View Single Post
  #14   Add Rust to your ignore list  
Old 2008-12-28, 20:32
Rust Rust is offline
Regular
 
Send a message via MSN to Rust
Default Re: Guide on the Theistic argument

Quote:
Originally Posted by JesuitArtiste View Post
So, if someone concludes that God designed us, and tell us that evidence of this is the way a banana is perfectly shaped for the hand and eating, then that is evidence isn't it?
He would need to show:

1. That the banana is perfectly shaped for the hand and eating.

2. That the banana being perfectly shaped for the hand and eating supports the conclusion of a god existing.

----

Given the following function, f(x) = 3x + 5, is the fact that the y-intercept is odd evidence that f(x) is a linear function?

Quote:
Regardless of whether they are right, they still believe that they have evidence.
Yes. Believe. Claim. Have faith in. Neither of which show evidence, but merely belief.

Quote:
What I was saying was absurd is that the two sides while believing that they have the correct conclusion and evidence to support their position don't believe they have evidence to support there postion.
"They believe X. They believe they have evidence supporting X. They don't believe they have evidence for X." Am getting what you were trying to say correctly?

If so, I don't see anyone in this thread suggesting that wasn't absurd. BP said that people should say "I don't have evidence for X, but I have faith X is true". That doesn't mean the other people can't believe they have evidence.

Quote:
Also, if you don't mind me asking, how do we beyond a doubt show that our evidence is evidence? Maybe I'm thinking this wrong, but it seems to me that you need to know the 'True conclusion' before you can truly judge whether the evidence is true evidence or not.
Well operating under your definition of evidence (i.e. "evidence [is] something that support[s] a conclusion") then not necessarily.

If, to continue the mathematical example I'm using above, you can show that "having an odd y-intercept" is a necessary component of a linear function, you would arguably be supporting the conclusion that f(x) (as defined above) is a linear function. However, "having an odd y-intercept" is not a necessary component of a linear function.
Reply With Quote