Claims aren't evidence?

[historia]

This is a video from Matt Dillahunty, an atheist activist, in which he addresses some criticisms he has received -- including, in his own words, "from some otherwise reasonable people" -- regarding his sweeping assertion that "claims are not evidence." The video is nearly 20 minutes long, but worth the watch.


Question for debate: Are claims evidence?

[historia]

And that once again demonstrates the essential problem with all of these ad hominem arguments you are making. There is no reason why an atheist couldn't agree with everything I said in that post.

I was correct. You are obfuscating with all the 'claims vs testimony vs proposition' - these are all things said, through language in one form or another. They all use referents to talk about things that may or may not be true.

Just because these distinct concepts all entail the use of language doesn't mean they are exactly the same thing. That's like saying there's no difference between accounting and astrophysics because they both entail the use of numbers.

In fact, if anything, obscuring the differences between these concepts would be, quite literally, obfuscating.

you are trying to twist this into some phrase or collection of phrases that get someone to agree that 'words, put in a certain form, are equal to evidence'.

I don't need to "twist" anything, as most people here already considered eyewitness testimony to be evidence long before they joined this thread.

You have yourself said you are willing to act on what your daughter has said, and think it's reasonable to believe that Pontius Pilate existed. And yet both are based entirely on testimony. You no doubt believe all kinds of things about the people around you and the events you read about in a standard history textbook, even though the vast majority of that is based mostly or entirely on testimony. Don't you believe things based on evidence?

You even thought that a receipt for a car was evidence. And yet it's just "words put in a certain form."

Again, let's be clear, we aren't trying to provide evidence that "Joey bought a car", but that "Jesus rose from the dead."

You can consider whatever examples you like. But, if you switch your criteria for what constitutes evidence depending on the example, that's special pleading.

It's patently obvious to everyone that words aren't the same as physical evidence. It's painfully obvious to everyone that solid, physical evidence would nullify even the most reliable person's testimony.

Except when the cop confesses to planting evidence at the crime scene or the forger confesses that the object he created is a fake.

Additionally, various types of evidence may carry different weight depending on which hypothesis we are considering. Bruising and blood stains on a victim may not, by themselves, tell us whether the victim accidentally fell down the stairs or was pushed. While eyewitness testimony would be more decisive evidence to consider.

But, generally speaking, yes, physical objects (properly analyzed) carry a lot of weight, and can certainly trump testimony. That doesn't mean testimony isn't evidence.

Except Christians.

All Christians?

William Lane Craig has famously said that if he went back in time to see Jesus die on the cross, and didn't see him come back to life, he would question his vision - not his belief that Jesus rose form the dead because of the accounts in the Bible.

I'm not familiar with this statement, got a link?

Also, once I can read what Craig has to say, do you think I should consider his words to be evidence for the proposition that Christians don't think physical objects can trump testimony? If not, why even cite this example? Shouldn't you be offering me physical evidence to support your claim instead?

[boatsnguitars]

He made the claim in a debate - can't remember which, but this will do:

Dr. Craig: Well, there’s a number of things, I think, that I would say about that. First of all, I think that I would tell them that they need to understand the proper relationship between faith and reason. And my view here is that the way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart, and that this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing that Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I don’t think that that controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit.

In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I’m in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that, in fact, the evidence—if I could get the correct picture—would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So, I think that it’s very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right. Otherwise, what that means is that our faith is dependent upon the shifting sands of evidence and argument, which change from person to person, place to place, and generation to generation. Whereas, the Holy Spirit and his testimony gives every generation and every person immediate access to a knowledge of God and the truth of Christianity that’s independent of the shifting sands of time and place and person and historical contingency.