Login

John 6IX Breezy · (This post was last modified: February 7, 2022 at 5:27 pm by John 6IX Breezy.)

(February 7, 2022 at 5:21 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Get rid of words like evidence? What is the proposition supposed to be consistent with, then?

Observation.

And it's good to see you again. I'm ready for a new season of debates lol.

**The Grand Nudger** · (This post was last modified: February 7, 2022 at 5:43 pm by The Grand Nudger.)

Can you give an example of a proposition which is consistent with observation but not consistent with evidence? Synonymous use cases suggest that any problem with evidence as semantics would also be a problem in the same way and for all of the same reasons if we instead used "consistent with observation".

Are you sure there's a problem with the word?

The Architect Of Fate

(February 7, 2022 at 5:21 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Get rid of words like evidence? What is the proposition supposed to be consistent with, then?

Conveniently rewriting Epistomoloy to shove god through the door.

**The Grand Nudger** · (This post was last modified: February 7, 2022 at 6:00 pm by The Grand Nudger.)

It would be a non starter for that purpose. If gods existence was consistent with evidence it would also, by default, be consistent with observation - and vv - but it's neither..even if we insist on separating them as individual categories.

To be frank, people who suggest we should stop working on the basis of what is consistent with evidence are not exploring or describing any problem with epistemology or with semantics - they're describing a problem that their pet proposition has with reality, in reality. Chiefly - that what they intend to assert is not evident. That is is unobserved and inconsistent with what has been observed, and is evident.

John 6IX Breezy · (This post was last modified: February 7, 2022 at 8:28 pm by John 6IX Breezy.)

(February 7, 2022 at 5:42 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Can you give an example of a proposition which is consistent with observation but not consistent with evidence? Synonymous use cases suggest that any problem with evidence as semantics would also be a problem in the same way and for all of the same reasons if we instead used "consistent with observation".

Are you sure there's a problem with the word?

The word evidence is often used synonymously with proof, as if establishing that a thing is true. A common mistake that undergraduates make is concluding that the outcome of an experiment can prove a hypothesis or be evidence for a theory. They treat the finding as if married to the thing being evidenced in an exclusive one-to-one relationship. But such is not the case. Evidence is polygamous and not a faithful spouse—it has many mistresses and concubines it can sleep with when you are not around.

The phrase consistent with, in contrast, doesn't marry the observation with the proposition. It treats them as parallel with each other, having no particular commitment or relationship.

**The Grand Nudger** · (This post was last modified: February 7, 2022 at 7:02 pm by The Grand Nudger.)

So, no examples of a position consistent with evidence but not observation? Okay, let's approach it from that other direction. Can you think of any issue or mistake or error we make by using consistent with evidence that would not be equally made by using consistent with observation? That was your original contention, if you'll recall. That we would make fewer mistakes if we subbed them out. Mistakes such as..?

John 6IX Breezy · (This post was last modified: February 7, 2022 at 8:18 pm by John 6IX Breezy.)

(February 7, 2022 at 6:59 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: So, no examples of a position consistent with evidence but not observation?

Hmm every observation can be considered evidence. But observation only becomes evidence inside people's head when they perceive a real or imaginary relationship. In other words—observation is objective, but evidence is always subjective and it doesn't do what people think it does. You shave all this excess fat by substituting the word.

**Neo-Scholastic** · February 7, 2022 at 10:41 pm

(February 6, 2022 at 2:43 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:
(February 6, 2022 at 2:20 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: And an atheist critic will say, that inserting the contingent/non-contingent qualifier up front allows the theist to conclude that there is at least one non-contingent cause. Maybe. What is the alterative? Everything is contingent on everyting else in a circular reference? Or nothing at all is contingent? Those who object to that distinction seem not to object to the notion that some things supervene on an ultimate physical ground that is fundamental. Sound the same conceptually.

What I’m mostly interested in is the rational justification for the proposition that physical reality itself must be contingent, and for what reasons a God’s existence has to be necessary where reality itself cannot be.

The simple answer is that physical models of reality appear to be accidental and arbitrary which suggests the various forces and constants could be otherwise. So why not?

Fireball · February 8, 2022 at 12:06 am

(February 7, 2022 at 10:41 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:
(February 6, 2022 at 2:43 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: What I’m mostly interested in is the rational justification for the proposition that physical reality itself must be contingent, and for what reasons a God’s existence has to be necessary where reality itself cannot be.

The simple answer is that physical models of reality appear to be accidental and arbitrary which suggests the various forces and constants could be otherwise. So why not?

Physical models closely approximate said reality, or they wouldn't be models thereof. I'm not sure how you can make such a statement about them and still breathe. You might be smart about something, but damfino what it s.

**The Grand Nudger** · (This post was last modified: February 8, 2022 at 3:20 am by The Grand Nudger.)

(February 7, 2022 at 7:41 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:
(February 7, 2022 at 6:59 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: So, no examples of a position consistent with evidence but not observation?

Hmm every observation can be considered evidence. But observation only becomes evidence inside people's head when they perceive a real or imaginary relationship. In other words—observation is objective, but evidence is always subjective and it doesn't do what people think it does. You shave all this excess fat by substituting the word.

Human observation is somehow less subjective than human apprehensions of evidence? What fat is shaved? Would it be fair to say that this is more on the theoretical side, rather than the practical - to do with how you might apprehend those two words, your relationship to them..and, ofc, the context of the discussion here?

It's my observation that you've failed to differentiate the two or present any example that would flesh out your contentions about them. You appear to be flogging personal dissatisfaction with a vague gripe about what people do. Is that observation evidence that you didn't have this idea put together well when you made those comments? Are you one of those people, doing that thing?

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Burden proof is coupled with burden to listen.	Mystic	59	17494	April 17, 2018 at 1:29 am Last Post: robvalue
	Atheist politician from Nebraska to churches: PAY YOUR TAXES	Ryantology	16	3728	January 25, 2014 at 12:34 am Last Post: Ryantology
	Why atheism always has a burden of proof	Vincenzo Vinny G.	358	166656	October 31, 2013 at 8:40 pm Last Post: Cyberman
	Burden of Proof	Mark 13:13	213	74794	January 12, 2013 at 7:38 pm Last Post: Cyberman
	Why do you think atheists pay so much attention to religion?	Judas BentHer	63	26417	June 2, 2012 at 7:19 pm Last Post: Angrboda
	The Burden of Proof	Atheistfreethinker	45	14869	August 24, 2011 at 6:10 pm Last Post: Jackalope