Pim: Sure, we can always consider "I have seen the light of God' as evidence
but evidence of what? What good is evidence if it has no meaning?
Evidence, like all things, derives its meaning from its context. Science
employs one particular context, thus evidence that does not fit this
context is not acknowledged. But there is no reason to think the
context that science is constrained by is the one and only one
way to Truth.
Mike: For example, a man has evidence that his spouse is faithful.
He has no proof. He simply has evidence (in many forms) that
substantiates his faith and trust in her. This evidence renders his
faith rational. But it is not scientific.
Pim: It isn't ?
Of course not. Name one scientific study which addresses the
fidelity of someone's spouse. Name one science course which
addresses the fidelity of someone's spouse. Better yet, why
not simply define 'science?'
>Science does not deal in proof, merely in evidence.
Define 'evidence.'
>And when the evidence points strongly to a certain position then
>that is the position science will take.
A certain position about what?
>That you call this 'faith and trust' merely confuses the issue.
>Faith is not based on any evidence.
Define 'faith.' I define faith to be essentially the same as
trust and trust is clearly built on some *perceived* evidence;
it just goes beyond the evidence.
Mike: The notion that the concept of evidence belongs only in
the domain of science is plainly wrong.
Pim: Sure, one can try to define evidence in the supernatural regime.
Care to try?
I am not defining evidence in the supernatural realm. I am
simply pointing out that not all evidence is admitted into
science because science restricts itself to certain questions
and a specific approach.
>Care to share your 'evidence of a God'?
I've already explained that I have no desire to fill everyone's
mail box with arguments about God. In fact, I'm afraid
we are quickly moving to a communication impasse.
[snip]
Mike: The value of evidence, like all values, is dependent on
the context and the person.
Pim: So evidence really is another word for faith after all. You
consider your faith evidence that God must exist.
Like I said, we are quickly moving to a communication
impasse as you have begun to attribute claims to me
that I have not made.
Mike: Perception of evidence for God's existence has always been
a controversial topic. The problem is that God's existence involves
a gestalt shift, not the discovery of one more thing. Neither can
we approach his existence in a truly objective manner, as his
existence entails all sorts of implications we may like or not
like.
Pim: So in the end there is no evidence for God's existence other
than some vague definition of what you believe God must be.
Is that what I said?
>That you already mentioned that objectivity cannot be
>applied makes the evidence of little value.
Then almost every belief humans create is of little value,
as my extensive experience with other humans has turned
up precious little objectivity (although I have known many
who believed they were objective). From my experience,
objectivity exists best when the question in dispute has
no major implications and can be resolved by *direct*
measurement. Once the questions begin to take on
larger implications and involve indirect detection,
objectivity decreases correspondingly. And of course,
I'm ignoring the whole dynamic whereby an individual's
ego gets involved (which is very common).
Mike: The point is that when you say scientific inquiry rules out
intelligent intervention (because there is no scientific evidence
for God's existence), this means nothing more than scientific
inquiry rules out intelligent intervention.
Pim: I did not say this. I said that there is no evidence of a God other
than a faith based belief which you call a subjective evidence.
Was it objectivity which led you to think I was calling faith evidence?
Yes, I know you think there is no evidence of a God. But how
do you know this? A religious person might point to beauty
as evidence of God's existence. You may not agree, but unless
you know there is no God, it is possible beauty might indeed
be evidence of God's existence. The only way you can know
there is no evidence of a God is to be omniscient. You are not.
You are thus left with a belief that there is no evidence of a
God. In other words, if you want to claim that you don't see any
evidence of a God, that is fine with me. But when you claim to
know there *is* no evidence of a God, you make an objective
truth claim which you cannot objectively demonstrate.
Mike