Guide on the Theistic argument

[JesuitArtiste]

Originally Posted by Rust

Well, all modern forms of jurisprudence are utterly absurd then because judges don't hear cases because they lack of evidence all the time.

In reality, these people merely claim or believe they have evidence. Until they manage to show how it's evidence, however... If we have to accept their word for it, then we might as well just throw the concept of evidence out the window.

Maybe I'm using the word evidence wrongly, but I'd always assumed that evidence was something that supported a conclusion. That's right isn't it? 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? The conclusion that God created things is supported by the 'design' of the banana. Regardless of whether they are right, they still believe that they have evidence.

In your court of law example there are two sides, both sides, if honest, will believe that they have the evidence that supports the conclusion that they are aiming for. 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.

To be fair, reading back that might not be so clear.

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.