Evidence Vs. Faith

[rjh4 is back]

That is so astoundingly stupid I'm not even sure what to say...

Evidence isn't "wrong" or "right". Evidence can be explained as something supporting a statement. Whether or not the statement is true is irrelevant to the truth of the evidence. Think of a murder trial. Both sides will present evidence to plead their case. Obviously both sides cannot be correct, but that doesn't that one side's evidence is secretly faith just because it's wrong.

I don't disagree with you. I was merely trying to look at things from EvF's point of view. He is the one who said:

"If their directions are telling the truth and are correct, then it's evidence based and not faith-based. If they aren't telling the truth of have got the directions wrong, then my belief in what I think to be evidence is mistaken so my belief is actually faith-based."

Maybe I confused the issued by my use of the word "prove" in my question. I did not mean "prove" in the sense that it appears to have been taken. It was an unfortunate use of the word here.

EvF, your answer confused me more.

Let's take the fossil record. It is evidence, plain and simple. I think we would agree on that. But evidence of what? I look at the fossil record and say it is evidence of the Biblical flood. You look at the fossil record and say that it is evidence of evolution (common descent). Furthermore, it seem to me that you would see my conclusion (Biblical flood happened) as "faith-based" and your conclusion (evolution/common descent happened) as "evidence-based". Am I correct? If so, how do you determine which conclusion is "faith-based" and which is "evidence-based"?

[Edwardo Piet]

EvF, you're essentially saying that as long as what is believed to be true, is true, then by whatever means you arrive at the conclusion, it's valid reasoning. That is absurd. If you are trying to make some sort of distinction between faith based reasoning and evidence based reasoning, you've failed miserably.

I mean that evidence is an objective thing. Fossils, for example, indication evolution. If the fossils were fake then they wouldn't indicate evolution.

If an insane person thinks that the fact he was born is evidence that he is the messiah, does that make it evidence?

All I am saying is that evidence is not evidence just because you believe it is, otherwise the whole concept of evidence is meaningless, yes? Ok, now I'm confused lol.

Reasoning never "equals" evidence. It is simply the collection arguments and evidence that make up your reasons.

Yes, but the evidence you believe is evidence either really is evidence or it isn't. I can believe that orange beach balls are evidence that a purple monster called Frankie Doop exists, but that doesn't actually make it evidence. Because it doesn't indicate it. Evidence is not completely meaningless, it's more objective than that - like science is. All reasons are not equal.

Faith could be included as an argument, a poor argument in my mind, but one never the less.

I believe because "I have faith", is an argument you mean? Arguments involve more than assertions and complete and total lack of explanation, right?

Faith doesn't have only a religious connotation, just so we're clear.

Yeah, it applies to any belief that lacks evidence. So this also includes, for instance, pseudo-scientific bullshit like "The Secret".

You can believe something to be true for bad reasons and good reasons. Even if it turns out to be true, that doesn't suddenly mean the bad reasons are good reasons, or evidence based reasons.

Yes, the reasons can be good or bad. Your reasons can be based on evidence or they cannot - your reasons have evidence or they do not.

Let's take the fossil record. It is evidence, plain and simple. I think we would agree on that. But evidence of what? I look at the fossil record and say it is evidence of the Biblical flood. You look at the fossil record and say that it is evidence of evolution (common descent). Furthermore, it seem to me that you would see my conclusion (Biblical flood happened) as "faith-based" and your conclusion (evolution/common descent happened) as "evidence-based". Am I correct? If so, how do you determine which conclusion is "faith-based" and which is "evidence-based"?

Great example. The fact I believe fossils are evidence of evolution does not make it so, the fact you believe they are evidence for the flood does not make it so. The fact is there's an objective matter of what it actually indicates to. Science does all the work on that. I know of what I believe to be evidence in science, and I believe it to be evidence. There is no absolute proof in science, there doesn't need to be.

I can not guarantee that I am not taking evolution on faith because, like everything in science, nothing is absolutely proved. I cannot guarantee that you are wrong either, we are speaking of evidence not proof.

Evidence cannot be absolutely knowable, otherwise it would be proof. This is why I am saying that the objective matter of whether something is actually evidence or not cannot be known. Subjectively speaking we all have what we believe to be evidence...and the closest we can get to the objective fact of whether it really is or not, is through the consensus of, for instance, the scientific community - which is the best example in my mind.

Pardon my ignorance for any possible mistakes or misconceptions in this post.

EvF