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]

.

Wow, you seriously think that an argument is the same thing as a claim? I think I understand now.

No.

Goat quoted an academic source as saying: 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.

You replied: Your own source refutes your absurd statement.

To which I interjected: It clearly states that arguments (claims) are supported by evidence.

I think it stated that arguments are usually a main idea, often called a claim, or thesis statement. Am I wrong? Of course, the argument persists much longer than the thesis, when evidence is provided, as I said.

The argument is not the claim, the main idea is often called the claim or thesis statement.

It wasn't my source. The main point here is that arguments are not evidence. Arguments use evidence to support claims.

I would not quite put it that way. I would say, ideally, arguments use evidence to support claims. However, there are often arguments that do not use evidence.

The ontological arguments for example. The premises and the conclusion can not be shown to be true.. so the entire thing is one big argument without evidence.

[iamtaka]

If you differ, then give me one, just one Sound Argument or just one Valid Argument without the use of evidence that can convert a claim into a conclusion (fact).

To exist, a being must be logically possible.
God is logically impossible.
Therefore, God cannot exist.

[iamtaka]

If you can't have verification.. .. then you can't tell if a proposition is true.

How do you know what you are thinking at this moment? How would you verify that?

[TheJoshAbideth]

[Replying to post 52 by iamtaka]

In what rational argument would one need to verify what they are thinking?

[iamtaka]

In what rational argument would one need to verify what they are thinking?

How can one present a rational argument without first knowing their thoughts?

[TheJoshAbideth]

In what rational argument would one need to verify what they are thinking?

How can one present a rational argument without first knowing their thoughts?

Verification is not the same as Knowledge. But pertaining to knowledge...

I know my thoughts are my thoughts well enough to rely on them for purposes sufficient to live my life the way that I live it, driving, working, socializing, debating, etc... I would never trust a thought of my own on it's own merit to fix my brakes, to make financial decisions, perform surgery, etc... without someway to independently verify that my thoughts are trustworthy enough to be sufficient in undertaking the task at hand.

Making a rational argument in no way rests on my ability to know or think it is a rational argument. It is shown to be rational by the independently verifiable support/ evidence/ data used to reinforce the argument and premises.

I would never expect anyone to accept an argument simply on the grounds that I thought of it. Would you?

[99percentatheism]

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?

They use of the authoritative pronouncement "I" ends all debate. You, simply are the only authority for you.

Be happy being your ultimate authority.

[JohnA]

If you differ, then give me one, just one Sound Argument or just one Valid Argument without the use of evidence that can convert a claim into a conclusion (fact).

To exist, a being must be logically possible.
God is logically impossible.
Therefore, God cannot exist.

How can something that does not exist be logically impossible?

Your argument is not valid.

[Furrowed Brow]

If you differ, then give me one, just one Sound Argument or just one Valid Argument without the use of evidence that can convert a claim into a conclusion (fact).

To exist, a being must be logically possible.
God is logically impossible.
Therefore, God cannot exist.

How can something that does not exist be logically impossible?

Your argument is not valid.

No the argument is formally valid. The question is whether "God is logically impossible" is true? If it is true then the argument is also sound and we may conclude there is no God.

However there is some equivocation over what "logically impossible" means. Does this mean just not possible does this mean contradiction. I think it is possible to offer a definition of God that is not a contradiction, it is more difficult to determine whether this definition entails something that is not possible.

[JohnA]

If you differ, then give me one, just one Sound Argument or just one Valid Argument without the use of evidence that can convert a claim into a conclusion (fact).

To exist, a being must be logically possible.
God is logically impossible.
Therefore, God cannot exist.

How can something that does not exist be logically impossible?

Your argument is not valid.

No the argument is formally valid. The question is whether "God is logically impossible" is true? If it is true then the argument is also sound and we may conclude there is no God.

However there is some equivocation over what "logically impossible" means. Does this mean just not possible does this mean contradiction. I think it is possible to offer a definition of God that is not a contradiction, it is more difficult to determine whether this definition entails something that is not possible.

Valid arguments exist. If they did not, then how can you claim sounds arguments exist?

This logically impossible issue.
Yes, I debated philosophy scholar instantc on this. He ran away as usual, could not defend his illogical claim.
I would never say not impossible means it is possible. Instantc thinks everything is possible, lol.
Something (a god or whatever) existing inside/outside nothing before creating everything (universe) is not logical.