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?

[Goat]

Let's see what english teachinan g site says about arguments. and Evidence

From http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/argument/

What is an argument? In academic writing, an argument is usually a main idea, often called a “claim� or “thesis statement,� backed up with evidence that supports the idea. In the majority of college papers, you will need to make some sort of claim and use evidence to support it, and your ability to do this well will separate your papers from those of students who see assignments as mere accumulations of fact and detail. In other words, gone are the happy days of being given a “topic� about which you can write anything. It is time to stake out a position and prove why it is a good position for a thinking person to hold.

From http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/evidence/

Many papers that you write in college will require you to make an argument; this means that you must take a position on the subject you are discussing and support that position with evidence. It’s important that you use the right kind of evidence, that you use it effectively, and that you have an appropriate amount of it. If, for example, your philosophy professor didn’t like it that you used a survey of public opinion as your primary evidence in your ethics paper, you need to find out more about what philosophers count as good evidence. If your instructor has told you that you need more analysis, suggested that you’re “just listing� points or giving a “laundry list,� or asked you how certain points are related to your argument, it may mean that you can do more to fully incorporate your evidence into your argument. Comments like “for example?,� “proof?,� “go deeper,� or “expand� in the margins of your graded paper suggest that you may need more evidence. Let’s take a look at each of these issues—understanding what counts as evidence, using evidence in your argument, and deciding whether you need more evidence.

And, since this comes up quite a lot, let's look at some of the criticisms of the ontological arguments

From the wiki entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_Arguments

cottish philosopher and empiricist David Hume argued that nothing can be proven to exist using only a priori reasoning.[44] In his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, the character Cleanthes proposes a criticism:

...there is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction. Consequently there is no being, whose existence is demonstrable.[45]

Hume also suggested that, as we have no abstract idea of existence (apart from as part of our ideas of other objects), we cannot claim that the idea of God implies his existence. He suggested that any conception of God we may have, we can conceive either of existing or of not existing. He believed that existence is not a quality (or perfection), so the concept of a completely perfect being need not exist. Thus, he claimed that it is not a contradiction to deny God's existence.[44] Although this criticism is directed against a cosmological argument, similar to that of Samuel Clarke in his first Boyle Lecture, it has been applied to ontological arguments as well.[46]

[instantc]

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

If premises (1) and (2) are true and the conclusion logically follows from (1) and (2), then that conclusion is true. This is a fact. There's nothing debatable about this.

'Arguments are not evidence' is trivially true, but meaningless rubbish in the sense that Goat has been using it.

[Divine Insight]

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

I agree with Goat and what he just posted. Arguments need to be backed up by evidence. An argument that has no evidence behind it is pretty lame.

The evidence does not necessarily need to be "physical", although this can depend on what is meant by "physical". In other words, evidence can be from ancient texts (which themselves are physical writings), but the claims they make alone is not "evidence". I'll give some examples below.

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

Absolutely, but those argument need to be backed up by evidence if they are to be convincing.


An example of an argument with no evidence

Here is a bad example, of an argument that claims to have "evidence" when in fact it has no evidence at all:

1. Argument: Jesus was the only begotten son of God who was physically resurrected from the dead.

2. Evidence: Because the Bible says so.

This is a very bad example of an argument that claims to have "evidence" because claims made in the bible are not evidence. They themselves are just unverifiable claims which many people believe to be either total fiction, or misguided superstitious nonsense.

So trying to use everything the Bible says verbatim as "evidence" is nonsense. There needs to exist some evidence beyond that.

An example of an argument with evidence

1. Argument: The biblical God would need to be a sick demented moron.

2. Evidence: By examining the Biblical fables we can see that this must be so.

This second argument works because the argument uses the bible as evidence as follows:

1. The biblical fables have God cursing Satan to crawl on his belly and eat dirt.
Is this an intelligent or wise solution to the problem? No.
Did this curse solve the problem at hand? No it didn't.

Thus we can conclude reasonably, based on this evidence, that this God is neither wise, nor able to solve problems.

2. The biblical fables have God cursing Eve with multiple pain and sorrow in conception and childbirth.
Is this an intelligent or wise solution to the problem? No.
Did this curse solve the problem at hand? No it didn't.

Thus we can conclude reasonably, based on this evidence, that this God is neither wise, nor able to solve problems.

3. The biblical fables have God cursing causing a Great Flood to rid the world of sinners.
Is this an intelligent or wise solution to the problem? Possibly, if it actually worked. Although one could argue that an omnipotent God should have been able to do this more efficiently.
Did this flood solve the problem of sin? No it didn't.

Thus we can conclude reasonably, based on this evidence, that this God is neither wise, nor able to solve problems.

~~~~~

Now you could argue that these claims that God actually did these things is not evidence in the same way that the biblical claims that Jesus was resurrected is not evidence. And you'd be right about that. However, this second argument does not require that any actual God exists or had actually done these things. The whole point of this second argument is that the Biblical fables are clearly too stupid (unwise) to be the actions of a supposedly all-wise God. Thus the conclusion is not that this God actually exists and is stupid, but rather the conclusion is that because the fables are so stupid, they cannot be a true description of any supposed all-wise God.

So this second argument is a valid argument with valid evidence to back it up, even if that evidence itself is nothing more than a fictional story. There is no need in this second argument to believe that the claims made in these stories ever truly happened.

Whereas the first argument that claims that Jesus was resurrected, requires that the claims of the Bible be believed as "evidence" that the actual events actually took place. But that's not "evidence", that's just belief in superstitious rumors without evidence.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 1 by WinePusher]

Let's first define a couple terms:
*EVIDENCE - something which shows that something else exists or is true
*TRUE - agreeing with the facts : not false.
* ARGUMENT - a statement or series of statements for or against something: a discussion in which people express different opinions about something.

Now to the questions:
1) Is there any distinction between arguments and evidence? Is one superior to the other?
Yes. Evidence shows something true (not false agreeing to facts) while argument is an opinion (which doesn't need to adhere to any truth.
Is one superior? I suppose it depends on what you're looking for. Some will disregard facts/lack of facts for their own purpose. To those people, evidence likely doesn't hold much weight, if at all.
2) Is it appropriate to use arguments when debating issues about Christianity and Apologetics?
Yes, since there's no proof (evidence) that shows any supernatural belief in any deity as outlined within modern christianity is true. Therefore, we must rely on arguments, not facts/data. If any fact that's verifiable and repeatable arise showing this deity is real, we must ignore arguments and look at the evidence. Since that hasn't happened (society has evolved away from god), arguments is all we have to rely on. Unfortunately.



* Per Webster

[TheJoshAbideth]

[Replying to post 1 by WinePusher]

It is simple... to accept an argument in lieu of evidence, one must first assume the evidence is already sufficient for the argument to be valid and sound and proves itself.

But this is exactly what we're doing in a debate - we are arguing... if the argument is proof in and of itself, what is the point of the debate?

Take teleological arguments... they are not facts, and the premises they are based on are still up for debate... in fact it happens on this site almost everyday. If I were to allow you to use a teleological argument as evidence I would most certainly need to accept cosmological, and transcendental ones as well. But wait there's more. If I allow you to use these arguments as evidence then you must also allow me to use the arguments that counter your arguments as evidence as well... do you see the circle this leads us into?

[Nilloc James]

Depends on what Im trying to prove:

If Im trying to prove 1 = sinx^2 + cosx^2 then I would use entirely logic/rules of math.

If Im trying to prove that HIV is a retrovirus then I have to provide evidence such as: it has a reverse tranacriptase and it puts its genome into the host. This claim requires obaervation about the world.

[100%atheist]

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

I'm sick of people repeating this ridiculous statement. 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?

Of course, there is. Otherwise .... my argument is that the invisible pink unicorns exist because no one could see them to disprove that they are pink... and this argument now becomes the evidence for the existence of Invisible Pink Unicorns. Voila!

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

Naturally, yes, but it would be nice to see more arguments supported by evidence.

[instantc]

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

I'm sick of people repeating this ridiculous statement. 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?

Of course, there is. Otherwise .... my argument is that the invisible pink unicorns exist because no one could see them to disprove that they are pink... and this argument now becomes the evidence for the existence of Invisible Pink Unicorns. Voila!

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

Naturally, yes, but it would be nice to see more arguments supported by evidence.

What you are basically saying is that unsound arguments (unproven or untrue premises) don't carry much value in a debate. This is true, but the question is not one of evidence or no evidence. A conclusion of a sound argument is necessarily true. This is a fact, regardless of whether or not that argument complies with your standard of evidence.

Points like 'arguments are not evidence' are unnecessarily complicating things. Unsound arguments are not useful in a debate, and sound arguments are very useful. Simple as that. For example, your pink unicorn argument is unsound.

[100%atheist]

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

I'm sick of people repeating this ridiculous statement. 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?

Of course, there is. Otherwise .... my argument is that the invisible pink unicorns exist because no one could see them to disprove that they are pink... and this argument now becomes the evidence for the existence of Invisible Pink Unicorns. Voila!

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

Naturally, yes, but it would be nice to see more arguments supported by evidence.

What you are basically saying is that unsound arguments (unproven or untrue premises) don't carry much value in a debate. This is true, but the question is not one of evidence or no evidence. A conclusion of a sound argument is necessarily true. This is a fact, regardless of whether or not that argument complies with your standard of evidence.

Points like 'arguments are not evidence' are unnecessarily complicating things. Unsound arguments are not useful in a debate, and sound arguments are very useful. Simple as that. For example, your pink unicorn argument is unsound.

And how do we determine which arguments are sound and which are not sound?