Evidence Types

[Justus]

On 11/12/2019 at 12:26 PM, florduh said:

Mat 16:4 informs us that no sign shall be given. In other words, believe and have faith for no particular reason other than someone told you so. That's about as lame as it gets.

 

Since the scriptures in Matthew 16:4 doesn't state that no sign would would be given to a wicked and adulterous generation, then even the evidence of the actual scripture wouldn't qualify as evidence of your misinterpretation of the scripture. 

 

But that reason you believed in the scriptures to begin with is because you are what they call a believer.  A believer is someone who summarily believes whatever they choose  to believe is true or whatever they choose to believe is false. 

 

 The believer doesn't necessary require any data in order for them to believe what they choose to believe, and the believer will not believe any data that contradicts what they choose to believe is true.  

 

9 hours ago, florduh said:

You know what we mean by evidence. You also know what is NOT evidence.

 

How does he know what you believe evidence means?   IMO what you mean by evidence is whatever facts you choose to believe are true is evidence and whatever facts you believe contradicts your belief isn't going to be considered evidence.   So do you know the difference between proof and belief?

 

I will even give you an example so you can prove you know the difference:

• An intoxicated  truck driver is standing next to his semi in a truck stop parking lot when the cops pull up and begin questioning him about who was the driver of the truck.  The truck driver stated that it was his semi..
• The cops asked him if there was anyone else had been with him or had been driving the truck.  The truck driver states that he was a solo driver and nobody else had been with him or had driven his truck at any time that day.
•  The cops asked him if had been drinking alcohol and the truck driver acknowledged having been drinking alcohol but said that he wouldn't even think about driving his semi after drinking any amount of alcohol much less in the condition he was presently in.   The truck driver admitted that he had no doubt that he couldn't pass a sobriety test for driving. 
• The cops then tell him that they believe he had been he just pulled in an parked and were going to arrest him for driving a commercial vehicle while intoxicated.  The truck driver protested claiming that they were mistaken.
• The cops then inform the truck driver that they were responding to 911 calls from three different motorists that report that a semi driving erratically had just nearly run them off the road and gave his vehicle description with his license plate number being driven by a person meeting his general appearance which they following into the truck stop where they found him parked.  The truck driver again claimed that they were mistaken.

 

Based upon all the facts stated above being true and correct, then would that be sufficient evidence to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that the truck driver was correctly identified by the 911 callers and the accusation of driving while intoxicated was true?  

 

Or would you choose to believe the truck driver simply because he claimed that he didn't do what they said he did therefore there couldn't be sufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

 

 

 

 

[Justus]

12 hours ago, Astreja said:

Edgarcito, the failure to communicate seems to be on your end of the line.  We keep saying "physical evidence" and you keep insisting that there's something else that we might accept in its place.

 

How about the physical evidence regarding the fact that only man has the ability to communicate using the spoken word?  

 

Do you think that the ability to speak evolved naturally?  If the ability to vocalize sounds into words is something that occurs naturally then obviously the first humans wouldn't have had to begin speaking in they earlier years but could have begun developing the ability to speak at any point during their lifetime. Right?

 

However, why do you think primates lack the ability to communicate using the spoken word?  Maybe because primates haven't evolve the necessary vocal anatomy to produce intelligible speech.

 

 

 

[WalterP]

16 hours ago, Justus said:

 

  A believer is someone who summarily believes whatever they choose  to believe is true or whatever they choose to believe is false. 

 

 The believer doesn't necessary require any data in order for them to believe what they choose to believe, and the believer will not believe any data that contradicts what they choose to believe is true.  

 

 

Justus,

 

The problem with giving the believer total freedom to believe whatever they want about what they've seen or heard, regardless of what actually happened is the problem of subjectivity.  

 

John 12 : 27 - 29

 

²⁷ “Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour.

 

²⁸ Father, glorify your name!”

Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.”

 

 ²⁹ The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him.

 

One thing happened, but those witnessing it gave three different versions of the same thing.  Jesus heard his Father speak. Some of the crowd heard an angel and some heard thunder.  So, which one is true?  And why?

 

Compare that to the parting of the Red Sea by Moses.  All the Israelites and the Egyptian army saw that and they all agreed on what they say and heard.

 

So which kind of testimony carries more weight?  Collective witnesses or individual witness?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[mwc]

 

1 hour ago, Justus said:

However, why do you think primates lack the ability to communicate using the spoken word?  Maybe because primates haven't evolve the necessary vocal anatomy to produce intelligible speech.

     Humans are primates.

 

          mwc

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 hours ago, Justus said:

Based upon all the facts stated above being true and correct, then would that be sufficient evidence to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that the truck driver was correctly identified by the 911 callers and the accusation of driving while intoxicated was true?  

This is a good example of the difference between evidence and convincing factors.  Certainly, there is enough hearsay, conjecture, and circumstantial evidence here to convince us that the driver is guilty; but there is not enough evidence to convict him in a court of law.  Thanks for playing.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 hours ago, Justus said:

How does he know what you believe evidence means?   

1.  He has access to the same dictionaries we use

2.  We've been explaing it to him for 4 pages now

3.  You need to stop being a troll

[Edgarcito]

Definition of evidence

 (Entry 1 of 2)

1a : an outward sign : indication

b : something that furnishes proof : testimony specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter

2 : one who bears witness especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against one's accomplices

 

 

ev·i·dence

/ˈevədəns/

noun

noun: evidence

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

    

    

   Found these two definitions readily available but not really in agreement, so I posted both:

    

    

    

    

    

    

[midniterider]

9 hours ago, Justus said:

 

Since the scriptures in Matthew 16:4 doesn't state that no sign would would be given to a wicked and adulterous generation, then even the evidence of the actual scripture wouldn't qualify as evidence of your misinterpretation of the scripture. 

 

But that reason you believed in the scriptures to begin with is because you are what they call a believer.  A believer is someone who summarily believes whatever they choose  to believe is true or whatever they choose to believe is false. 

 

 The believer doesn't necessary require any data in order for them to believe what they choose to believe, and the believer will not believe any data that contradicts what they choose to believe is true.  

 

 

How does he know what you believe evidence means?   IMO what you mean by evidence is whatever facts you choose to believe are true is evidence and whatever facts you believe contradicts your belief isn't going to be considered evidence.   So do you know the difference between proof and belief?

 

I will even give you an example so you can prove you know the difference:

• An intoxicated  truck driver is standing next to his semi in a truck stop parking lot when the cops pull up and begin questioning him about who was the driver of the truck.  The truck driver stated that it was his semi..
• The cops asked him if there was anyone else had been with him or had been driving the truck.  The truck driver states that he was a solo driver and nobody else had been with him or had driven his truck at any time that day.
•  The cops asked him if had been drinking alcohol and the truck driver acknowledged having been drinking alcohol but said that he wouldn't even think about driving his semi after drinking any amount of alcohol much less in the condition he was presently in.   The truck driver admitted that he had no doubt that he couldn't pass a sobriety test for driving. 
• The cops then tell him that they believe he had been he just pulled in an parked and were going to arrest him for driving a commercial vehicle while intoxicated.  The truck driver protested claiming that they were mistaken.
• The cops then inform the truck driver that they were responding to 911 calls from three different motorists that report that a semi driving erratically had just nearly run them off the road and gave his vehicle description with his license plate number being driven by a person meeting his general appearance which they following into the truck stop where they found him parked.  The truck driver again claimed that they were mistaken.

 

Based upon all the facts stated above being true and correct, then would that be sufficient evidence to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that the truck driver was correctly identified by the 911 callers and the accusation of driving while intoxicated was true?  

 

Or would you choose to believe the truck driver simply because he claimed that he didn't do what they said he did therefore there couldn't be sufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cops have told me  (I used to work with them) it's nearly impossible to get a DUI/DWI conviction unless the accused can be 'placed behind the wheel', as in the guy gets pulled over while intoxicated or is found drunk inside his vehicle while parked or stopped somewhere. 

 

While the evidence in your scenario seems reasonable enough to me to bust a drunk driver, historically , juries tend not to convict with this kind of evidence. 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

The question now is, per the definitions, can it be called evidence without being equated with proof.  SURELY it can.    Whether we can prove it, i.e. document or find both sides of the coin is on us. 

 

Looks like a slam dunk here folks. 

[midniterider]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

The question now is, per the definitions, can it be called evidence without being equated with proof.  SURELY it can.    Whether we can prove it, i.e. document or find both sides of the coin is on us. 

 

Looks like a slam dunk here folks. 

 

What's a slam dunk?  Yes, evidence is not proof. 

[florduh]

Here is something Christians should consider as evidence - the faith healer who wears glasses and a toupee, conjoined twins, childhood cancer, trillions of unanswered prayers and our venerable ten year old sex slave's predicament.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

The question now is, per the definitions, can it be called evidence without being equated with proof.  SURELY it can.    Whether we can prove it, i.e. document or find both sides of the coin is on us. 

 

Looks like a slam dunk here folks. 

No, proof and evidence are not the same.  Proof only occurs in mathematics and distillation.  The term "proof" is often bandied about in courts of law, much like the term "theory" in the commoners tongue.  But evidence, even scientific evidence, doesn't actually "prove" so much as it supports an observation or hypothesis.

 

To address your point more directly, no amount of evidence will ever prove the existence of god. 

[Edgarcito]

44 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

To address your point more directly, no amount of evidence will ever prove the existence of god. 

Ok, well, the good news is not long ago we were qualifying evidence.  Now we may move forward.

[midniterider]

Why do we need to look for evidence or believe in an all-powerful being? 

 

If it actually were real we would experience it, see it, touch it. 

 

The excuse "we are in a time period where jesus is hiding" is a laugh. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

11 minutes ago, midniterider said:

Why do we need to look for evidence or believe in an all-powerful being? 

 

If it actually were real we would experience it, see it, touch it. 

 

The excuse "we are in a time period where jesus is hiding" is a laugh. 

Now this touches upon the difference between knowledge and belief.  Knowledge has evidence.  We can say that we know Rome exists because there is all sorts of evidence to support the claim (historical documents, satellite images, Romans... the aqueduct).  We can believe we will have a safe flight on a particular airline because there are certain factors to convince us of it (safety reports, pilot training, previous flight experiences).

 

Two erroneous questions immediately come to mind:

1.  Do you believe in evolution?

2.  Do you know the lord jesus?

These questions are both improperly framed because the incorrect verb has been applied.

 

Nobody believes in evolution.  As a biological scientist, I certainly do not.  There is enough supporting evidence, from multiple scientific disciplines, for evolution to be accepted as factual (as close as we can get, anyway).  It is knowable.

 

The lord jesus, contrariwise, has no supporting evidence; he has only a handful of convincing factors at his disposal (bible, testimonies, 3rd-hand witnesses, etc. ).  The lord is, therefore, not knowable, and one can only believe in him or not.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

49 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Ok, well, the good news is not long ago we were qualifying evidence.  Now we may move forward.

Ok, well, the bad news is that no one besides yourself has attempted to qualify evidence.  But, by all means, sir, proceed.

[Astreja]

22 hours ago, Justus said:

 

How about the physical evidence regarding the fact that only man has the ability to communicate using the spoken word?  

 

Do you think that the ability to speak evolved naturally?  If the ability to vocalize sounds into words is something that occurs naturally then obviously the first humans wouldn't have had to begin speaking in they earlier years but could have begun developing the ability to speak at any point during their lifetime. Right?

 

However, why do you think primates lack the ability to communicate using the spoken word?  Maybe because primates haven't evolve the necessary vocal anatomy to produce intelligible speech.

 

I am quite sure that the ability to speak is 100% natural.  The human brain has been evolving for a long time, and human culture for just as long.  We don't actually know how the first humans communicated, or when, or indeed which particular hominid species was the first to use spoken language.  Perhaps our other relatives among the primates lack Broca's area.

[Astreja]

8 hours ago, midniterider said:

Why do we need to look for evidence or believe in an all-powerful being? 

 

If it actually were real we would experience it, see it, touch it. 

 

The excuse "we are in a time period where jesus is hiding" is a laugh. 

 

Indeed, why bother believing in something that, for all intents and purposes, appears to be nonexistent?  What a waste of time.

[LogicalFallacy]

On ‎11‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 9:36 PM, Justus said:

How about the physical evidence regarding the fact that only man has the ability to communicate using the spoken word?

 

So in context, the evidence we are talking about is evidence for God yes. And your reply to Astreja is as quoted. That's your evidence for God? Humans can communicate?

 

How is that not God of the gaps at the end of the day?

 

Also why is our ability to communicate via a voice box more astounding than, say, dolphins using clicks whistles and echolocation, or insects with pheromones? There are some amazing ways other animals communicate.

 

 

Quote

Do you think that the ability to speak evolved naturally?

 

All evidence points to it so far. Do you have evidence for some other hypothesis?

 

Quote

  If the ability to vocalize sounds into words is something that occurs naturally then obviously the first humans wouldn't have had to begin speaking in they earlier years but could have begun developing the ability to speak at any point during their lifetime. Right?

 

However, why do you think primates lack the ability to communicate using the spoken word?  Maybe because primates haven't evolve the necessary vocal anatomy to produce intelligible speech.

 

Your point here? I'm generally agreeing with what I understand your sentences to be, but fail to see the issue in regards to humans. You realize humans were not the only primates with the ability to develop complex language? It's just that homo sapiens are the only surviving primates with the ability to do so.

 

 

[Justus]

On 11/16/2019 at 4:01 AM, WalterP said:

 

Justus,

 

The problem with giving the believer total freedom to believe whatever they want about what they've seen or heard, regardless of what actually happened is the problem of subjectivity.  

 

John 12 : 27 - 29

 

²⁷ “Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour.

 

²⁸ Father, glorify your name!”

Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.”

 

 ²⁹ The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him.

 

One thing happened, but those witnessing it gave three different versions of the same thing.  Jesus heard his Father speak. Some of the crowd heard an angel and some heard thunder.  So, which one is true?  And why?

 

Compare that to the parting of the Red Sea by Moses.  All the Israelites and the Egyptian army saw that and they all agreed on what they say and heard.

 

So which kind of testimony carries more weight?  Collective witnesses or individual witness?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

That is a great question.  Have you ever considered that they are describing one thing yet in three different ways. 

 

For example, if one witness saw a red car, the second witness saw a late-model automobile and the third witness saw a cadillac drive away from the bank that was robbed, then which one was true, or did they see a red late-model cadillac drive away from the bank that was robbed.

 

I believe you will find that they all three are true, however each one describes an electromagnetic sound wave, unlike the mechanical sound wave.  However, this form of sound wave is produced by the acoustic radiation produced within the  co-axial band of light that form the circuits of the electromagnetic field which created the expanse of space in which all physical matter inhabits.  

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Justus said:

Have you ever considered that they are describing one thing yet in three different ways. 

 

 

[WalterP]

1 hour ago, Justus said:

 

That is a great question.  Have you ever considered that they are describing one thing yet in three different ways. 

 

For example, if one witness saw a red car, the second witness saw a late-model automobile and the third witness saw a cadillac drive away from the bank that was robbed, then which one was true, or did they see a red late-model cadillac drive away from the bank that was robbed.

 

I believe you will find that they all three are true, however each one describes an electromagnetic sound wave, unlike the mechanical sound wave.  However, this form of sound wave is produced by the acoustic radiation produced within the  co-axial band of light that form the circuits of the electromagnetic field which created the expanse of space in which all physical matter inhabits.  

 

 

 

Justus,

 

You seem to have missed the context (the first sentence) in which I quoted John 12.  I was responding to your claims about believers having total freedom to believe what they want, regardless of what's written in the Bible..

 

 A believer is someone who summarily believes whatever they choose  to believe is true or whatever they choose to believe is false. 

The believer doesn't necessary require any data in order for them to believe what they choose to believe, and the believer will not believe any data that contradicts what they choose to believe is true.  

 

Since you have total freedom to believe anything you want, regardless of the data, why do you believe ANYTHING that the Bible says?

 

If you don't need any data (i.e., the Bible) why do you bother with it?

 

Why not believe the Quran instead of the Bible?

 

Please answer these three questions.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[WalterP]

1 hour ago, Justus said:

 

That is a great question.  Have you ever considered that they are describing one thing yet in three different ways. 

 

 

 

But why are you bothering to harmonize these three things in the data, when you're allowed to believe whatever you want regardless of the data?

 

1 hour ago, Justus said:

 

 

 

For example, if one witness saw a red car, the second witness saw a late-model automobile and the third witness saw a cadillac drive away from the bank that was robbed, then which one was true, or did they see a red late-model cadillac drive away from the bank that was robbed.

 

I believe you will find that they all three are true, however each one describes an electromagnetic sound wave, unlike the mechanical sound wave.  However, this form of sound wave is produced by the acoustic radiation produced within the  co-axial band of light that form the circuits of the electromagnetic field which created the expanse of space in which all physical matter inhabits.  

 

 

 

Why does it matter to you that the Bible be true?  You have the freedom to ignore what the data says.

 

Don't you practice what you preach and believe whatever you want regardless of what the Bible says?

 

If the Bible said that Jesus had two heads, you could just ignore that because you're going to believe whatever you want, regardless of what scripture says, aren't you?

 

 

Hint:

You may want to re-think and change what you said about believers believing whatever they want, regardless of the data, Justus.  The data (Bible) is the same for all Christians.  Perhaps you actually meant that, within certain limits, believers can choose to believe what they want about the data, not regardless of it?

[Justus]

 

44 minutes ago, WalterP said:

But why are you bothering to harmonize these three things in the data, when you're allowed to believe whatever you want regardless of the data?

You obviously can't grasp that there is a difference between believing and having faith.

 

[Justus]

1 hour ago, WalterP said:

I was responding to your claims about believers having total freedom to believe what they want, regardless of what's written in the Bible..

 

Actually I overlooked your comment because I never made any such statement, but of course you believe I did so there really isn't reason to discuss it.

 

Quote

 The believer doesn't necessary require any data in order for them to believe what they choose to believe, and the believer will not believe any data that contradicts what they choose to believe is true.  

 

Just believe whatever you want to believe .