RE: Why do you actually believe in God?
June 29, 2016 at 4:30 pm
(This post was last modified: June 29, 2016 at 4:34 pm by Ignorant.)
Chad's definition of evidence predates the alternative presented by excited penguin. There is no need to fight over it, so allow me to attempt a distinction:
Chad's evidence = things that are EVIDENT. In other words, there are things clearly observable and "evident" to anyone (but do not, of themselves, argue for or relate to any proposition). Raw Data.
An example: the fossil record (as we know it, the fossil record is "evident" to us). If you ask, "evident of what", then you missed the distinction. It is merely a fact.
Excited Penguin's evidence = the modern understanding of "evidence". In other words, "evidence" is "raw data" already considered in relation to a proposition (e.g. a hypothesis)
An example: the fossil record in relation to evolutionary explanation (as we know it, evolution is evidenced by the fossil record)
Chad's evidence = things that are EVIDENT. In other words, there are things clearly observable and "evident" to anyone (but do not, of themselves, argue for or relate to any proposition). Raw Data.
An example: the fossil record (as we know it, the fossil record is "evident" to us). If you ask, "evident of what", then you missed the distinction. It is merely a fact.
Excited Penguin's evidence = the modern understanding of "evidence". In other words, "evidence" is "raw data" already considered in relation to a proposition (e.g. a hypothesis)
An example: the fossil record in relation to evolutionary explanation (as we know it, evolution is evidenced by the fossil record)
