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]

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.

Without real world data, and the ability to verify both the inputs and the outputs of the argument, how can you tell if something is sound or not?

It is evidence that will allow someone to construct a sound argument (perhaps), but the argument itself is not evidence.

The problem with the ontological arguments is that they are untestable, and therefore so much patting on the back, word games , constructed with a priori conclusions. As such, according to some, such as A. J. Ayer, those metaphysical argument have no meaning.

[JohnA]

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.

Nothing debatable about this? Typical. No regard for substance. Goat's reference to evidence IS NOT meaningless rubbish as you claim.

An argument is sound if and only if
i) The argument is valid.
ii) All of its premises are true.

An argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something. The structure of an argument is that of at least 2 premises (typically in the form of propositions, statements or sentences) in support of a claim: the conclusion(s).

For an Argument to be valid it needs:
The conclusion is true based on the premises (the conclusion follows the premises, the conclusion is logically entailed by its premises)

For the premises to be true, we need to first look at what is meant by truth:
Truth is most often used to mean in accord with fact or reality.

And here are the issues with living in philosofairyworld:
1) These arguments are grounded in philosophical sorcery, cemented in antiquity.
2) Philosorcerery can not prove or disprove anything, it can not show anything true or false (unless you define it as such). Yet they claim they can have valid or sound arguments. How absurd.
3) For their premised to be true they offer 'in accord with fact or reality'. We know what facts are, but why this open ended reference to reality, in accord to? So anything goes in Philosorcerery to show premises true. How absurd.
4) Due to the antiquity and mindset of starting with claims/conclusions and trying to show it as true using mystifying models (no 2 philosophers can agree on any model it seems because they can not prove/disprove anything), they completely neglect a process or evidence based inquiry. Evidence consists of facts, information and data. They neglect the two other pillars of evidence called information and data and only offer facts for their true premise guessing. Am sure some would say "oh but reality included information and data and that is what in accord to means" -< then why not change it then philosorcerer?
5) Due to this lack of a method and boxing in accord with small facts (& catch all reality) nonsense, they mostly reject empiricism, falsification and verification. Science does not say anything is 100% certain or true, so how on earth can Philosophy claim they can have true premises?
6) Why do these philosorcerers not include hypotheses as a form of premise is beyond me.
7) No regard for cause-and-effect relationship 'testing' between the premises and conclusion(s), it is all based on guess work - oh it follows or not as philosorcerer think so or based on some model or non existent laws of logic that no-one can agree on.


And that is why you need evidence for any argument to be really sound. Importantly, you need to have evidence that can be testable, able to be shown false and have a peer review process to verify it with no authority stigma. TEST TEST TEST.

Philosophy is stuck in antiquity. They need to update their old dogma drivel and get into the modern age to get rid of their meaningless rubbish.

Up until then, for me to convince me of a claim, I need (in this order):

1) Logic - the logic needs to be valid
2) Arguments - the argument needs to be valid
3) Evidence - that would make the argument sound.


Philosorcerers in their philosofairyworld do not own Logic, nor do they own evidence (and science do not own evidence either, they just know how to observe and test it). They mostly neglect 1) and 3) above and jump straight into 2). And instantc just confirmed this again.

Some claims I dismiss based on Logic alone.
E.g. if a Christian tells me he has evidence for his god, then I dismiss that on the spot since the central tenant of their dogma is faith (meaning there is no evidence). Said Christian needs to go back and study his own dogma first and then come back and be honest that he was illogical to claim he had evidence.
Arguments can include hypotheses as premises and also broader than just facts to support premises. Premises has to be supported by evidence, and does not have be true as Philosorcerers claim it should be.
Lastly, evidence. According to the scientific method (not the Philosorcerers' model of it) to ensure it fits the premise(s) and the conclusion of the argument.

I have not come across one Theist that can pass the 1) Logic bit to convince me of his deity claim. So far Philosorcerers' arguments is redundant since we know that there are zero sound god existence ones.


Philosophy is stuck in antiquity. They need to update their old dogma drivel and get into the modern age to get rid of their meaningless rubbish.

[WinePusher]

[Replying to post 2 by Goat]

Your own source refutes your absurd statement.

'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.'

[Star]

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

Absolutely!

If your argument can't be proven by logic or math, and you don't have evidence to support it, you shouldn't even bother.

[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.

An argument that does not use evidence is fallacious, invalid and unsound. But that's irrelevant since evidence can also be weak, unconvincing and inadmissible. The point is that it is NOT inappropriate to support a claim with an argument so long as it utilizes correct evidence and logic. When you ask for evidence it is entirely appropriate for me to give you a philosophical argument because the argument I'm presenting already uses evidence.

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?

What you don't understand is that the types of arguments Christians have present use evidence within their premises. What we argue about in a debate is whether the premises are sound and whether they sufficiently justify the conclusion.

But please go ahead an specify what kind of evidence you think Christians should be presenting.

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?

Teleological arguments use evidence within its premises. So do cosmological arguments. The evidence being offered to prove God's existence is the complexity and fine-tuning of the universe. The thing is that the evidence is not being presented by itself, it is being presented as part of a larger syllogistical construct. The argument ties together the evidence with the conclusion. If I were to simply say that the universe's complexity is proof for God you would likely suggest that this is a non sequitor. You would ask how complexity is proof of God's existence, and I would respond with an argument which shows how the premises (evidence) lead to the conclusion. This is what makes an argument superior to the evidence.

[Star]

[Replying to post 2 by Goat]

Your own source refutes your absurd statement.

'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.'

Wow, seriously?

It clearly states that arguments (claims) are supported by evidence. It's NOT stating that arguments are evidence in and of themselves.

[10CC]

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.

An argument that does not use evidence is fallacious, invalid and unsound. But that's irrelevant since evidence can also be weak, unconvincing and inadmissible. The point is that it is NOT inappropriate to support a claim with an argument so long as it utilizes correct evidence and logic. When you ask for evidence it is entirely appropriate for me to give you a philosophical argument because the argument I'm presenting already uses evidence.

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?

What you don't understand is that the types of arguments Christians have present use evidence within their premises. What we argue about in a debate is whether the premises are sound and whether they sufficiently justify the conclusion.

But please go ahead an specify what kind of evidence you think Christians should be presenting.

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?

Teleological arguments use evidence within its premises. So do cosmological arguments. The evidence being offered to prove God's existence is the complexity and fine-tuning of the universe. The thing is that the evidence is not being presented by itself, it is being presented as part of a larger syllogistical construct. The argument ties together the evidence with the conclusion. If I were to simply say that the universe's complexity is proof for God you would likely suggest that this is a non sequitor. You would ask how complexity is proof of God's existence, and I would respond with an argument which shows how the premises (evidence) lead to the conclusion. This is what makes an argument superior to the evidence.

WHAT? Is the complexity of the universe?

[JohnA]

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.

An argument that does not use evidence is fallacious, invalid and unsound. But that's irrelevant since evidence can also be weak, unconvincing and inadmissible. The point is that it is NOT inappropriate to support a claim with an argument so long as it utilizes correct evidence and logic. When you ask for evidence it is entirely appropriate for me to give you a philosophical argument because the argument I'm presenting already uses evidence.

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?

What you don't understand is that the types of arguments Christians have present use evidence within their premises. What we argue about in a debate is whether the premises are sound and whether they sufficiently justify the conclusion.

But please go ahead an specify what kind of evidence you think Christians should be presenting.

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?

Teleological arguments use evidence within its premises. So do cosmological arguments. The evidence being offered to prove God's existence is the complexity and fine-tuning of the universe. The thing is that the evidence is not being presented by itself, it is being presented as part of a larger syllogistical construct. The argument ties together the evidence with the conclusion. If I were to simply say that the universe's complexity is proof for God you would likely suggest that this is a non sequitor. You would ask how complexity is proof of God's existence, and I would respond with an argument which shows how the premises (evidence) lead to the conclusion. This is what makes an argument superior to the evidence.

How on earth do you get from:

An argument that does not use evidence is fallacious, invalid and unsound.

to

This is what makes an argument superior to the evidence.

David, ...David, David Copperfield is that you?

[instantc]

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.

Without real world data, and the ability to verify both the inputs and the outputs of the argument, how can you tell if something is sound or not?

I think you are mostly correct in that sound arguments about the real world also contain evidence from the real world. There are exceptions, such as Galileo's famous thought experiment, but for some reason you don't believe it can disprove Aristotelian gravity theory, do you? It's not that you have any objections to it's logic, you don't believe it because it doesn't contain evidence, and here is the absurdity of your claim. Galileo's thought experiment is logically sound, and therefore its conclusion is true. Even Richard Dawkins acknowledges this fact about Galileo's thought experiment, and he is a known opponent of arguments that don't contain data from the real world.

the argument itself is not evidence.

What is the point of this sentence? Should we add that tree frogs are not space shuttles, while we're at it?

I've seen you using this sentence in order to discredit arguments that are presented to you. When you are given an argument, you have to either accept the fact that it proves or alternatively show what is wrong with its premises/deduction.

'Arguments are not evidence' as a response is an equivalent to 'evolution is just a theory', both are trivially true but don't make any relevant point.

[Goat]

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.

Without real world data, and the ability to verify both the inputs and the outputs of the argument, how can you tell if something is sound or not?

I think you are mostly correct in that sound arguments about the real world also contain evidence from the real world. There are exceptions, such as Galileo's famous thought experiment, but for some reason you don't believe it can disprove Aristotelian gravity theory, do you? It's not that you have any objections to it's logic, you don't believe it because it doesn't contain evidence, and here is the absurdity of your claim. Galileo's thought experiment is logically sound, and therefore its conclusion is true. Even Richard Dawkins acknowledges this fact about Galileo's thought experiment, and he is a known opponent of arguments that don't contain data from the real world.

the argument itself is not evidence.

What is the point of this sentence? Should we add that tree frogs are not space shuttles, while we're at it?

I've seen you using this sentence in order to discredit arguments that are presented to you. When you are given an argument, you have to either accept the fact that it proves or alternatively show what is wrong with its premises/deduction.

'Arguments are not evidence' as a response is an equivalent to 'evolution is just a theory', both are trivially true but don't make any relevant point.

Yet, Galileo's thought experiment came up with a different conclusion that Aristotle. However, it was just word games UNTIL IT COULD BE TESTED. The conclusion was tested, and was testable. In other words, we had real world data to see if his reasoning could be correct or not.

His thought experiment became a thesis to test.