails to distinguish 'evidence' from 'non-evidence'.

Second, my definition is preferable because it prevents people (such as Beth) from artificially strengthening their position by appealing to anecdotes and the like. When a person asks someone for evidence that supports their position, they are not requesting an anecdote - anecdotes, if accepted as valid, could be used to 'prove' anything, and therefore really prove nothing. The common catch cry that 'anecdotal evidence is better than no evidence' is quite misleading, and, quite frankly, incorrect. It has, in fact, been used many times on this very thread - the idea that, in the conspicuous absence of any real evidence, we should accept as 'evidence' things that are known to be worthless, is pure, unadulterated nonsense.

In other words, my definition is preferable because it is a definition that admits only useful information, where other definitions admit all information.