Arguments are not Evidence

[WinePusher]

Of course, one thing that it seems many people can not understand, arguments are not evidence.

I'm sick of people repeating this ridiculous statment. I've pointed out many times that using arguments in place of evidence is not inappropriate. An argument uses evidence within its premises, so it's completely absurd to say that arguments are not evidence. I've pointed this out to Goat and, of course, he ignores me and continues to repeat this nonsense despite the fact that it's been refuted by multiple people on this forum. This is also a debate forum, and arguments are used in debate.

Questions:

1) Is there any distinction between arguments and evidence? Is one superior to the other?

2) Is it appropriate to use arguments when debating issues about Christianity and Apologetics?

[otseng]

Moderator Comment

General comment to avoid posting things that add no value to the debate. This includes one-liners, jokes, and innuendos.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Star]

I feel like you and many others in this thread are using a narrow definition of evidence. It seems like you only think that empirical evidence is the only legitimate type of evidence, and any argument that doesn't utilize empirical evidence falls short. There are many other types of evidence and there is no reason why an argument must only use empirical evidence. Perhaps it'd be productive for people to offer their take on what 'evidence' actually is and what type of evidence would convince them.

The real problem is you don't discern good evidence from poor evidence. Maybe you can prove I'm wrong by demonstrating that you have a handle on it, and can describe good evidence to us.

For example, what would be "good evidence" to support Noah's Ark?

[JohnA]

I can't seem to shake the idea that an argument can be made without evidence:

Yellow is not a color.
This is so because red IS a color.
Red is not yellow; therefore,
Yellow is not a color.

That's about as dumb an argument as I can make [without reference to theology ]

Does it contain any evidence? Is the assertion 'Red is not yellow' evidence?

What about...
This post is a complete waste of time.
I feel guilty about having written it and am aware I am wasting my time and the time of anyone who reads it. I prob'ly should not hit 'Submit.'
Therefore this post is a complete waste of time.

There. That's an argument few will disagree with. But does it contain 'evidence.'

I have to confess it does because I have cited my introspection as 'evidence.'
Rats!

An argument can be made without evidence. Yet, that does not mean the argument is evidence.

His arguments do in fact use and contain evidence. It uses historical evidence of time, or what we define as a color, and of his experience. It contains evidence that he rejects current understanding of color (yellow is not a color) and the visual of the 'submit button', etc. I covered all of this when I debunked instantc's though experiment. Danmark could not have made the arguments if he did not have access to this evidence (information / facts / data).

So, no. I have not seen any argument that can be made without evidence. And for me an argument that fails is in fact not an argument at all. If I try and make a car, and it comes out to be a bicycle, then why would I still call it a car?

I would never say this is an argument (even-though there is evidence for each of the premises):
Danmark uses tactic X
Instant refuse to admit Y
Therefore all X's are Y's.

Evidence can stand on their own if they support an assertions (claim), no need for an argument - that is why facts about the real world exist.
Arguments can not stand on their own without evidence, philosorcery can not prove/disprove anything, it relies on science.

Evidence can consist of: information, data or facts. It is not only empirical (data).
It is anything, as long a it supports some assertion. If it does not support the assertion, then it either supports another one, or nothing at all. If nothing at all then it is not evidence, but merely information, facts or data. And the assertion needs to be a real thing.
Consider:
Dishonesty/mocking/trolling is not evidence for a non-existent god. <- The assertion is incoherent.
Personal experience is not inadmissible/weak evidence for a god. <- The information/fact does not support the assertion, but it can be evidence for another assertion (claim) if it can support it.

I know Danmark disagrees with this. But he also do not want to tell why. It would be hard for him, because he would need to offer an illogical explanation to make it logical. That is a self-refuting incoherent position Danmark find's himself in.

And instantc has not been able to come up with one single valid/sound argument that has no evidence or rely on evidence, not that he would admit it.

[JohnA]

'Evidence,' broadly defined, is anything that tends to support an assertion.

Take my example of the argument against 9/11 conspiracy theories. If such a massive conspiracy existed, it would very probably have leaked at some point. Somebody somewhere would have come forward with inside information. I find that a very persuasive argument, but what exactly would you say is the evidence in that argument?

If such a massive conspiracy existed, it would very probably have leaked at some point. Somebody somewhere would have come forward with inside information.

That is not an argument, it is a conditional statement: P>Q, If ... P, then ...Q.

You have evidence of previous conspiracies, and you have evidence that it has not leaked.

Can you give me a response to your Aristotle argument and your Galileo thought experiment?

Am interested in your thoughts and the fallacies (if any) in my response to your claim that arguments does not need evidence.

[JohnA]

'Evidence,' broadly defined, is anything that tends to support an assertion.

Take my example of the argument against 9/11 conspiracy theories. If such a massive conspiracy existed, it would very probably have leaked at some point. Somebody somewhere would have come forward with inside information. I find that a very persuasive argument, but what exactly would you say is the evidence in that argument?

I have really screwed up. Now I'm arguing against what I said, then supporting the idea I was wrong in the first place.

OK, implicit in your anti conspiracy argument is the evidence that it hasn't leaked; that 'Somebody somewhere ... [has not] come forward with inside information.

Is that an example of straw manning yourself?

Or would that not be enough tightness; 20 ft-lbs is not enough? How much is needed?

Am a bit confused now. Do you say that arguments can be made without evidence or not? Or would you say that an argument without evidence is not even an argument at all? Can the something (information/data/facts) that does not support an assertion still be classified as evidence FOR that assertion?

[WinePusher]

I feel like you and many others in this thread are using a narrow definition of evidence. It seems like you only think that empirical evidence is the only legitimate type of evidence, and any argument that doesn't utilize empirical evidence falls short. There are many other types of evidence and there is no reason why an argument must only use empirical evidence. Perhaps it'd be productive for people to offer their take on what 'evidence' actually is and what type of evidence would convince them.

The real problem is you don't discern good evidence from poor evidence. Maybe you can prove I'm wrong by demonstrating that you have a handle on it, and can describe good evidence to us.

For example, what would be "good evidence" to support Noah's Ark?

As I have repeatedly said, I don't care whether or not the evidence meets your subjective requirements. Evidence can be valid regardless of whether you find it convincing or not. I may find a piece of evidence to be 'good' while you may find it to be 'bad.' One opinion is not superior to the other. Our subjective opinions really do not matter, what ultimately matters is the strength of the arguments presented.

And I have never argued that the global flood in Genesis was a real historical event, or that Noah was a real historical figure. I've argued the exact opposite: Should The Biblical Flood Story Be Taken Literally?

[JohnA]

I feel like you and many others in this thread are using a narrow definition of evidence. It seems like you only think that empirical evidence is the only legitimate type of evidence, and any argument that doesn't utilize empirical evidence falls short. There are many other types of evidence and there is no reason why an argument must only use empirical evidence. Perhaps it'd be productive for people to offer their take on what 'evidence' actually is and what type of evidence would convince them.

The real problem is you don't discern good evidence from poor evidence. Maybe you can prove I'm wrong by demonstrating that you have a handle on it, and can describe good evidence to us.

For example, what would be "good evidence" to support Noah's Ark?

As I have repeatedly said, I don't care whether or not the evidence meets your subjective requirements. Evidence can be valid regardless of whether you find it convincing or not. I may find a piece of evidence to be 'good' while you may find it to be 'bad.' One opinion is not superior to the other. Our subjective opinions really do not matter, what ultimately matters is the strength of the arguments presented.

And I have never argued that the global flood in Genesis was a real historical event, or that Noah was a real historical figure. I've argued the exact opposite: Should The Biblical Flood Story Be Taken Literally?

Evidence can be valid regardless of whether you find it convincing or not.

Considering that:
Something (information, facts, data) is only evidence if it supports an assertion (claim).

Which one of the follow is true:

1) A tomato plant is evidence for the existence of 4 bedroom houses.
2) A tomato plant is evidence for the existence of life.
3) Personal experience (hearing voices, seeing images) is evidence for the existence of a god.
4) Personal experience (hearing voices, seeing images) is evidence for hallucinations/delusions/dishonesty.

Thank you.

Our subjective opinions really do not matter, what ultimately matters is the strength of the arguments presented.

Are you saying that arguments are not presented by us?
or
Are you saying that strong arguments is not subjective option, but objective opinion? if so, can you explain this seemingly incoherence.

And note, the above does not rely on biased and/and faulty filtering of reason. It is easy questions.

[instantc]

Can you give me a response to your Aristotle argument and your Galileo thought experiment?

Am interested in your thoughts and the fallacies (if any) in my response to your claim that arguments does not need evidence.

I'm sorry, I'm not interested in entering that debate with you. I find your questions trivial and irrelevant (e.g. "what if the observers of the experiment were lunatics?"). Also, there is no point answering your questions, since you don't listen.

As an example (a very unambiguous one I think), in the other thread you keep ranting about "EU human rights laws", while referencing an article of the ECHR, even after I've pointed out a number of times that the Convention has nothing to do with European Union. The EU only has one human rights instrument, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, your response to that was "straw man". What's the point of answering your questions when you clearly can't be bothered to read the answers?

[JohnA]

Can you give me a response to your Aristotle argument and your Galileo thought experiment?

Am interested in your thoughts and the fallacies (if any) in my response to your claim that arguments does not need evidence.

I'm sorry, I'm not interested in entering that debate with you. I find your questions trivial and irrelevant (e.g. "what if the observers of the experiment were lunatics?"). Also, there is no point answering your questions, since you don't listen.

As an example (a very unambiguous one I think), in the other thread you keep ranting about "EU human rights laws", while referencing an article of the ECHR, even after I've pointed out a number of times that the Convention has nothing to do with European Union. The EU only has one human rights instrument, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, your response to that was "straw man". What's the point of answering your questions when you clearly can't be bothered to read the answers?

I'm sorry, I'm not interested in entering that debate with you. I find your questions trivial and irrelevant (e.g. "what if the observers of the experiment were lunatics?")

What is wrong with that? Are you saying there is no people on earth that has broken reason filters or operate on a biased. Well, I disagree, and this forum is evidence.
Besides, that is a very relevant question regarding your thought experiment to show that only nature can give real world evidence, not wishful thinking. AND that you need peer review to verify results - there are scientists that are way off as well (Google it and see for yourself). So, the "lunatic" reference was very relevant. You see, I can justify it, unlike you, I do not just conclude it is invalid and then try to justify it using an ad hominem. I do it the other way around without a fallacy.

Also, there is no point answering your questions, since you don't listen.

But you did just answer.
I agree, I do not listen when reading because I have no machine that can convert text into speech. But if you say that I do not understand what you are saying, then I partly agree, as some of your arguments are way out there, way off, hard to understand what you are writing. But I always ask for clarification when I do not understand. And I do show you where they fail, but you do not accept or acknowledge that. Why did Keith make that statement about you in the show me your evidence thread? All you have done here now is offer an ad hominem to try and justify why you do not accept that your thought experiment fails. You did not answer my questions in full, but you did try to discredit me.

Was that the only objection you had? What about the rest? if I remove this "lunatic" reference would you accept that your argument is not even VALID or SOUND - besides using "incomplete evidence" a evidence (you called it justification) for your 2 premises?

As an example (a very unambiguous one I think),

The EU Human rights protect the citizens right for innocent till proven guilty. You keep on saying this is false and give me an explanation of Convention this and that, but you do not address the relevance of what it protects, you are merely trying to say it is saying something that I am not saying. That is why I say it is a straw man.
Am sorry, but your argument that a person can be guilty until proven innocent by themselves in the Netherlands and Deutschland are patently absurdly false. You do not even have to have any law background to understand that.

Similar, I have shown quite a few of your arguments just off, way off and plain wrong. Why you do not acknowledge is beyond me.

Here is another one of your arguments shown (potentially false): - An example how someone can straw man them self (or am I wrong?).
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 408#609408
Am not even going to ask you to give your opinion. I have come to know that silence is also an answer. That is besides the fact that you have demonstrated that your written word can not be trusted, again.

[Nilloc James]

I feel like you and many others in this thread are using a narrow definition of evidence. It seems like you only think that empirical evidence is the only legitimate type of evidence, and any argument that doesn't utilize empirical evidence falls short. There are many other types of evidence and there is no reason why an argument must only use empirical evidence. Perhaps it'd be productive for people to offer their take on what 'evidence' actually is and what type of evidence would convince them.

The real problem is you don't discern good evidence from poor evidence. Maybe you can prove I'm wrong by demonstrating that you have a handle on it, and can describe good evidence to us.

For example, what would be "good evidence" to support Noah's Ark?[/quote

As I have repeatedly said, I don't care whether or not the evidence meets your subjective requirements. Evidence can be valid regardless of whether you find it convincing or not. I may find a piece of evidence to be 'good' while you may find it to be 'bad.' One opinion is not superior to the other. Our subjective opinions really do not matter, what ultimately matters is the strength of the arguments presented.

And I have never argued that the global flood in Genesis was a real historical event, or that Noah was a real historical figure. I've argued the exact opposite: Should The Biblical Flood Story Be Taken Literally?

DO you think some evidence is stronger than other evidence?

Lets take the claim, "I own a car"

What is trong evidence for the claim and what is weak evidence? Or would all observations be equally strong evidence?

----

Also, I got moderately confused, could you define your use of argument, and evidence please?