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]

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?

I can verify what I am thinking by the words I can type on the terminal.

Some people can't verify what they are thinking. They are known as 'schizophrenics'.

Can you verify what you are thinking?

[iamtaka]

Verification is not the same as Knowledge.

Obviously. That's the point of my line of questions.

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.

Except, there are arguments which can be entirely rational without verifiable support, evidence, or data.

[iamtaka]

I can verify what I am thinking by the words I can type on the terminal.

Some people can't verify what they are thinking. They are known as 'schizophrenics'.

Can you verify what you are thinking?

Please see my response to TheJoshAbideth.

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 61 by iamtaka]

Examples?
What is a rational argument?

[Goat]

I can verify what I am thinking by the words I can type on the terminal.

Some people can't verify what they are thinking. They are known as 'schizophrenics'.

Can you verify what you are thinking?

Please see my response to TheJoshAbideth.

And, yes, there are arguments that do not rely on evidence. However, that does not make those arguments evidence.

I don't see how your response IS rational at all.

[iamtaka]

And, yes, there are arguments that do not rely on evidence.

Good. This means we're on the same page.

I don't see how your response IS rational at all.

This is an interesting response. It's interesting because it seems disconnected from the discussion (i.e., irrelevant). Is this purely an attempt at rhetorical one-upmanship? Or, is this somehow connected to the discussion and I have missed it?

[iamtaka]

Examples?
What is a rational argument?

Mathematical proofs. Many ontologically based arguments. And so on.

[Goat]

Examples?
What is a rational argument?

Mathematical proofs. Many ontologically based arguments. And so on.

Please show that ANY of the ontological arguments are rational. As for mathematical proofs, they are purely conceptual....

[iamtaka]

Please show that ANY of the ontological arguments are rational.

Let's start a different way. What do you think I mean by ontological arguments?

As for mathematical proofs, they are purely conceptual....

Does being purely conceptual mean they are irrational or not rational (i.e., do not have the property of being rational/irrational)?

[Goat]

Please show that ANY of the ontological arguments are rational.

Let's start a different way. What do you think I mean by ontological arguments?

As for mathematical proofs, they are purely conceptual....

Does being purely conceptual mean they are irrational or not rational (i.e., do not have the property of being rational/irrational)?

it means that, it only exists in the mind. Math is a tool. That's it. There is a lot of things in math that are totally irrational.