Pim: True, so let me repeat "what evidence" then?
Mike: First, let's get a handle on defining 'evidence' to understand the importance of context.
I discussed this with my wife and she pointed out that we are likely discussing two different forms of evidence, one known as circumstantial evidence, the other as 'hard' evidence.
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.
Mike: 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?
Nope, one can always make such a claim. But what if this is based on paranoia? What if it is based on the husband working late to earn a living for his family? What if the other spouse is jealous, insecure?
Pim: Objectively observable data.
Mike: Hmm. In my hand I hold a pen. It is objectively observable data. Is it evidence?
Observable to you only.
Mike: 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.
Well at least we have something in common then.
Mike: 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).
I will concede that circumstantial evidence can exist. Of course the value of such evidence is minimal. It's accepted more on faith than fact.
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.
Mike: Interesting. Since we only know the world through perception,
and perception destroys evidence, no evidence exists.
Again you fail to see the point. That's why the data has to be observable i.e. more than one can study the evidence.
Pim: Ask any lawyer how perception of the same incident can
vary among the witnesses.
Mike: Does it always and in all ways?
There is nothing in my statement which suggests such. Perhaps you should spend some more time on actually reading what you respond to,
Pim: Well then, define evidence outside science.
Mike: First I need you to define what you mean by evidence. Your initial definition is incoherent.
And your inability to even attempt a definition is quite telling. As is your attempt to obfuscate.
Pim: We surely are when evidence of a God is still lacking.
Mike: That's only your opinion.
Sure, but my opinion is strongly supported by any lack of evidence on your part. If your claim is that I am wrong then you should be able to do so. So in short, it's an opinion supported by the circumstance of you not being able to address it.
Mike: 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.
So we do have two things in common now? Perhaps you should consider your own stance before complaining about others? Your faith is based on circumstantial evidence which requires faith to be interpreted.
Pim: So what 'evidence' are we talking about here? Now you
call it personal experience with humans.
Mike: You are evading my point. Or you under the impression that
you have mastered the perfection of objectivity?
Nope I am not talking about me here. But what evidence are we talking about then? Personal experience with humans?
Pim: Indeed, when no measurements exist or when the measurements
can not be repeated, speculation will start.
Mike: Yes, that's the extreme. Do you live a world of extremes?
That's hardly the extreme dear Mike. When measurable data are lacking speculation will start.
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.
Mike: 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."
More evidence of attempts on your part to avoid discussing the real issue. Your attempts only serve further to undermine your position.
Mike: A religious person might point to beauty as evidence
of God's existence.
Pim: An unquantifiable, subjective and unmeasurable opinion.
Pim: Sure, like evil, pain, suffering; you know, things offered as evidence against the existence of God.
Strawman... Nice try though
Pim: Evidence has been given a whole new meaning here...
Mike: No more new than the arguments which employ the existence
of evil as evidence against the existence of God.
More strawmen. Mike oh Mike stick to my arguments.
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'.
Mike: Then you agree that you don't know there "is no evidence
of a God." That's the point.
If conjuring up evidence is the kind of evidence you are refering to then we agree that circumstantial evidence may exist. But since it is interpreted subjectively it fails to provide much real evidence. More is required than circumstantial evidence to 'convict'.
Pim: Okay, let me rephrase it to satisfiy your insistance that evidence
might pop up.
Mike: 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.
Yet you fail to provide us with evidence...
Pim: There is at present no evidence known to me of a God.
Mike: 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.
Or that we just tend to need to interpret data to fit our faith? I would not call you deluded in your faith. After all many have reached on faith alone the conclusion that a God exists. THat such colors what you consider 'evidence' is obvious, it's a personal interpretation of what you see to match what you believe. That is possible since no 'hard' evidence exists one way or the other.
Pim: Any takers to provide me with such evidence? Without
redefining the meaning of the word of course. Measurable objective
data please.
Mike: 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.
And yet you did not mind spending this time arguing strawmen? You should spend more time on your excuses for not being able to show evidence.