Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If it can be, how can the "Absence of Evidence" be "Evidence of Absence?".
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


(1)
Message 271 of 309 (538965)
12-11-2009 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by RAZD
12-10-2009 9:24 PM


Re: the NON RIP of the Absence of Evidence argument as used by atheists
Semantic games, and only half the picture. You can admit to taking a "5" position, or to being inconsistent or a pseudoskeptic.
I will admit to no such thing as it is you who are playing semantic games! There is no evidence of deities of any sort and plenty of evidence to people making them up, possible based originally on more earthly origins, but still exaggerating and stretching the original events. The absence of evidence causes me to have an absence of belief, not that gods/deities don't exist (who knows?) just a reasoned belief that such things should have more than zero evidence if they actually exited. It's time for you to stop lying about our beliefs to support yours.
Edited by kjsimons, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by RAZD, posted 12-10-2009 9:24 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by RAZD, posted 12-12-2009 9:19 AM kjsimons has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 272 of 309 (538977)
12-12-2009 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by RAZD
12-11-2009 9:08 PM


Absence of belief.
Let's clear this up first
Hi RAZD, I'm not sure why you think repeating yourself is the same as clarifying something. But I'll play along.
Now I realize that this is not your statement nor your claim, what it is, rather, is evidence that he bases his belief about the non-actuality (absence) of god/s on the lack of evidence of god/s.
Really? I see two types of statements from him.
1) He doesn't believe claims for which there is no evidence.
2) There is evidence for the claim that gods are essentially figments of the imagination.
The section you have quoted, and done so many times using multiple pretty colours is the first kind of statement. It is quite clearly a statement about Straggler's lack of belief, and a brief explanation for it. It is a position I have got you to agree with before now, so I find it difficult to understand why it is giving you trouble again.
Do you agree that there is no evidence of gods?
Do you agree that one should not believe a claim for which there is no evidence?
Do you agree that this means one should not believe in a claim for gods?
You don't have to agree with any other arguments or conclusions, and if you really really still think that the bit that Straggler says says what you think it does - then could you answer the above questions as if we weren't referring to Straggler's position?
Straggler does not believe in the actuality of god/s. This is not a passive lack of belief, but an active disbelief.
Straggler's full system of belief is one thing. What Straggler is saying in the section you quoted is something else. All he is expressing in the quote you are given is a lack of belief in claims for which there is no evidence. He does not say 'I think claims without evidence are necessarily false'. By trying to read Straggler's full position into everything that he says you are getting confused like an apologist that attempts to read the Old Testament through the 'lens' of a certain Gospel or letter.
Now - what you call this state of affairs, is up to you. If you want to call it 'active disbelief' that's fine. But it also means that Straggler 'actively disbelieves' in claims that he has yet to hear for which we stipulate there is no evidence.
And maybe, just maybe, when we consider Straggler's position in its totality we learn that Straggler does 'actively disbelieve' because of the existence of some evidence (or maybe he does so for no good reason at all). But based on the statement you quoted I would think it is better described as an expression of 'passive disbelief'.
The question at the heart of all this, which I have asked a number of times now is: Why do you not believe claims for which there is no evidence?
ps - still a deist. Deists must, almost by definition, be agnostic for the most part:
The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.
This rather assumes that evidence will not be forthcoming eh?
No. It is a belief in the existence of a being. It means you believe it exists. Without evidence. This is not agnostic. That is a belief.
quote:
The difference is that I don't assume one is true, but not the other.
It seems you do 'assume one is true, but not the other' You 'assume' that the claim that god exists, created the universe, and then abandoned it, is true. There is nothing about waiting patiently for evidence - there is a belief in a claim. One might argue that it is a belief in a claim for which no evidence presently exists and one day might. But that isn't agnosticism, it's faith. Sorry about that.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2009 9:08 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2009 9:24 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 273 of 309 (539025)
12-12-2009 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by kjsimons
12-11-2009 11:14 PM


lying? or just laying out a truth you don't like?
Hi Kisimons,
The absence of evidence causes me to have an absence of belief, not that gods/deities don't exist (who knows?)
Which could be a "5" position claim.
quote:
Message 507:
  1. Absolute Theist: knows god/s exist.
  2. Strong Theist: the existence of god/s is more likely than not.
  3. Weak Theist: the existence of god/s is possible, maybe likely, but not sure.
  4. Agnostic: god/s may exist or they may not, there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other.
  5. Weak Atheist: the non-existence of gods is possible, maybe likely, but not sure.
  6. Strong Atheist: the non-existence of god/s is more likely than not.
  7. Absolute Atheist: knows that god/s do not exist.

To be consistent you should also have an equal absence in belief in the non-existence of god/s:
• There is no convincing empirical objective evidence that god/s exist
• The absence of evidence causes me to have an absence of belief
&there4 I have an absence of belief in god/s
• There is no convincing empirical objective evidence that god/s do not exist
• The absence of evidence causes me to have an absence of belief
&there4 I have an absence of belief in no-god/s
Don't you agree?
... just a reasoned belief that such things should have more than zero evidence if they actually exited.
Now there you go, making an assumption on the absence of god/s due to the absence of evidence.
Why should a god that makes the universe perform for you? Your expectations are what could be unreasonable.
It's time for you to stop lying about our beliefs to support yours.
And yet Straggler and others have claimed that they don't believe in the actuality of gods, not just have a lack of belief. Saying that some atheists say that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence is based on actual posts by actual atheists (see above).
It's time for you to stop lying about our beliefs to support yours.
Pretty strong emotional words there. Emotional reaction is a sign of cognitive dissonance: being presented information that contradicts your world view, causes a rejection reaction that the information is false, and then that the presenter of the evidence is lying.
Obviously I am not lying when I post quotes of actual claims:
quote:
Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist?, Message 332:
I am an atheist because I consistently do not believe in the actuality of that for which there is no evidential reason to even think possible.
...
There is no evidence of gods. Nor is there any evidence to suggest the possibility of gods. If there was such evidence gods would be evidentially viable concepts. If there was such evidence faith would be redundant.
(color for reference)
In logical (premise premise conclusion) format we have:
I consistently do not believe in the actuality of that for which there is no evidential reason to even think possible.
There is no evidence of gods. Nor is there any evidence to suggest the possibility of gods.

I do not believe in the actuality of gods.
Or, more simply put, belief in the absence (non-actuality) of gods, due to the absence (non-existence) of evidence for gods
Alternatively, you could attempt to show that I am in fact not telling the truth when I lay out the poor logic of the strong atheist position:
Compare:
• any X with no contradictory evidence is possibly true
• X(a) has no contradictory evidence
∴ X(a) can be true
to:
• any X with no contradictory evidence is absolutely true
• X(a) has no contradictory evidence
∴ X(a) is absolutely true
OR:
• any X with no contradictory evidence is more likely true than false
• X(a) has no contradictory evidence
∴ X(a) is more likely true than false
If the logical form is true for any X then it is true for Y, now let Y = notX:
• any Y with no contradictory evidence is possibly true
• Y(a) has no contradictory evidence
∴ Y(a) can be true
== notX(a) can be true ...
... and by the form of the argument, X(a) still can be true true ... which is valid, and a true conclusion is reached.
3D, 4C and 5E fit this pattern. Possibility is a valid conclusion from a lack of contradictory evidence.
versus:
• any Y with no contradictory evidence is absolutely true
• Y(a) has no contradictory evidence
∴ Y(a) is absolutely true
== notX(a) is absolutely true ...
... and by the form of the argument, X(a) is still absolutely true ... which is a contradiction ... unless you have objective empirical evidence that directly contradicts one or the other being true: without such evidence there is a contradiction in the form of the argument and the argument is invalid, falsified, void.
As the second premise is the same as above, we see that the first premise is falsified. 1A and 7B fit this pattern and are logically FALSE arguments.
OR:
• any Y with no contradictory evidence is more likely true than false
• Y(a) has no contradictory evidence
∴ Y(a) is more likely true than false
== notX(a) is more likely true than false ...
... and by the form of the argument, X(a) is still more likely true than false ... which is a contradiction ... unless you have objective empirical evidence that directly contradicts one or the other being true: without such evidence there is a contradiction in the form of the argument and the argument is invalid, falsified, void.
As the second premise is the same as above, we see that the first premise is falsified as well. 2F and 6G fit this pattern and are logically FALSE arguments.
Will you be the one to take this one? If I'm lying about the logic it should be an easy matter to prove, eh?
As a result of the logical analysis we have:
  1. Absolute Theist: knows god/s exist. (logically invalid position)
  2. Strong Theist: the existence of god/s is more likely than not. (logically invalid position)
  3. Weak Theist: the existence of god/s is possible, maybe likely, but not sure. (logically valid position)
  4. Agnostic: god/s may exist or they may not, there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other. (logically valid position)
  5. Weak Atheist: the non-existence of gods is possible, maybe likely, but not sure. (logically valid position)
  6. Strong Atheist: the non-existence of god/s is more likely than not. (logically invalid position)
  7. Absolute Atheist: knows that god/s do not exist. (logically invalid position)
So are you a "5" or a "6"?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by kjsimons, posted 12-11-2009 11:14 PM kjsimons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Straggler, posted 12-13-2009 6:26 AM RAZD has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 274 of 309 (539076)
12-12-2009 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by RAZD
12-11-2009 9:24 PM


Bunny Boiler Part 2 - The Bunny Bites Back
I used to think that you had something interesting and different to say on this issue. But you don't. Your arguments amount to nothing more than the same old same old. We cannot prove that gods don't exist. And if lots of people believe in something (i.e "mountains") then the must be something to believe in. Remove the silly euphamisms, funky coloured backgrounds, pseudo-mathematical logicisms and the bewildering array of arbitrary and ever changing "scales of belief" and what are we left with? These same two standard timeless and tiresome arguments. The usual drivel spouted by believers of all flavours who are desperate to rationalise their irrational beliefs. Honestly why even bother?
Straggler writes:
When you can put the Easter Bunny through your silly formula and come out with an answer that isn't agnosticism I might start taking you seriously again.
RAZD writes:
When you can refute the issue, rather than use more logical fallacies in reply, then I might start taking you seriously again.
Yep. As expected. You can't.
RAZD writes:
Failure to respond in any way to the logical analysis, the analysis that shows your position is logically false and invalid, does not mean that it is silly, rather it implies that you are completely and totally unable to come up with any other answer.
Your bizzarre attempt to mathematicalise your argument amounts to nothing more than a long winded, over elaborate and desperately convuluted way of saying "You cannot prove that my god does not or can not exist."
The problem with this is that A) You cannot prove that the Easter Bunny magical Santa or the Tooth Fairy "do not or can not exist". But this doesn't stop us being justifiably and rationally far from agnostic about these concepts. B) Nobody here is claiming to be able to disprove anything anyway. That just isn't how evidence based arguments work.
RAZD writes:
The part where this actually shows that god/s do not, or cannot, exist. Again, I thought that this was relatively evident.
And yet again I thought it was very (and increasingly) evident that you have failed to demonstrate that magical Santa concepts "do not, or cannot, exist". You have not demonstrated that a magical Santa is logically "impossible". You have simply cited objective historical evidence to demonstrate that notions of magical Santa are in all probability a human invention. Exactly as the rest of us are doing with regard to concepts of supernatural gods. Which part of this are you still struggling to comprehend?
RAZD writes:
This rather assumes that evidence will not be forthcoming eh?
In exactly the same way that you are assuming that evidence of the actual existence of the Easter Bunny or jolly magical Santa will not be forthcoming. Eh?
If you think being agnostic towards the Easter Bunny is the rational option then you are insane. But more likely than insanity is just the fact that your silly arguments are nonsense. Seriously - Until you can put the Easter Bunny through your logical formulae and come out with something other than agnosticism I don't see how you can consider yourself to have a leg to stand on.
Dawkins Scale of Belief writes:
1.00: Strong theist. 100 percent possibility of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2.00: Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there
3.00: Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
4.00: Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5.00: Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
6.00: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7:00: Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one.'
Where are you on the Dawkins scale with regard to the Easter Bunny and on what evidence? And if you are a 3 on the aforementioned scale with respect to "god" (whatever it is you mean by that) how can you even call yourself a deist? By the definitions you have supplied in your various scales (including "RAZD's Concept Scale - See post below) you are an agnostic with opinions.
But RAZAWO has kind of a ring to it.......
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2009 9:24 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 275 of 309 (539114)
12-13-2009 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by RAZD
12-12-2009 9:19 AM


Contradictory Scales of Belief
Straggler writes:
With regard to absence of evidence - You have been forced to accept that there is not, and can never be, a complete absence of all objective evidence. You have also made it abundantly clear that you do not consider the existence of gods to be objectively evidenced. Therefore it must be the case that ALL of the objective historical, anthropological and psychological evidence supports human invention. Thus the evidence based and rational conclusion is tentative atheism.
What else is there left to say on this matter? Message 266
How is human invention not the logical and rational conclusion based on your own self declared scale of belief?
RAZD's Concept Scale
  1. Zero Confidence Concepts
    1. No evidence, subjective or objective,
    2. No logical conclusions possible, but opinion possible
  2. Low Confidence Concepts
    1. Unconfirmed or subjective supporting evidence, opinion also involved, but no known contradictory evidence, nothing shows the concept per se to be invalid
    2. Conclusions regarding possibilities for further investigation, and opinions can be based on this level of evidence,
  3. High Confidence Concepts
    1. Validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence
    2. Conclusions regarding probable reality can be made, repeated attempts to falsify such concepts can lead to high confidence in their being true.
Message 182

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by RAZD, posted 12-12-2009 9:19 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2009 7:40 PM Straggler has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 276 of 309 (539302)
12-14-2009 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Straggler
12-13-2009 6:26 AM


Simple steps to logical results.
Hi Straggler, thanks for asking.
How is human invention not the logical and rational conclusion based on your own self declared scale of belief?
I've actually explained this 5 or 6 times already, but let's see if we can't take it in simple steps to get past your apparent cognitive dissonance in actually reading the reply.
What you have is a simple statement:
Some people make up some things some of the time.
We know that the statement "some concepts are made up" is true, because without this there could be no fiction or entertainment, and because people admit to making fiction and entertainment up.
On the other hand we also know that this corollary statement is also true:
Not everything people say\write\etc is made up.
We know that the statement "some concepts are not made up" is true, because without this there could be no science, there could be no shared discovery of reality.
Ergo "some concepts are made up" is true
AND "some concepts are not made up" is true
Both of these facts sit on level III of the table of confidence. Because of this we also know that the statement that "ALL concepts are made up" is false.
Therefore any claim that "some people make up some things some of the time" is evidence a specific concept is made up, means that you need to actually show that the concept is made up. When you actually do that, then the claim that "some people make up some things some of the time" is unimportant compared to the actual objective empirical evidence of a concept being made up.
We take the santa example again: we have a core reality, consisting of an actual historical figure of extraordinarily benevolent demeanor, and then we have the story of his life past down and mixed with folklore, legend and myth, and finally we have documented works of fiction that portray StNick as the modern american santa.
We know that parts of the modern story (folklore\legend\myth) was made up, but we also know that the person of StNick was not made up.
There could be just as real a core beginning to any belief, and included in that possibility is the possibility of a subjective experience actually involving a supernatural entity in some way, even if the experience is poorly explained and badly documented.
One such incident in the billions of subjective religious experiences that are also documented fact (that people have such experiences), means that your argument is dead in the water.
Therefore the onus is on you to prove that all religious experiences, beliefs and concepts of supernatural beings etc, are made up. A pretty tall order, as TeapotsToUnicorns said.
Prattling on about easter bunnies, the tooth fairy, and the like does not even begin to dent the issue, and they also do not address the direct issue of god/s that created the universe. Why try to confuse the issue by bringing up other irrelevant supernatural entities when the issue is god/s that created the universe?
What is curious is why you think it is a valid argument. There appears to be a certain degree of confirmation bias going on, of liking the argument because it appears to support your position. This is where we get into the issue of hidden assumptions that are part of your world view rather than a part of the argument provided.
See Message 267:
quote:
Argument 1
• There is no empirical objective evidence that god/s exist
• Some people make some things up some of the time
∴ God/s do not and cannot exist.
... These premises do not lead to a valid conclusion. What is involved is are a couple of hidden assumptions that are due to bias, confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance ...
Argument 1 + hidden assumption
• There is no empirical objective evidence that god/s exist
• Some people make some things up some of the time
• ALL subjective experiences of god/s are made up*
∴ God/s do not and cannot exist.
Fascinatingly, this is STILL not a valid argument, because (as pointed out before) subjective experience can be made up and god/s can STILL exist: there is still a hidden assumption here, the assumption that god/s don't exist if all subjective experiences are made up.
Where the hidden assumptions are (1) that "ALL subjective experiences of god/s are made up," and (2) that "god/s don't exist if all subjective experiences are made up."
Now, when you look at it from the other side, from the a priori belief\assumption that there are in fact no god/s, then -- and only then -- is the existence of all the religious experiences, beliefs and concepts of supernatural beings etc, explained by the fact that some concepts are made up, but this only becomes a valid conclusion after the fact of this actual absence is proven (at which point, once more, it is not necessary).
Again, from Message 267:
quote:
... we can also use the same "evidence" in a counter argument with a different hidden assumption:
Argument 2
• There is no empirical objective evidence that god/s do not exist
• Some people make some things up some of the time
∴ God/s do or can exist.
Which still suffers from hidden assumptions and doesn't reach a valid conclusion due to the incomplete form of the argument.
Argument 2 + hidden assumption
• There is no empirical objective evidence that god/s do not exist
• Some people make some things up some of the time
• NOT all subjective experiences of god/s are necessarily made up*
∴ God/s do, or can, exist.

These last two can also be rendered as:
Argument 3
• There is no empirical objective evidence that god/s exist
• Some people make some things up some of the time
∴ God/s do or can exist.
Which seems like a fairly silly conclusion to make, (just as silly as argument 1), but then we add the corollary statement as a assumption:
Argument 3 + corollary
• There is no empirical objective evidence that god/s exist
• Some people make some things up some of the time
• some concepts are not made up
∴ It is possible that some concepts of god are are not made up
∴ It is possible that God/s do, or can, exist.
The conclusion that god/s can possibly exist is a valid conclusion, and the first three premises are all true, level III facts. Thus your claim that "human invention is the only logical and rational conclusion" is not supported, is demonstrated to be logically invalid, AND it is contradicted by a logically valid argument using the same evidence.
How is human invention not the logical and rational conclusion based on your own self declared scale of belief?
Because logical fallacies and invalid logical structures do not qualify for level III concepts.
RAZD's Concept Scale
  1. Zero Confidence Concepts
    1. No evidence, subjective or objective,
    2. No logical conclusions possible, but opinion possible
  2. Low Confidence Concepts
    1. Unconfirmed or subjective supporting evidence, opinion also involved, but no known contradictory evidence, nothing shows the concept per se to be invalid
    2. Conclusions regarding possibilities for further investigation, and opinions can be based on this level of evidence,
  3. High Confidence Concepts
    1. Validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence
    2. Conclusions regarding probable reality can be made, repeated attempts to falsify such concepts can lead to high confidence in their being true.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Straggler, posted 12-13-2009 6:26 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Straggler, posted 12-15-2009 1:00 PM RAZD has replied

Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 277 of 309 (539339)
12-15-2009 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by RAZD
12-05-2009 5:24 AM


Re: RIP - Absence of Evidence
quote:
As has been shown, by logical analysis, the best one can conclude from an absence of evidence is the possibility of absence. This is an atheist "5" position, not an atheist "6" position.
RAZD, when you say 'absence of evidence' what do you mean - sorry to ask this question so far in the debate but I'd like to be clear on it.
Do you mean the absence of POSITIVE evidence for a proposition or the absence of ANY evidence either for or against?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by RAZD, posted 12-05-2009 5:24 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2009 8:44 PM Peepul has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 278 of 309 (539371)
12-15-2009 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by RAZD
12-14-2009 7:40 PM


Subjective Evidence? The Shock Return!!
Hi RAZAWO.
Your "logical" argument remains plagued by the fact that we need to have decided whether we believe the irrefutable something under consideration exists or not before we put it through your silly formula. Because once we have done so we are "rationally" required to be agnostic towards it. Do you seriously not see the rather significant problem with this?
With regard to your self proclaimed "scale of belief" and the evidential validity of atheism:
Straggler writes:
With regard to absence of evidence - You have been forced to accept that there is not, and can never be, a complete absence of all objective evidence. You have also made it abundantly clear that you do not consider the existence of gods to be objectively evidenced. Therefore it must be the case that ALL of the objective historical, anthropological and psychological evidence supports human invention. Thus the evidence based and rational conclusion is tentative atheism.
RAZD's Concept Scale
  1. High Confidence Concepts
    1. Validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence
    2. Conclusions regarding probable reality can be made, repeated attempts to falsify such concepts can lead to high confidence in their being true.
So by your own criteria we find that the human invention argument is entirely justified. History is awash with the discarded remains of erroneous supernatural explanations for natural phenomenon. Verified objective historical evidence supporting the fact that humans invoke supernatural concepts to fill gaps in human knowledge and understanding. Exactly as you are doing when you plug the cosmic origins gap with the particular object of your deistic belief.
RAZD's dictionary definition of desim writes:
deism (dē'ĭz'əm, dā'-)
n. The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation. Deist Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
In advocating the above you are making a whole host of completely unjustifiable assumptions to derive your desired deistic conclusion. In doing this you are in denial of the indispitable facts available.
The possibility that gods conjured our universe into existence is utterly un-evidenced. We have no reason to think it even might be true. It is as unevidenced as the possibility that we are actually all living in the matrix. Or the possibility that the universe and it's constants were created from the farts of celestial cows, or the possibility that the Immaterial Pink Unicorn magicked us all into existence last Thursday, or the possibility that our universe is the product of pixie dust etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. ad-infinitum.
The gap you are attempting to slot god into could equally justifiably be filled by an infinite number of other wholly unevidenced possibilities. Which makes the chances of your particular preferred proposition 1 out of infinity. Not very good odds at the best of times. But they get worse. Throw in the fact that the entirety of human knowledge indicates that any such invocation of the supernatural to explain the natural will in all likelihood turn out to be misplaced and the odds of your particular supernatural answer drop even further. How low do they need to be before you accept "very unlikely" as a reasonable response?
The supernatural explanatory model has failed. Failed repeatedly and spectacularly. Any rational person will consider the entirety of human history and knowledge demonstrating this immense and unmitigated failure as being entirely relevant to assessing the potential validity of any further claims of the supernatural. Apparently you don't. Apparently the entirety of human history and knowledge doesn't exist or has no relevance as far as you are concerned. Apparently all you see is a gap in which to insert your god and an opportunity to demand that everyone else be agnostic.
RAZD writes:
One such incident in the billions of subjective religious experiences that are also documented fact (that people have such experiences), means that your argument is dead in the water.
RAZD writes:
Where the hidden assumptions are (1) that "ALL subjective experiences of god/s are made up,"
You appear here to be saying that the defining evidential difference between those irrefutable concepts that you have concluded are the product of human invention (e.g. magical Santa, Easter Bunny, etc. etc.) and the gods/deities that you are requiring us to be agnostic about is subjective evidence? But surely not.
Because we all know that this cannot be the case. Because when I previously suggested that this was indeed your argument you lost the plot and went on a rampage of insults:
RAZD writes:
ROFLOL de LOL. You just CANNOT GET DEITIES OUT OF YOUR MIND, can you. You just CANNOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT MY ARGUMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DEITIES, can you.
NEWS FLASH:
RAZD ARGUMENT ON THE VALUE OF SUBJECTIVE EVIDENCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DEITIES!!!
.... for more on a logical argument regarding the value of subjective evidence that has nothing to do with deities stay tuned for more of my posts ....
sheesh! What is WITH you and DEITIES? Bad childhood experience?
Enjoy. Message 402
So what is the role of subjective evidence in your argument here? Because it very much seems that subjective evidence is the defining difference between those concepts you want to apply your silly "logical" argument to in order to require agnosticism and those that you don't.
And you have still never even attempted to tackle the problems with subjective "evidence" as pertaining to the inherently non-empirical as per here: Immaterial "Evidence"
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2009 7:40 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by ICANT, posted 12-15-2009 3:21 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 296 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2009 10:13 PM Straggler has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 279 of 309 (539378)
12-15-2009 1:32 PM


LOL... I wonder if you folk even realize you aren't arguing against one another.

[O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by xongsmith, posted 12-16-2009 2:57 PM Jon has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 280 of 309 (539395)
12-15-2009 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Straggler
12-15-2009 1:00 PM


Re: Subjective Evidence? The Shock Return!!
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes:
How low do they need to be before you accept "very unlikely" as a reasonable response?
How about when you produce the verifiable, testable, reproducible scientific evidence of exactly how it happened.
Instead of the answer presently given, "We don't know".
You say but that is impossible.
You ask us to produce evidence of God to your satisfaction.
Why can't we ask for the same level of evidence?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Straggler, posted 12-15-2009 1:00 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Straggler, posted 12-15-2009 3:26 PM ICANT has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 281 of 309 (539396)
12-15-2009 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by ICANT
12-15-2009 3:21 PM


Re: Subjective Evidence? The Shock Return!!
ICANT writes:
You ask us to produce evidence of God to your satisfaction.
The possibility that gods conjured our universe into existence is utterly un-evidenced. We have no reason to think it even might be true. It is as unevidenced as the possibility that we are actually all living in the matrix. Or the possibility that the universe and it's constants were created from the farts of celestial cows, or the possibility that the Immaterial Pink Unicorn magicked us all into existence last Thursday, or the possibility that our universe is the product of pixie dust etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. ad-infinitum.
The gap you are attempting to slot god into could equally justifiably be filled by an infinite number of other wholly unevidenced possibilities. Which makes the chances of your particular preferred proposition 1 out of infinity. Not very good odds at the best of times. But they get worse. Throw in the fact that the entirety of human knowledge indicates that any such invocation of the supernatural to explain the natural will in all likelihood turn out to be misplaced and the odds of your particular supernatural answer drop even further. How low do they need to be before you accept "very unlikely" as a reasonable response?
The supernatural explanatory model has failed. Failed repeatedly and spectacularly. Any rational person will consider the entirety of human history and knowledge demonstrating this immense and unmitigated failure as being entirely relevant to assessing the potential validity of any further claims of the supernatural. Apparently you don't. Apparently the entirety of human history and knowledge doesn't exist or has no relevance as far as you are concerned. Apparently all you see is a gap in which to insert your god.
Why god and not celestial cows ICANT? Seriously. Why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by ICANT, posted 12-15-2009 3:21 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by ICANT, posted 12-15-2009 3:47 PM Straggler has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 282 of 309 (539400)
12-15-2009 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Straggler
12-15-2009 3:26 PM


Re: Subjective Evidence? The Shock Return!!
Hi Straggler,
Since there is no scientific verifiable reproducible evidence for or against the celestial cows or any of the other methods you put forward as well as god/s they are all possibilities.
You have looked at the same evidence everyone else has to look at and come to your personal conclusions.
I on the other hand add the witness of several men that wrote down several things that had happened along with a lot of things that were going to happen. Since many of those things that they foretold came to pass in my lifetime, I tend to believe the other things they wrote.
So when I add that to the evidence everyone has, I come to my conclusions, which differ from yours, and from many that examine the same books I do.
Now do you have any reproducible evidence that proves that god/s do not exist?
If not then they are a very real possibility.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Straggler, posted 12-15-2009 3:26 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Straggler, posted 12-15-2009 3:52 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 286 by Meldinoor, posted 12-15-2009 5:08 PM ICANT has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 283 of 309 (539402)
12-15-2009 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by ICANT
12-15-2009 3:47 PM


Re: Subjective Evidence? The Shock Return!!
ICANT writes:
Now do you have any reproducible evidence that proves that god/s do not exist?
If not then they are a very real possibility.
A possibility? Yes. Nobody here has ever denied that. A "very real possibility"? No more so than the twelve and a half pixies that magicked the universe into existence last Thursday. Why do you give your chosen possibility any more credence than any other wholly objectively unevidenced possibility?
Be specific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by ICANT, posted 12-15-2009 3:47 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2009 4:48 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 285 by ICANT, posted 12-15-2009 4:50 PM Straggler has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 309 (539411)
12-15-2009 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Straggler
12-15-2009 3:52 PM


Re: Subjective Evidence? The Shock Return!!
Why do you give your chosen possibility any more credence than any other wholly objectively unevidenced possibility?
Be specific.
From the message you replied to:
quote:
I on the other hand add the witness of several men that wrote down several things that had happened along with a lot of things that were going to happen. Since many of those things that they foretold came to pass in my lifetime, I tend to believe the other things they wrote.
Why do you think that if someone reads The Bible and believes it, then they should believe in some random made-up god that you just threw together?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Straggler, posted 12-15-2009 3:52 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Straggler, posted 12-16-2009 8:47 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 285 of 309 (539412)
12-15-2009 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Straggler
12-15-2009 3:52 PM


Re: Subjective Evidence? The Shock Return!!
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes:
A possibility? Yes.
So you agree that there is a possibility, that god/s exist.
There is no evidence for or against their existence.
Straggler writes:
Nobody here has ever denied that.
You say nobody here has ever denied that possibility.
Then you follow with the statement:
Straggler writes:
No more so than the twelve and a half pixies that magicked the universe into existence last Thursday.
That statement denies the possibility of god/s existing.
I have been a resident of the planet earth for some 70 years therefore it was not magicked into existence last Thursday.
Straggler you are totally incorrigible.
Straggler writes:
Be specific.
As many times as I have in the past, why should I bother?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Straggler, posted 12-15-2009 3:52 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Straggler, posted 12-16-2009 8:56 AM ICANT has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024