Define "Evidence"

[Shem Yoshi]

Define "evidence"

Ill give a start.

Evidence is anything used to support a claim.

Bonus question.
What is the defining factors of "no evidence" for something?

Does your definition of evidence, and no evidence, hold up to all things objectively?

[Shem Yoshi]

I am aware that people claim to have seen Jesus or seen angels but these claims are not evidence. These people could have been hallucinating or dreaming or lying.

But you yourself say you arent even sure if you are hallucinating right now... Do you think the evidence of someone who has seen an angel or Jesus, is less in value then what you see now?

[Shem Yoshi]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #23]

[Replying to Kylie in post #22]

I am looking for a working definition to understand the nonbelievers claim that there is "no evidence" for Christian God.

What is evidence, what isnt evidence? If it is dependent on proving a claim, in skepticism nothing is proven... So we have a problem.

Evidence is some information that supports a particular claim. Importantly, in order to be considered valid evidence, this information must be objective. In other words, any person can, in theory, at least, be able to gather information which will lead to the same conclusion.

There is no evidence for the Christian God (or any other God) that I have seen that meets this condition.

So a person that witnesses something real, alone, isnt evidence of something true they experience? Surely people can experience true things that will never be experienced by anyone else.

I think you guys just want to assert that there is no evidence for God, but really cant come to a good conclusion about what evidence can determine all truth and exclude God....

How is it we can get a definition that can encompass all things that are true? I dont think you can do it and come to the conclusion there is no evidence for God.

Yes, people can experience things that will never be experienced by anyone else. I have met people who claimed to have been abducted by aliens. They had their testimonies only. They could not provide any evidence to prove that aliens indeed came and abducted them and took them onboard their spaceships. Were these people telling the truth? Were these people lying? Were they dreaming? Were they hallucinating? I don't know. If you can prove that God exists, please do so with evidence. Testimonies don't count as evidence.

"Testimonies don't count as evidence."... Surely you cant say that... All history and past events are brought into the present by testimony of people... Are you willing to discredit all of history in an attempt to argue there is "no evidence" for God?

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #23]

[Replying to Kylie in post #22]

I am looking for a working definition to understand the nonbelievers claim that there is "no evidence" for Christian God.

What is evidence, what isnt evidence? If it is dependent on proving a claim, in skepticism nothing is proven... So we have a problem.

Evidence is some information that supports a particular claim. Importantly, in order to be considered valid evidence, this information must be objective. In other words, any person can, in theory, at least, be able to gather information which will lead to the same conclusion.

There is no evidence for the Christian God (or any other God) that I have seen that meets this condition.

So a person that witnesses something real, alone, isnt evidence of something true they experience? Surely people can experience true things that will never be experienced by anyone else.

I think you guys just want to assert that there is no evidence for God, but really cant come to a good conclusion about what evidence can determine all truth and exclude God....

How is it we can get a definition that can encompass all things that are true? I dont think you can do it and come to the conclusion there is no evidence for God.

Yes, people can experience things that will never be experienced by anyone else. I have met people who claimed to have been abducted by aliens. They had their testimonies only. They could not provide any evidence to prove that aliens indeed came and abducted them and took them onboard their spaceships. Were these people telling the truth? Were these people lying? Were they dreaming? Were they hallucinating? I don't know. If you can prove that God exists, please do so with evidence. Testimonies don't count as evidence.

"Testimonies don't count as evidence."... Surely you cant say that... All history and past events are brought into the present by testimony of people... Are you willing to discredit all of history in an attempt to argue there is "no evidence" for God?

Testimonies can be lies, hallucinations, dreams, exaggerations, etc. That's why we need concrete evidence to find out the truth.

[Shem Yoshi]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #23]

[Replying to Kylie in post #22]

I am looking for a working definition to understand the nonbelievers claim that there is "no evidence" for Christian God.

What is evidence, what isnt evidence? If it is dependent on proving a claim, in skepticism nothing is proven... So we have a problem.

Evidence is some information that supports a particular claim. Importantly, in order to be considered valid evidence, this information must be objective. In other words, any person can, in theory, at least, be able to gather information which will lead to the same conclusion.

There is no evidence for the Christian God (or any other God) that I have seen that meets this condition.

So a person that witnesses something real, alone, isnt evidence of something true they experience? Surely people can experience true things that will never be experienced by anyone else.

I think you guys just want to assert that there is no evidence for God, but really cant come to a good conclusion about what evidence can determine all truth and exclude God....

How is it we can get a definition that can encompass all things that are true? I dont think you can do it and come to the conclusion there is no evidence for God.

Yes, people can experience things that will never be experienced by anyone else. I have met people who claimed to have been abducted by aliens. They had their testimonies only. They could not provide any evidence to prove that aliens indeed came and abducted them and took them onboard their spaceships. Were these people telling the truth? Were these people lying? Were they dreaming? Were they hallucinating? I don't know. If you can prove that God exists, please do so with evidence. Testimonies don't count as evidence.

"Testimonies don't count as evidence."... Surely you cant say that... All history and past events are brought into the present by testimony of people... Are you willing to discredit all of history in an attempt to argue there is "no evidence" for God?

Testimonies can be lies, hallucinations, dreams, exaggerations, etc. That's why we need concrete evidence to find out the truth.

Testimony can also be true... Are you willing to throw out all true testimony?

Everything we haven't experienced for ourselves, that other people tell us of, is testimony... You are willing to say none of it is evidence? I am confident your own beliefs believe in things people have told you. Do you believe the south pole exists? Surely that belief is based on testimony.

[Kylie]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #23]

[Replying to Kylie in post #22]

I am looking for a working definition to understand the nonbelievers claim that there is "no evidence" for Christian God.

What is evidence, what isnt evidence? If it is dependent on proving a claim, in skepticism nothing is proven... So we have a problem.

Evidence is some information that supports a particular claim. Importantly, in order to be considered valid evidence, this information must be objective. In other words, any person can, in theory, at least, be able to gather information which will lead to the same conclusion.

There is no evidence for the Christian God (or any other God) that I have seen that meets this condition.

So a person that witnesses something real, alone, isnt evidence of something true they experience? Surely people can experience true things that will never be experienced by anyone else.

I think you guys just want to assert that there is no evidence for God, but really cant come to a good conclusion about what evidence can determine all truth and exclude God....

How is it we can get a definition that can encompass all things that are true? I dont think you can do it and come to the conclusion there is no evidence for God.

Okay, and let's say a person has such an experience. Without any way to check it, how do they conclude that what they saw was real and not a hallucination?

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #23]

[Replying to Kylie in post #22]

I am looking for a working definition to understand the nonbelievers claim that there is "no evidence" for Christian God.

What is evidence, what isnt evidence? If it is dependent on proving a claim, in skepticism nothing is proven... So we have a problem.

Evidence is some information that supports a particular claim. Importantly, in order to be considered valid evidence, this information must be objective. In other words, any person can, in theory, at least, be able to gather information which will lead to the same conclusion.

There is no evidence for the Christian God (or any other God) that I have seen that meets this condition.

So a person that witnesses something real, alone, isnt evidence of something true they experience? Surely people can experience true things that will never be experienced by anyone else.

I think you guys just want to assert that there is no evidence for God, but really cant come to a good conclusion about what evidence can determine all truth and exclude God....

How is it we can get a definition that can encompass all things that are true? I dont think you can do it and come to the conclusion there is no evidence for God.

Yes, people can experience things that will never be experienced by anyone else. I have met people who claimed to have been abducted by aliens. They had their testimonies only. They could not provide any evidence to prove that aliens indeed came and abducted them and took them onboard their spaceships. Were these people telling the truth? Were these people lying? Were they dreaming? Were they hallucinating? I don't know. If you can prove that God exists, please do so with evidence. Testimonies don't count as evidence.

"Testimonies don't count as evidence."... Surely you cant say that... All history and past events are brought into the present by testimony of people... Are you willing to discredit all of history in an attempt to argue there is "no evidence" for God?

Testimonies can be lies, hallucinations, dreams, exaggerations, etc. That's why we need concrete evidence to find out the truth.

Testimony can also be true... Are you willing to throw out all true testimony?

Everything we haven't experienced for ourselves, that other people tell us of, is testimony... You are willing to say none of it is evidence? I am confident your own beliefs believe in things people have told you. Do you believe the south pole exists? Surely that belief is based on testimony.

I have seen the South Pole with my own eyes. Testimony is testimony. Evidence is evidence. If someone tells me that they coughed yesterday. I won't have difficulty accepting that as true. Coughing is an extremely common event when it comes to humans. However, if they said that they spoke with an angel yesterday, I will require concrete evidence that this is true before I can accept it as true.

[Shem Yoshi]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #23]

[Replying to Kylie in post #22]

I am looking for a working definition to understand the nonbelievers claim that there is "no evidence" for Christian God.

What is evidence, what isnt evidence? If it is dependent on proving a claim, in skepticism nothing is proven... So we have a problem.

Evidence is some information that supports a particular claim. Importantly, in order to be considered valid evidence, this information must be objective. In other words, any person can, in theory, at least, be able to gather information which will lead to the same conclusion.

There is no evidence for the Christian God (or any other God) that I have seen that meets this condition.

So a person that witnesses something real, alone, isnt evidence of something true they experience? Surely people can experience true things that will never be experienced by anyone else.

I think you guys just want to assert that there is no evidence for God, but really cant come to a good conclusion about what evidence can determine all truth and exclude God....

How is it we can get a definition that can encompass all things that are true? I dont think you can do it and come to the conclusion there is no evidence for God.

Yes, people can experience things that will never be experienced by anyone else. I have met people who claimed to have been abducted by aliens. They had their testimonies only. They could not provide any evidence to prove that aliens indeed came and abducted them and took them onboard their spaceships. Were these people telling the truth? Were these people lying? Were they dreaming? Were they hallucinating? I don't know. If you can prove that God exists, please do so with evidence. Testimonies don't count as evidence.

"Testimonies don't count as evidence."... Surely you cant say that... All history and past events are brought into the present by testimony of people... Are you willing to discredit all of history in an attempt to argue there is "no evidence" for God?

Testimonies can be lies, hallucinations, dreams, exaggerations, etc. That's why we need concrete evidence to find out the truth.

Testimony can also be true... Are you willing to throw out all true testimony?

Everything we haven't experienced for ourselves, that other people tell us of, is testimony... You are willing to say none of it is evidence? I am confident your own beliefs believe in things people have told you. Do you believe the south pole exists? Surely that belief is based on testimony.

I have seen the South Pole with my own eyes. Testimony is testimony. Evidence is evidence. If someone tells me that they coughed yesterday. I won't have difficulty accepting that as true. Coughing is an extremely common event when it comes to humans. However, if they said that they spoke with an angel yesterday, I will require concrete evidence that this is true before I can accept it as true.

You accepting it or not is rather irrelevant to whether it is actually true or not. Even very improbable events can be true, even if some people dont believe them, or even lets say no one believes it, it could still be true. That would be appealing to popularity anyways, which is a logical fallacy.

Are you willing to discredit things that could be actually true, in order to justify the claim that there is "no evidence" for God?

[Shem Yoshi]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #23]

[Replying to Kylie in post #22]

I am looking for a working definition to understand the nonbelievers claim that there is "no evidence" for Christian God.

What is evidence, what isnt evidence? If it is dependent on proving a claim, in skepticism nothing is proven... So we have a problem.

Evidence is some information that supports a particular claim. Importantly, in order to be considered valid evidence, this information must be objective. In other words, any person can, in theory, at least, be able to gather information which will lead to the same conclusion.

There is no evidence for the Christian God (or any other God) that I have seen that meets this condition.

So a person that witnesses something real, alone, isnt evidence of something true they experience? Surely people can experience true things that will never be experienced by anyone else.

I think you guys just want to assert that there is no evidence for God, but really cant come to a good conclusion about what evidence can determine all truth and exclude God....

How is it we can get a definition that can encompass all things that are true? I dont think you can do it and come to the conclusion there is no evidence for God.

Okay, and let's say a person has such an experience. Without any way to check it, how do they conclude that what they saw was real and not a hallucination?

Well we cant even conclude whether or not you are hallucinating now, can we? In skepticism, for all we know life may be a hallucination... Are you willing to say all of life might be untrue?

But lets say that some people could be hallucinating things that are not true, which i think is problematic to define but for the sake of argument lets say some people hallucinating things that arent true while others experience things that are true, are you willing to throw away all personal experience because a minority of personal experience might not be true?

This is the entire point of the thread, we need a working definition of evidence that includes all truth. If we have a definition of evidence that suggest some things that are actually true are arent true then it is no definition of evidence at all.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #38]

In law, 'evidence' is an item or information proffered to make the existence of a fact more or less probable. Evidence can take the form of testimony, documents, photographs, videos, voice recordings, DNA testing, or other tangible objects. Evidence can also consist of expert testimony.

Whenever the subject of evidence comes up, the burden of proof accompanies it. What happens as night follows day in these discussions, is that a theist or other believer in things for which there is no evidence, is that they will launch into an unreasonable resort to solipsism. This argument always consists of at least two fallacies. It is an argument from ignorance, plus an attempt at an extreme form of false equivalence.

Thus you can count on a believer in the supernatural saying "Well! You can't prove anything absolutely, so your proofs are not better than mine [for the ghosts and spirits they believe in without evidence].

Contrast this with the enormous stacks of evidence we have for water being wet and a spherical Earth orbiting a sun. We frequently, in law, have proof beyond reasonable doubt that something happened, like the amount of proof used to convict Alex Murdaugh in SC recently. We have sufficient proof of the way things work in the physical, astronomical, and engineering worlds, that we can land a person on he moon and bring him back. Yet when it comes to gods, ghosts, and goblins we have no evidence and cannot prove their existence by even the lowest standard, 'more likely than not.'

[Shem Yoshi]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #38]

In law, 'evidence' is an item or information proffered to make the existence of a fact more or less probable. Evidence can take the form of testimony, documents, photographs, videos, voice recordings, DNA testing, or other tangible objects. Evidence can also consist of expert testimony.

Whenever the subject of evidence comes up, the burden of proof accompanies it. What happens as night follows day in these discussions, is that a theist or other believer in things for which there is no evidence, is that they will launch into an unreasonable resort to solipsism. This argument always consists of at least two fallacies. It is an argument from ignorance, plus an attempt at an extreme form of false equivalence.

Thus you can count on a believer in the supernatural saying "Well! You can't prove anything absolutely, so your proofs are not better than mine [for the ghosts and spirits they believe in without evidence].

Contrast this with the enormous stacks of evidence we have for water being wet and a spherical Earth orbiting a sun. We frequently, in law, have proof beyond reasonable doubt that something happened, like the amount of proof used to convict Alex Murdaugh in SC recently. We have sufficient proof of the way things work in the physical, astronomical, and engineering worlds, that we can land a person on he moon and bring him back. Yet when it comes to gods, ghosts, and goblins we have no evidence and cannot prove their existence by even the lowest standard, 'more likely than not.'

I am not here to debate about whether or not God is true, that is for another thread, this is a discussion for determining the definition of evidence, or if there is evidence for Christianity.

Surely the definition of evidence must encompass all truth things. Right?

Also by the definition you gave for evidence... "Evidence can take the form of testimony, documents, ... or other tangible objects."

Everything you listed that was available 2000 years ago, we have as evidence for Christianity.