Re: virus: Evidence

Wade T. Smith (
Thu, 19 Sep 1996 21:57:56 -0400

>> But evidence will convince me otherwise.
>I guess that's pretty much the crux of it, isn't it? We have differing
>standards as to what constitutes evidence.

So, what do we do about this?

ev-i-dence - n.
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign.
3. Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects
admissible as testimony in a court of law.

in evidence.
1. Plainly visible; to be seen.
2. Law. As legal evidence.

Noun: Something visible or evident that gives grounds for believing in
the existence or presence of something else. sign, index, mark, witness,
indication, symptom, indicator, stamp, token, signification.

from the American Heritage Dictionary

What you have presented in your apologia for the supernatural is not
evidence, but belief. But the grounds for your belief (for I think you _do_
believe, based on your statements, be glad to be corrected on this....) are
not 'visible or evident', they are not a 'thing or things helpful' or 'an
outward sign'.

The insubstantiality of the subjective is the contention here, I think. I
contend it is useless as evidence (beyond itself), and you contend
otherwise, and have failed, IMHO, to present your evidence. On my side,
there is the plethora of studies concerning the fallibility of the senses,
even when sober and alert. The tools of science (of discovery, at base),
bypass the senses, and the subjective, in their observations. Why and how
can we allow a religious argument that these observations are incomplete or
invalid? Rather it is the religious that is the incomplete observer, the
invalid litmus test of the real.

There may well be more things in heaven and earth than we dream of, but
there is no evidence they are gods.

Wade T. Smith | "There ain't nuthin' you | shouldn't do to a god."
****** *******