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?
Mike: 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.
True, so let me repeat "what evidence" then?
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 ?
Mike: 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?'
Oh boy, we were talking about evidence in that context versus proof. But yes one could set up a study to determine the fidelity of one's spouse. I think you have realized that this argument was erroneous.
>Science does not deal in proof, merely in evidence.
Mike: Define 'evidence.'
Objectively observable data.
>And when the evidence points strongly to a certain position then
>that is the position science will take.
Mike: A certain position about what?
About what the evidence points to.
>That you call this 'faith and trust' merely confuses the issue.
>Faith is not based on any evidence.
Mike: 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.
Yes, it ignores it or makes it up. Perception is not what makes evidence, it's what destroys evidence. Ask any lawyer how perception of the same incident can vary among the witnesses.
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?
Mike: 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.
Well then, define evidence outside science.
>Care to share your 'evidence of a God'?
Mike: 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.
We surely are when evidence of a God is still lacking.
[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.
Mike: 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.
"on the context and the person". "define trust and faith as the same".
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.
Mike: Is that what I said?
that is certainly my perception of the 'evidence' you have given so far.
>That you already mentioned that objectivity cannot be
>applied makes the evidence of little value.
Mike: 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).
So what 'evidence' are we talking about here? Now you call it personal experience with humans.
Mike: 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.
Indeed, when no measurements exist or when the measurements can not be repeated, speculation will start.
Mike: And of course, I'm ignoring the whole dynamic whereby an individual's
ego gets involved (which is very common).
True, faith based reasoning can lead to some bias in thought for instance.
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.
Mike: 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?
Well, there might always be such evidence but given the reluctance or inability of those who say that there is evidence, to provide such evidence surely is evidence of absence.
Mike: A religious person might point to beauty as evidence of God's existence.
An unquantifiable, subjective and unmeasurable opinion. Evidence has been given a whole new meaning here...
Mike: You may not agree, but unless you know there is no God, it is possible beauty might indeed
be evidence of God's existence.
Sure, as might be anything else we may conjure up as 'evidence'.
Mike: The only way you can know there is no evidence of a God is to be omniscient. You are not.
What evidence do you have that I am not?
Mike: 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.
Okay, let me rephrase it to satisfiy your insistance that evidence might pop up. There is at present no evidence known to me of a God.
Any takers to provide me with such evidence? Without redefining the meaning of the word of course.
Measurable objective data please.