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]

[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.

I believe each and every argument was gone over multiple times on this board.

Which one do you want to start with?? The Kalam Cosmological argument ??
Or another one? Each and every one that has been discussed in depth on the board has been flawed.

If you want to discuss it, I think it should be separated from this thread though.

[Star]

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.

This is a contradiction. You admit that arguments without evidence should be rejected, yet criticize us for rejecting arguments without evidence?

We don't expect evidence "in place of" arguments, but we expect you to support your arguments with evidence.

[WinePusher]

If I ask for evidence, I expect evidence

The evidence is within the premises of the argument.

I am not going to spend my time sifting through half baked ideas searching for something that supports your claim

Then why are you on this forum? If you want to participate on a debating website you're going to have to read through ideas that you consider to be half baked all the time. I have read through many ideas that I considered half baked, but I still read them and I still provided responses and rebuttals. And let's be clear, it really doesn't matter if you personally don't find the evidence to be convincing. I don't have to present evidence that meets your arbitrary standards.

[Danmark]

If I ask for evidence, I expect evidence

The evidence is within the premises of the argument.

I am not going to spend my time sifting through half baked ideas searching for something that supports your claim

Then why are you on this forum? ....

Yeah Josh, if you don't want to 'sift through half baked ideas searching for something that supports' someone's claim, what are you doing here?

"What's that? You want good arguments, well thought out and supported by facts? Well... what are you doing here?"

[WinePusher]

If I ask for evidence, I expect evidence

The evidence is within the premises of the argument.

I am not going to spend my time sifting through half baked ideas searching for something that supports your claim

Then why are you on this forum? ....

Yeah Josh, if you don't want to 'sift through half baked ideas searching for something that supports' someone's claim, what are you doing here?

"What's that? You want good arguments, well thought out and supported by facts? Well... what are you doing here?"

This is all subjective. What you consider to be a good argument may be a bad argument in the eyes of someone else. Like I said, I have sifted through tons of posts that contained poor logic, half baked ideas and bad arguments and I provided my own responses and rebuttals. If you don't enjoy reading through other people's 'half baked' ideas then don't do it. Go find another activity to occupy your time with.

[Danmark]

If I ask for evidence, I expect evidence

The evidence is within the premises of the argument.

I am not going to spend my time sifting through half baked ideas searching for something that supports your claim

Then why are you on this forum? ....

Yeah Josh, if you don't want to 'sift through half baked ideas searching for something that supports' someone's claim, what are you doing here?

"What's that? You want good arguments, well thought out and supported by facts? Well... what are you doing here?"

This is all subjective. What you consider to be a good argument may be a bad argument in the eyes of someone else. Like I said, I have sifted through tons of posts that contained poor logic, half baked ideas and bad arguments and I provided my own responses and rebuttals. If you don't enjoy reading through other people's 'half baked' ideas then don't do it. Go find another activity to occupy your time with.

Or... google 'sense of humor, how to get one.'

[TheJoshAbideth]

[Replying to post 123 by Danmark]

It was either this or sifting through youtube comments

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 126 by TheJoshAbideth]

Marx Brothers!

[WinePusher]

If I ask for evidence, I expect evidence

The evidence is within the premises of the argument.

I am not going to spend my time sifting through half baked ideas searching for something that supports your claim

Then why are you on this forum? ....

Yeah Josh, if you don't want to 'sift through half baked ideas searching for something that supports' someone's claim, what are you doing here?

"What's that? You want good arguments, well thought out and supported by facts? Well... what are you doing here?"

This is all subjective. What you consider to be a good argument may be a bad argument in the eyes of someone else. Like I said, I have sifted through tons of posts that contained poor logic, half baked ideas and bad arguments and I provided my own responses and rebuttals. If you don't enjoy reading through other people's 'half baked' ideas then don't do it. Go find another activity to occupy your time with.

Or... google 'sense of humor, how to get one.'

No, I just don't get your sense of humor, and I'm ok with that. You posted some sarcastic remark about good vs. bad arguments and I challenged it. And whataya know, you respond with another sarcastic personal remark.

[Nilloc James]

Is it just me or is half this debate arguing over definitions; then when the other side disagrees, accusing them of being arrogant/stupid/dishonest?

If they are definitions there is nothing really to be wrong about, and neither side is "right" or "wrong" when people are using the same words differently and fighting about whats more acceptable there really is no debate.

THis is why definitions need to be agreed to ahead of time; its rather pointless arguing about definitions that all could be right if people agreed to them.

Instead we have 14 pages of people fighting about the precise.meaning of "argument" "evidence" and reasoning when most of these definitions are correct or at least ambiguois. The thing with definitions is they only make sense when we agree on them; if we use the terms differently then define ourselves to be correct, then there is even no point in having the debate.