Pim: True, so let me repeat "what evidence" then?
First, let's get a handle on defining 'evidence' to
understand the importance of context.
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?'
Pim: 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.
Do you have any evidence for this claim? And must one set
up a scientific study before they can claim they have
evidence their spouse is faithful?
Pim: I think you have realized that this argument was erroneous.
Not at all. But perhaps you should define 'science' this time
around.
Pim:Science does not deal in proof, merely in evidence.
Mike: Define 'evidence.'
Pim: Objectively observable data.
Hmm. In my hand I hold a pen. It is objectively observable data.
Is it evidence? I see an apple on the table. It is objectively
observable data. Is it evidence? I'm afraid your definition of
evidence is meaningless and incoherent.
Pim:And when the evidence points strongly to a certain position then
that is the position science will take.
Mike: A certain position about what?
Pim: About what the evidence points to.
But what does it point to? You need to go back and define
'science' (since you apparently think evidence exists
only in the context of science).
Pim: 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.
Pim: Yes, it ignores it or makes it up. Perception is not what makes
evidence, it's what destroys evidence.
Interesting. Since we only know the world through perception,
and perception destroys evidence, no evidence exists.
Pim: Ask any lawyer how perception of the same incident can
vary among the witnesses.
Does it always and in all ways?
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.
Pim: Well then, define evidence outside science.
First I need you to define what you mean by evidence.
Your initial definition is incoherent.
Pim: 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.
Pim: We surely are when evidence of a God is still lacking.
That's only your opinion.
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.
Pim: "on the context and the person". "define trust and faith
as the same".
And how does this translate to a claim that my faith
is "evidence that God must exist?" You seem to be
working very hard in trying to attribute claims to
me.
[snip]
Pim: 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).
Pim: So what 'evidence' are we talking about here? Now you
call it personal experience with humans.
You are evading my point. Or you under the impression that
you have mastered the perfection of objectivity?
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.
Pim: Indeed, when no measurements exist or when the measurements
can not be repeated, speculation will start.
Yes, that's the extreme. Do you live a world of extremes?
Mike: And of course, I'm ignoring the whole dynamic whereby
an individual's ego gets involved (which is very common).
Pim: True, faith based reasoning can lead to some bias in
thought for instance.
Bias in thought has many sources.
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?
Pim: 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.
Perhaps this is only evidence that those who say there is
evidence have better things to do than waste time arguing
with someone who is convinced there "*is* no evidence of
a God."
Mike: A religious person might point to beauty as evidence
of God's existence.
Pim: An unquantifiable, subjective and unmeasurable opinion.
Sure, like evil, pain, suffering; you know, things offered
as evidence against the existence of God.
Pim: Evidence has been given a whole new meaning here...
No more new than the arguments which employ the existence
of evil as evidence against the existence of God.
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.
Pim: Sure, as might be anything else we may conjure up as 'evidence'.
Then you agree that you don't know there "is no evidence
of a God." That's the point.
Mike: The only way you can know there is no evidence of a God is
to be omniscient. You are not.
Pim: What evidence do you have that I am not?
Well, what did I have for dinner last night? An omniscient
being should be able to tell me that. In fact, you can prop
up your omniscience with all the science in the world.
I did have something for dinner last night. This is reality.
Now, detect it using science and your omniscience.
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.
Pim: Okay, let me rephrase it to satisfiy your insistance that evidence
might pop up.
I'm not insisting evidence might pop up. I simply highlighting
that your claim "there is no evidence of a God" is a subjective
opinion, yet you proposed it as an objective fact about the
world.
Pim: There is at present no evidence known to me of a God.
Much better. But I really don't care if you don't see any
evidence of a God. If I see evidence and you don't, it means
that either one of us is blind or the other is deluded. And that's
where it ends.
Pim: Any takers to provide me with such evidence? Without
redefining the meaning of the word of course. Measurable objective
data please.
Well, first I'd need some evidence that you can deal with this
issue in a manner that is fair and without bias. Otherwise, it
would be a waste of my precious time.
Mike