Not so polite dinner conversation – on evidence

I have a fellow, Michael, who I have been debating the idea of evidence. Here’s his latest comment, which comes from this blog post.

“I’m going to be clear and then stop engaging point-by-point.

You’re operating with a definition of “evidence” that excludes historical inference, philosophical reasoning, and explanatory scope by definition. Under that standard, not only Christianity but any claim about the past, morality, metaphysics, or even science beyond direct observation becomes suspect. That may be a position you hold, but it is not a neutral fact, and it’s not one I share.

When you say Christianity has “no evidence,” what you mean is that you reject entire categories of evidence in principle. That is the real disagreement. Repeating “no evidence” doesn’t advance the discussion if the standards themselves are not open to examination.

I’m also not going to engage in personal psychological speculation. Evaluating claims does not entitle one to diagnose the motives, fears, or identity of the person making them, and I won’t do that in return.

If you want to continue, I suggest we narrow this to a single question: what kinds of evidence are you willing to allow in principle, and why? If the answer is “only empirical facts that directly verify supernatural claims,” then the conclusion is already fixed in advance, and there’s no productive discussion to be had.

If that clarification isn’t something you’re interested in, I’m content to leave it here.”

This is my response:

I’m using a definition of evidence that is correct. Again, historical inference is not evidence, it is inference: an attempt to make logical deductoins from evidence and again, there is no evidence your jesus, your god or any of the essential events in teh bible ever happened. Your supposed inference is based on presupposition. Philosophical reasoning is just that, it is not evidence and again, any theist can use it. And explanatory scope is also used by any theist.

No, any claim about the past is not suspect since many claims have actual evidence. This is the typical Christian “other ways of knowing” nonsense, and surprise, you don’t accept those “other” ways from anyone but yourselves.

I couldn’t care less if you ignore reality, Michael. Your sharing doesn’t change what is real. I do not reject entire categories of evidence since your nonsense is not evidence.

Evaluating claims does indeed entitle one to consider motives, fears and identity of the person making the claims. Again, if you claim that fairies are in your garden, I can look at those claims and then know what kind of person you are. No one cares what you choose to do and not do.

I have told you what evidence is: facts that support a claim. You have no facts, only additional claims. Your philosophical arguments all depend on presupposition, which is a claim, not a fact. Your “historical inference” is a claim, not a fact. Your explanatory scope is a claim, not a fact.

It’s great how you are upset about empirical facts since you have none, and this is a great admission of that fact. Now, Michael, consider that this lack of empirical facts is why you don’t believe in any other religion’s claims. Seems rather silly doesn’t it?