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]

Just because an argument is contradictory, does not mean the conclusion is wrong.

You are way off here. In Aristotelian theory of gravity, it's the conclusion that contradicts itself. I'm sorry but that does mean that the conclusion is wrong.

(and, you have yet to respond , except by pure dismissal, the article I post that showed that 'strongly suggest' is not the same as actual contradiction in the case of the Aristotle argument)

Notice that even that author accepted that a modified version of the thought experiment would indeed be logically decisive. Since I am not a particular fan of Galileo, that makes my point just as well. In any case, I'd rather trust the consensus of the relevant academic community, even if you could find a single author who disagrees.

David Hume has also argued that our observations of the laws of physics merely 'strongly suggest' that those laws will hold tomorrow, it's not the same as actually knowing that they do. So it seems that your experimental method cannot do any better than strong suggestions either.

Right. Are you back again offering Science is based on faith because the laws of physics merely 'strongly suggest' that those laws will hold tomorrow?

You lost that debate already.

This Aristotelian argument:
I have shown that both your premises can not be shown true. And that you conclusion does not follow.

Your argument that 'argument do not need evidence'
I have also shown that you provided evidence (information, facts, data) which renders you whole argument that you do not need evidence for an argument false.

And here you are. You ignore that. Even trying to obscure and still debate this.
Tell me, which bits of this post do you find not correct?

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 386#608386


Obscurantism (physical and non physical evidence which is not a classification of evidence at all) is not the answer, instantc. Nor is arguments from authority, instantc. You have been shown that your arguments are incorrect. Why not admit it?

[WinePusher]

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.

Yes, you are wrong to make it seem as if arguments and claims are synonymous with one another. And most of your objections in this thread have been completely trivial. An argument that does not utilize evidence within its premises should be rejected prima facie. My point has been that it is absurd for people like you to reject an argument, and instead, demand evidence in place of it. Arguments and evidence are two different sides of the same coin, and the distinction that you are constantly bringing up is trivial and worthless.

[WinePusher]

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

Wow, you seriously think that an argument is the same thing as a claim? I think I understand now. Most of the people posting in this thread do not adequately understand what an argument is. I mean, here you are suggesting that an argument is basically the same thing as a claim and that is totally false. An argument is a logical construct that contains premises and a conclusion. The premises contain evidence that is used to justify a conclusion. Obviously invalid and unsound arguments are not evidence, but valid and sound argument are.

If you ask for evidence and I present an argument you have no right to whine and complain about it because the argument contains evidence. In the topic a poster presented several arguments for God's existence and Goat simply dismissed them by saying that arguments are not evidence. As instantc said, this is technically correct but meaningless rubbish because the evidence is within the argument.

Just pointing out.. the thread is GIVE ME YOUR EVIDENCE'. Not 'GIVE ME YOUR ARGUMENT. What was asked for 'What is your evidence', and you give a list of ontological arguments that, basically , have no versification for them. It is the lack of verification that makes them claims

Please go look over the list of arguments again. Only ONE of the arguments was ontological, the rest were various forms of teleological, cosmological and moral arguments. And I'm sorry to break this to you, but you're simply wrong. Arguments use evidence, even the source you cited says this. So, it is entirely appropriate for me to provide an argument if somebody demands evidence or proof because the evidence/proof is WITHIN the argument.

And btw, all you have done so far is simply say that these arguments are flawed and invalid. That may be your opinion, but I honestly don't care about your opinion. You have done nothing to show that these arguments are invalid and unsound using logic, science, philosophy, history, etc. I doubt you can.

[TheJoshAbideth]

[Replying to post 111 by WinePusher]

OK, finally the matter is solved.

arguments and evidence are two different sides of the same coin

Arguments are not evidence. Thanks WP.

[WinePusher]

[Replying to post 111 by WinePusher]

OK, finally the matter is solved.

arguments and evidence are two different sides of the same coin

Arguments are not evidence. Thanks WP.

I never said arguments and evidence are the same thing. They are two different concepts that compliment each other. You would have realized this if you had included the FULL context of my quote where I explicitly stated that the distinction people like you bring up is trivial and worthless. And I take it from your non substantive response that you concede the following:

-Using arguments in place of evidence is not inappropriate.
-If you ask for evidence and I present an argument you have no right to whine and complain about it because the argument contains evidence.

Thanks JA.

[TheJoshAbideth]

[Replying to post 112 by WinePusher]

Teleological and cosmological arguments are both arguments from ignorance.

If these arguments are so chalk full of evidence as you proclaim, please provide the evidence that is used to substantiate each argument.

[TheJoshAbideth]

[Replying to post 114 by WinePusher]

If I ask for evidence, I expect evidence - I am not going to spend my time sifting through half baked ideas searching for something that supports your claim - in a debate, that's your job.

[instantc]

[Replying to post 112 by WinePusher]

Teleological and cosmological arguments are both arguments from ignorance.

If these arguments are so chalk full of evidence as you proclaim, please provide the evidence that is used to substantiate each argument.

The suggested evidence is in included in the formation of those arguments, you need to point out which premises are backed up by sheer ignorance in your view and why. Until then, this response of yours is pointless, just a statement of the opinion everyone already knew you hold.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 112 by WinePusher]

Teleological and cosmological arguments are both arguments from ignorance.

If these arguments are so chalk full of evidence as you proclaim, please provide the evidence that is used to substantiate each argument.

The suggested evidence is in included in the formation of those arguments, you need to point out which premises are backed up by sheer ignorance in your view and why. Until then, this response of yours is pointless, just a statement of the opinion everyone already knew you hold.

Is it?? From the Teleological and cosmological arguments I have seen, the premise that is given are unsupported claims.. not based on evidence.

[instantc]

[Replying to post 112 by WinePusher]

Teleological and cosmological arguments are both arguments from ignorance.

If these arguments are so chalk full of evidence as you proclaim, please provide the evidence that is used to substantiate each argument.

The suggested evidence is in included in the formation of those arguments, you need to point out which premises are backed up by sheer ignorance in your view and why. Until then, this response of yours is pointless, just a statement of the opinion everyone already knew you hold.

Is it?? From the Teleological and cosmological arguments I have seen, the premise that is given are unsupported claims.. not based on evidence.

Great, thanks for sharing that Goat, I'm always here to listen.

Maybe next time you'd want to let me know which premises are unsupported in your view and what's wrong with the suggested evidence for them.