I am opening this thread based on the debated subject of evidence and its an avenue for atheists to step up and state in simple terms what evidence is and to what level should be infer it...

So to the atheist, what is acceptable as evidence? Only what you can see, feel and touch?

mkmyers45: I am opening this thread based on the debated subject of evidence and its an avenue for atheists to step up and state in simple terms what evidence is and to what level should be infer it...

So to the atheist, what is acceptable as evidence? Only what you can see, feel and touch?

Acceptable evidence for what?

only what is accessible in 3D and by maths.

only what is practical

thehomer:

Acceptable evidence for what?

Nicely put. . .

thehomer:

Acceptable evidence for what?

For anything, If an subject is put forward and you say 'Its Impossible' What will you accept as evidence. Will you accept only direct evidence, word of mouth, inferred evidence (Because this is present/absent hence this must be this)? Don't you have a set standard to judge something to be true?

mkmyers45: For anything, If an subject is put forward and you say 'Its Impossible' What will you accept as evidence. Will you accept only direct evidence, word of mouth, inferred evidence (Because this is present/absent hence this must be this)? Don't you have a set standard to judge something to be true?

Direct evidence will do for me mostly. . .

mkmyers45: For anything, If an subject is put forward and you say 'Its Impossible' What will you accept as evidence. Will you accept only direct evidence, word of mouth, inferred evidence (Because this is present/absent hence this must be this)? Don't you have a set standard to judge something to be true?

It depends on what the subject is.

mazaje:

Direct evidence will do for me mostly. . .

Then can you specify the exceptions to include other forms of ancedotal evidence since you said 'mostly'

mkmyers45: Then can you specify the exceptions to include other forms of ancedotal evidence since you said 'mostly'

I can accept proper inference, ancedoctal evidence is a no no for me. . .

thehomer:

It depends on what the subject is.

-Double Post-

thehomer:

It depends on what the subject is.

Quite an unacceptable answer don't you think? They has to be a yardstick for you no? E.g It has to be direct or atleast proper inference then its evidence to me or do you pick at will to suit yourself?

mazaje:

I can accept proper inference, ancedoctal evidence is a no no for me. . .

Can you give us an example of something you accept because it is properly inferred?

mkmyers45: Can you give us an example of something you accept because it is properly inferred?

The distance of the earth to the sun. . .Or the distance of some planets in other solar systems to their parent stars. . .

Likewise. Direct evidence. To some extent 3rd party evidence but only where it can be independently verified.

mkmyers45: Quite an unacceptable answer don't you think? They has to be a yardstick for you no? E.g It has to be direct or atleast proper inference then its evidence to me or do you pick at will to suit yourself?

The sort of evidence that will be satisfactory when it comes to mathematics is different from one in astronomy and different from one in philosophy and different from one in law. So, I need to know what subject you have in mind.

Evidence from direct observations or from improvised scientific tools, from empirical data, or from mathematically deduced inferences.

For example, we don't know when the pyramids were built, but know that they are aligned to a particular stellar configuration.
Through computer modelling, we can see that the particular stellar configuration occurred approximately 10,000BC.
Therefore, we can infer that the Giza pyramids where around 10,000BC.

mazaje:

The distance of the earth to the sun. . .Or the distance of some planets in other solar systems to their parent stars. . .

These distances are measured using effect of speed of light,gravitational pull etc they are just not inferred...So i still need proper inferencial type evidence from you.

thehomer:

The sort of evidence that will be satisfactory when it comes to mathematics is different from one in astronomy and different from one in philosophy and different from one in law. So, I need to know what subject you have in mind.

So are you agreeing that evidence is based on the views and scope of the judge?

mkmyers45: These distances are measured using effect of speed of light,gravitational pull etc they are just not inferred...So i still need proper inferencial type evidence from you.

OK, I will go with the pyramid of Giza inference from pleatton. . . .Mathematical deductions are enough evidence for me as well(I forgot to include this as well)

@ thehomer: your responses in this thread sir, with respect, are utterly cowardly and disgraceful.

Deep Sight:
@ thehomer: your responses in this thread sir, with respect, are utterly cowardly and disgraceful.

Exactly what ive been trying to let me know...

mkmyers45: So are you agreeing that evidence is based on the views and scope of the judge?

No, the sort of evidence to be accepted depends on what is being considered.

Deep Sight:
@ thehomer: your responses in this thread sir, with respect, are utterly cowardly and disgraceful.

Since you're so brave, why don't you show me what the problem with my responses are.

Deep Sight:
@ thehomer: your responses in this thread sir, with respect, are utterly cowardly and disgraceful.

HHMMMM.
Them are fighting words.