On the nature of evidence.

[trmof]

I've made no such claim. I haven't brought up my personal beliefs without being asked and I've also not tried to prove my beliefs to anyone, nor do I believe I could. I've made a statement about the philosophical nature of "evidence" and our individual standards for evaluating it, and why I think it's wise to question and discuss such things. If you would like to respond to that, please read the topic post.

You described a being with certain characteristics, then straw-manned an argument about how others would react.

Your question is not well-considered or well-formed. Evidence is verifiable.

It also doesn't mean the dead end is proven false. It means you've decided to stop examining it further.

Unfortunately my God regularly intervenes in my life to enrich and protect me, so I can say from experience that you are wrong. Whether you believe that or not has never been of any consequence to me, nor is that the subject of the thread.

Please present evidence of God's intervention in your life. Without that, your assertion is simply not credible.

I find your lack of assertions not credible for the same reason. There is absolutely no way to test whether either of us is right. The sooner you come to accept this and learn to agree to disagree about things, the sooner you will be able to have a real and meaningful intellectual exchange with someone you disagree with.

---

Question 1) We don't, and I've never claimed to be able to. Question 2) Because of my personal experiences with him. The fact that I can't transfer them to you does nothing to convince me that they are not true.

But that makes it not evidence.

No, that makes it testimonial evidence from a witness. If you choose to not believe it, that is one thing. But you are attempting redefine a form of evidence you don't agree with as "No True Evidence." You are asking for DATA, not evidence. I don't have any data for you.

---

I've made no such claim. I haven't brought up my personal beliefs without being asked and I've also not tried to prove my beliefs to anyone, nor do I believe I could. I've made a statement about the philosophical nature of "evidence" and our individual standards for evaluating it, and why I think it's wise to question and discuss such things. If you would like to respond to that, please read the topic post.

You described a being with certain characteristics, then straw-manned an argument about how others would react.

Your question is not well-considered or well-formed. Evidence is verifiable.

It also doesn't mean the dead end is proven false. It means you've decided to stop examining it further.

Unfortunately my God regularly intervenes in my life to enrich and protect me, so I can say from experience that you are wrong. Whether you believe that or not has never been of any consequence to me, nor is that the subject of the thread.

Please present evidence of God's intervention in your life. Without that, your assertion is simply not credible.

I assumed a being with certain characteristics for the sake of discussion. There is no straw man. I addressed a possible response and asked a further question about it.

I'm afraid you are confusing evidence with data. Testimonial evidence is evidence. You are using semiotics to assume of different definition of evidence than is commonly applied. You are engaging in a "No true evidence" fallacy.