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?

[JohnA]

Examples?
What is a rational argument?

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

Why?
E.g.
Math proofs are not rational arguments, unless you define a new type of argument that no one ever heard of -math do declare truths all the time; its concepts. Math proofs (getting to the proof, not just the proof statement) could be valid arguments and sometimes sounds arguments (since math declares truth for some stuff - that is the evidence). All valid or sound arguments by default would be rational.

Remember, I want you WHAT is a rational argument. Define it, describe it.
If you list examples of it, then explain how your example ties up with your definition/description of this so called rational argument.

It seems to me you enjoy playing word games, but do not pay attention to the questions, therefore give faulty answers.

Please pay attention this time.

[JohnA]

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.

I totally agree. I must have given the wrong impression. Of course arguments don't necessarily use evidence. We see arguments by apologists everyday here that have no evidence. WinePusher even admits his does this in his OP, because as he says, his arguments are the evidence lol.

An argument can not be sound without using evidence.
I have never even seem a valid argument that do not use evidence.

These ontological arguments and neither valid nor sound because they do not have evidence.

What is this this rational argument that this user brought up? Is this a theist that are trying to confuse the facts with nonsense; con man selling to the fools?

[iamtaka]

Why?
E.g.
Math proofs are not rational arguments, unless you define a new type of argument that no one ever heard of -math do declare truths all the time. Math proofs are valid arguments and sometimes sounds arguments (since math declares truth for some stuff - that is the evidence). All valid or sound arguments by default would be rational.

Remember, I want you WHAT is a rational argument. Define it, describe it.
If you list examples of it, then explain how your example ties up with your definition/description of this so called rational argument.

It seems to me you enjoy playing word games, but do not pay attention to the questions, therefore give faulty answers.

Please pay attention this time.

The immediate context for the second question in your previous response was immediately preceded by a request for examples. Aside from a line break, there was nothing to indicate a lack of relationship between the two questions. Hence, one reasonable interpretation of your post was that you were seeking description by example. That is what I provided.

Clearly, as we can now see, that was not what you intended to communicate. Thus, we have an example of a failed communication attempt. Knowing that, it is reasonable of me to expect an apology for the accusatory tone with which you have addressed me. Upon the receipt of such an apology, I will be happen to continue the discussion.

[JohnA]

Why?
E.g.
Math proofs are not rational arguments, unless you define a new type of argument that no one ever heard of -math do declare truths all the time. Math proofs are valid arguments and sometimes sounds arguments (since math declares truth for some stuff - that is the evidence). All valid or sound arguments by default would be rational.

Remember, I want you WHAT is a rational argument. Define it, describe it.
If you list examples of it, then explain how your example ties up with your definition/description of this so called rational argument.

It seems to me you enjoy playing word games, but do not pay attention to the questions, therefore give faulty answers.

Please pay attention this time.

The immediate context for the second question in your previous response was immediately preceded by a request for examples. Aside from a line break, there was nothing to indicate a lack of relationship between the two questions. Hence, one reasonable interpretation of your post was that you were seeking description by example. That is what I provided.

Clearly, as we can now see, that was not what you intended to communicate. Thus, we have an example of a failed communication attempt. Knowing that, it is reasonable of me to expect an apology for the accusatory tone with which you have addressed me. Upon the receipt of such an apology, I will be happen to continue the discussion.

All we have here is a failed attempt to ask for clarification, but we do have a great example of dodging the question. Well done - that is a complement to you!

[iamtaka]

All we have here is a failed attempt to ask for clarification, but we do have a great example of dodging the question. Well done - that is a complement to you!

Indeed. I am showing patience while the character assassination continues.

[JohnA]

All we have here is a failed attempt to ask for clarification, but we do have a great example of dodging the question. Well done - that is a complement to you!

Indeed. I am showing patience while the character assassination continues.

Still dodging the question, refusing to ask for clarification when a question is not apparently understood, whilst blaming the questioner and quick too and to. Well done, getting better at it.

Well, I reject claims that are not backed up, suchlike yours.

Write me when you actually have something to say.

[instantc]

Here is an argument that is demonstrably sound and contains no evidence.

1. Aristotelian gravity theory has two mutually exclusive consequences
2. Both of those consequences cannot be true
3. Aristotelian gravity theory doesn't apply in the real world

Sound, informative, useful, inescapable, demonstrable, no evidence required whatsoever. Don't think so? Which premise do you think is not sufficiently justified?

[Goat]

Here is an argument that is demonstrably sound and contains no evidence.

1. Aristotelian gravity theory has two mutually exclusive consequences
2. Both of those consequences cannot be true
3. Aristotelian gravity theory doesn't apply in the real world

Sound, informative, useful, inescapable, demonstrable, no evidence required whatsoever. Don't think so? Which premise do you think is not sufficiently justified?

Not quite. You have to show that 'the theory has two mutually exclusive consequences'.. and the end all of that is Empirical Data.

It has been argued that the 'two mutually exclusive consequences' are 'strongly suggested', not actual http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2524/1/ ... Bodies.pdf

In the end, you need the empirical data. I mean , a lot of what occurs in the quantum world is counter-intuitive. I mean, a single particle can't be go through two slits at at the same time, can it?

[instantc]

Here is an argument that is demonstrably sound and contains no evidence.

1. Aristotelian gravity theory has two mutually exclusive consequences
2. Both of those consequences cannot be true
3. Aristotelian gravity theory doesn't apply in the real world

Sound, informative, useful, inescapable, demonstrable, no evidence required whatsoever. Don't think so? Which premise do you think is not sufficiently justified?

Not quite. You have to show that 'the theory has two mutually exclusive consequences'.. and the end all of that is Empirical Data.

It has been argued that the 'two mutually exclusive consequences' are 'strongly suggested', not actual http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2524/1/ ... Bodies.pdf

It has also been argued that the earth is 6000 years old, people argue all kinds of things. The consensus seems to me to be that Galileo's thought experiment is indeed a successful demonstration, as this author, for example, suggests (if its not successful in its original form, it can at least be modified to such) http://logica.ugent.be/maarten/Galileo-dynamics.pdf.

In any case, it is inescapable that if a theory contradicts itself logically, it doesn't apply in the real world. It is also inescapable that, even if this were not the case with Galileo, in many cases these contradictions can be exposed by a logical analysis without any experiments or evidence. Thus, it is absurd to say that an argument that doesn't contain evidence couldn't give us important information about the real world, namely rule out certain theories on basis of logical examination.

[JohnA]

Here is an argument that is demonstrably sound and contains no evidence.

1. Aristotelian gravity theory has two mutually exclusive consequences
2. Both of those consequences cannot be true
3. Aristotelian gravity theory doesn't apply in the real world

Sound, informative, useful, inescapable, demonstrable, no evidence required whatsoever. Don't think so? Which premise do you think is not sufficiently justified?

Not quite. You have to show that 'the theory has two mutually exclusive consequences'.. and the end all of that is Empirical Data.

It has been argued that the 'two mutually exclusive consequences' are 'strongly suggested', not actual http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2524/1/ ... Bodies.pdf

It has also been argued that the earth is 6000 years old, people argue all kinds of things. The consensus seems to me to be that Galileo's thought experiment is indeed a successful demonstration, as this author, for example, suggests http://logica.ugent.be/maarten/Galileo-dynamics.pdf.

In any case, it is inescapable that if a theory contradicts itself logically, it doesn't apply in the real world. It is also inescapable that, even if this were not the case with Galileo, in many cases these contradictions can be exposed by a logical analysis without any experiments or evidence. Thus, it is absurd to say that an argument that doesn't contain evidence couldn't give us important information about the real world, namely rule out certain theories on basis of logical examination.

Yet, you can not voice one sound or valid argument without evidence.
It is NOT absurd to say that an argument that doesn't contain evidence couldn't give us important information about the real world, namely rule out certain theories on basis of logical examination. Two slit experiment. ....remember, I asked you about this. .

Instantc, please go and update the scientific method with this thought experiment rubbush and let's see how far you get with your fallacious theories. If your can not test or/and observe then it belongs to antiquity with philosorcery.