|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The God That Paul Marketed Over Time. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
1. pisteuo NT:4100, "to believe," also "to be persuaded of," and hence, "to place confidence in, to trust," signifies, in this sense of the word, reliance upon, not mere credence.
"Not mere credence".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Not mere belief for the sake of belief. Evidence is not a prerequisite although I might argue that each and every believer has been convinced.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.~Proverbs 28:26
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
Of course evidence is not a prerequisite. If there is evidence, there is no need for belief. Believers are convinced by something other than evidence.
Evidence is not a prerequisite although I might argue that each and every believer has been convinced.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9
|
ringo writes: Of course evidence is not a prerequisite. If there is evidence, there is no need for belief. Believers are convinced by something other than evidence. Nonsense. Evidence may or may not be conclusive. If it isn't conclusive the any conclusion you might draw is a belief.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Nonsense. Evidence may or may not be conclusive. If it isn't conclusive the any conclusion you might draw is a belief. Nonsense, GDR. Your dueling dictionary definitions only obfuscate the real and important distinctions between the philosophies. For the purposes of this discussion the word evidence is used as code for evidence-based conclusions; conclusions that are based upon the best available evidence known at the time, the opinion of conclusive or not, notwithstanding. The point drawn here is that as the evidence changes the conclusions also change. Belief, on the other hand, is used in this discussion as meaning an idea that, though it may have originally formed from initial evidence, remains even as the evidence changes conclusively and compellingly so. Geocentrism is an excellent example. Before Aristarchus, the best evidence in the human experience held that the world was stationary and the universe revolved around the earth. The church, in keeping with the view that god created this special place for man, embraced the concept as a proof of their faith. Along comes Copernicus and Kepler, evidence of heliocentrism arises, but the church held to their geocentric belief as a matter of faith regardless of the mounting evidence to the contrary even to the point of intellectual embarrassment. Ringo is correct. If there is evidence, there is no need for belief. The philosophical underpinnings of the two views, as used in this discussion, are opposite. Obfuscating the definitions does not further the discussion. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
Evidence versus no evidence IS conclusive. The conclusion may turn out to be wrong - no conclusion is final - but ANY evidence-based conclusion is superior to an unevidenced belief.
Evidence may or may not be conclusive. If it isn't conclusive the any conclusion you might draw is a belief.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
GDR writes: Evidence may or may not be conclusive. Can you give an example of some evidence that is not conclusive? My understanding is that "data" may or may not be conclusive.But "evidence" is always conclusive based on it's very definition: Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. When data is conclusive, we call such data "evidence" for that conclusion.How can facts indicate a proposition is true... but not be conclusive? Everything is "evidence" of something (at the very least, it will be evidence of it's own existence).But once you start talking about a specific idea, everything is "data" and only a few things will be "evidence" for that conclusion. If it "may or may not" lead to the idea being correct... then it's not evidence for that idea. It could still be evidence for something else... but who cares? Everything is evidence for it's own existence, and probably a few other irrelevant details. When talking about evidence, it is implied that you are speaking about the *relevant details*. And this relevancy changes depending on the idea and context being discussed. Anything else becomes: -not really understanding what the word 'evidence' means-creating a strawman in order to push a different agenda -intentionally confusing the situation in order to push a different agenda So you can see how easily it is to mistake someone who simply doesn't understand the word 'evidence' as someone who does understand the term, and it purposefully using it incorrectly for their own intentions. It's fairly easy to play around with the term 'evidence' and get confused if you mess up what idea or context you're discussing.Science takes a lot of time, patience and honesty to make sure they get things right. The more you use the term correctly (and understand the corrections that other's make for the term's use...) the more you understand the subtleties.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Your fingerprints were found at a crime scene which happens to be in your own house. Those fingerprints are evidence. Are they conclusive? The knife came from your kitchen and also has your fingerprints (and several others) on it. Is that conclusive? Evidence means any fact which once establishes makes it more likely that a particular proposition is correct.
How can facts indicate a proposition is true... but not be conclusive? Quite easily. Use your imagination. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Stile writes: Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Here is the wiki definition of scientific evidence.
quote: The evidence supported or counters a theory but it doesn't make the conclusion certain. Obviously as well people can look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions which might well be based on their existing beliefs.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
... and come to different conclusions which might well be based on their existing beliefs. That is correct and that is called confirmation bias. It is the reason peer review exists as part of the process; to make sure, as much as possible, that only logical deduction is used to flow from evidence-to-conclusion instead of having the intermediate step of belief in the way. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
AZPaul3 writes: That is correct and that is called confirmation bias. It is the reason peer review exists as part of the process; to make sure, as much as possible, that only logical deduction is used to flow from evidence-to-conclusion instead of having the intermediate step of belief in the way. Yes but that does not change the fact that there was evidence that wasn't conclusive. The individual bias that factored into the conclusion doesn't change the fact that there was evidence to be considered.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Yes but that does not change the fact that there was evidence that wasn't conclusive. The individual bias that factored into the conclusion doesn't change the fact that there was evidence to be considered. What does this even mean? A piece of evidence is never conclusive. How one treats all of the evidence in total CAN be conclusive. In science that treatment is through logical deduction devoid, as much as possible, of personal bias, belief, emotion. Without such a treatment one can conclude anything from any evidence. The sun rises in the east. The sun sets in the west. The moon and the stars rotate across the sky. Therefore, yellow polka-dotted pink elephants exist and they all wear digital watches. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Stile said this earlier:[quote]My understanding is that "data" may or may not be conclusive.
But "evidence" is always conclusive based on it's very definition:[/qs] My point is that evidence, even in the field of science is not always, (or I'd even argue usually), conclusive.
AZPaul3 writes: That is evidence and people often used that evidence to conclude that the Earth was the centre of the universe and everything revolved around the Earth. The evidence wasn't conclusive, but it was still evidence. In this case it turns out that the conclusion they came to, based on the evidence, was wrong. The sun rises in the east. The sun sets in the west. The moon and the stars rotate across the sky.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Stile said this earlier: My understanding is that "data" may or may not be conclusive. But "evidence" is always conclusive based on it's very definition: I can understand Stile's point given the popular vernacular definitions but I will contend that in most applications in science the evidence is the data. How one treats the evidence is key. If one analyses the evidence logically, tied step-by-step in a chain of demonstrable cause and effect, one can arrive at a logically defensible conclusion in which other peers in the discipline can agree. Yes, that wonderfully logical treatment of the evidence, that so clearly evidenced conclusion, may be wrong. Or we may say this body of evidence, these facts in aggregate, may be indicative but are not conclusive (meaning that the causal chain between the body of evidence and any conclusion cannot be sustained). That happens a lot when the best evidence, data, information, presently available is, unknowingly yet, incomplete. This is one of the philosophical underpinnings of science; not matter how confident we are in our conclusions they are only tentative pending further evidence. Find me a neutrino that travels through the Italian mountains at faster-than-light speed. The evidence changes - the conclusion changes. And that points up this sub-topic. Belief is static, inflexible and insistent to the point of absurdity and beyond. The track record of scientific conclusions going from wrong to right is well known. The track record of belief going from wrong to still wrong to the point of a sword is also well known. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
Yes. The conclusion is that you may not be guilty.
The knife came from your kitchen and also has your fingerprints (and several others) on it. Is that conclusive?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024