Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Society & CultureReligion & Spirituality · 3 years ago

For something to be "officially" evidence, does the entire population on planet earth have to agree it's evidence?

Update:

Mack ---- thanks for admitting that Christians have "evidence" of God's existence.

Update 2:

Jae ----- your "standard" can be someone else's "sub standard".

Update 3:

Mercuri ----- thanks for admitting that "your" evidence can be someone else's "hogwash".

23 Answers

Relevance
  • 3 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    No, just the people you're trying to convince.

    No, Christians don't have evidence. If they did they wouldn't need faith.

  • David
    Lv 7
    3 years ago

    Argumentum ad Populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." This type of argument is known by several names, including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy. This fallacy is sometimes committed while trying to convince a person that a widely popular thought is true, based solely on the fact that it is a widely popular thought.

    In the Argumentum ad populum, the population's experience, expertise or authority is not taken into consideration by the author. It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely held does not necessarily guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong.

    So you actually think a logical fallacy is "officially evidence"? How ignorant or delusional is that?

    There are known preconditions for knowledge and evidence. When you've done the work to at least define your terms, then you can ask a valid question about what it is you don't understand. Try doing that w/o making a false or unsupported statement instead.

    A conclusion does not prove the premises are true. That is, if the answer is “four,” we could arrive at that any number of ways: 2 + 2, 5 - 1, etc.

    This argument is self-reflexive and useless.

    Asserting there is no God based on your alleged lack of evidence is an example of the argument from ignorance fallacy which because it is fallacious is by definition illogical.

  • 3 years ago

    Absolutely not. Some see the evidence of God everywhere; some see no evidence for God anywhere.

    Everyone had the same evidence presented in the O.J. trial. Some thought the evidence proved his guilt; some thought it did not.

  • 3 years ago

    No, as with every Court of Law, there are rules of evidence. Science has established rules of evidence also, through "Scientific Method." Theories are proven by observed, and repeatable evidence.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    3 years ago

    No, and there is probably nothing on Earth for which its entire population accepts the evidence for it. However, there are agreed criteria for evidence. The alleged evidence for religions, myths, superstition, deities, angels, demons, et al. do not make the grade.

  • 3 years ago

    There is no number of people who believe something that will automatically make it true. For something to be considered evidence (there is no such thing as "officially" considered evidence. It is either evidence or its not.) it must be falsifiable, testable, repeatable by ANYONE who cares to try.

    Your updates to your question are as dishonest as your question was. If the standard of evidence is considered sub par by anyone, then they are being willfully ignorant. Its like this, people are entitled to believe whatever makes them feel good. They are not entitled to their own special set of facts. Something is a fact or its not. If it can be confirmed, its a fact. If it cant be confirmed, its not a fact. That's why almost all religions that I know of require faith. If you had good reasons to believe (facts and evidence to back up your belief) you wouldn't need faith.

  • ?
    Lv 7
    3 years ago

    Not entirely. In court eye witness testimony is evidence but viewed as the lowest possible evidence that there is. Hearsay is not evidence at all. In religion hearsay of eye witness testimony is all they have and it is the highest form of evidence they use.

  • 3 years ago

    Evidence needs to be something independently and repeatedly observable to convince anyone not already on your side.

    For example, I have a pretty amazing personal UFO story. It defies explanation...but it isn't evidence of anything because it's just my story. My observations cannot be replicated. As an honest person, even I can't draw a conclusion based on my own personal experience.

    You NEED a crazy inclusive definition of evidence because you can't present anything that would actually qualify as evidence.

    The truth has practical value and as a result, you need the strongest possible evidence to support a truth claim. Religious beliefs simply cannot meet this and every religion claims the same sorts of unverified nonsense as "evidence" because if they didn't, they would need to withdraw their claims.

    It's OK to admit that you're wrong, defeated and to withdraw your claims.

  • Huh?
    Lv 7
    3 years ago

    No, but evidence has to be demonstrable, specific, testable, and falsifiable.

  • Word
    Lv 6
    3 years ago

    What? No, don't be ridiculous. The entire population on the planet will never agree. Just look at the fact that there already are people who think the Earth is flat.

    For something to be officially evidence, it just has to verifiably exist. For example, evidence for evolution verifiably exists. Whether everyone else agrees with that or not doesn't matter.

    Contrarily, evidence for gods don't verifiably exist, even the religious acknowledge that.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.