If it can be, how can the "Absence of Evidence" be "Evidence of Absence?".

Can you honestly say that you are agnostic about the existence of Zeus, or Loki, or Russel's teapot simply because you don't have positive evidence of the non-existence of these things?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It does work that way. Unless you are also ambiguous as to the existence of fairies, trolls, goblins, ghosts, and magic.This isn't a criminal trial. "Innocence" and "guilt" are terms which carry a connotation that is entirely inappropriate for this discussion.Whenever we look in a place where god is supposedto be, we find an absence of evidence. Outright falsification is impossible becasue of the nature of the idea of god(s) - sentient entities can simply not cooperate with experiments for example, and after all, god works in mysterious ways. But we looked at lightning, and discovered no evidence of Thor, Zeus, or Jupiter. We looked at the Sun, and didn't find a chariot wheel. We examined the dying, and detected nothing suggesting a "soul." We've tried prayer, and not once has appealing to a deity for intercession resulted in a statistically significant result.Each of these things gradually increases confidence that god(s) are unlikely to exist. Each of these is the absence of evidence, which in fact do provide evidence (though not proof) of absence.Let's go back to the pen and desk again. I'll rewrite the quoted paragraph above from the context of that scenario:

quote:

---

Putting terminology aside, I think the question posed by the OP is this: if someone says to you that there is no evidence for the existence of a pen on my desk, can they then use this lack of evidence as support for the assertion that there is not a pen? My answer is that they have to do more than that. Saying absence of evidence about the pen is equal to evidence for the absence of the pen is basically saying that the pen is guilty of non-existence until proven innocent. But it doesn't work that way. The pen should be considered neither innocent nor guilty until someone can come up with some evidence, and not lack thereof, that can contribute to the question of whether or not the pen exists.

---

By your standard, even if we examine my desk and find no evidence for a pen, we should remain undecided as to whether there is actually a pen on the desk. This is, frankly, absurd. I have no evidence suggesting that you are not an alien from another galaxy - should I consider you neither innocent nor guilty of being such an alien?The lack of evidence is evidence of absence, the strength of which increases as more effort is put into finding the evidence relative to a 100% completely exhaustive search. This is how rational thought works. Since a completely exhaustive search for a pen within the confines of my desk is entirely possible, we can be nearly certain that there is in fact no pen because of the lack of any evidence for the pen's presence. Since a completely exhaustive search for god(s) is not entirely possible, our certainty that god(s) are unlikely to exist is not nearly as strong, but is still non-zero because while we cannot exhaustively search all of reality, we have found no evidence in the places we are able to look.

The fact that it's (probably) not possible for some big bearded man to sit up in the clouds and throw down lightning bolts at things is just as good a reason not to believe in Zeus as the fact that there isn't any evidence to support his existence. In other words, we need not always restrict ourselves to collecting new evidence to try and support or refute a new hypothesis; we can always use existing evidence (in this case, the known fact that lightning is an atmospheric discharge of electricity, not the product of a wrathful god).

Are you using the same terminology here as you are when discussing the pen on the desk?If so, then we have plenty of evidence for no-God in the same way as you say we have plenty of evidence for no-pen.You said that looking on the desk and seeing an empty desk is evidence that the pen does not exist on the desk.Therefore, we can do the same with God.We've had plenty of claims:"God causes thunder and lightning"
-we examine thunder and lightning, and we find that God is not a necessary factor in any way
-this is, therefore, evidence that God does not exist"God created the diversity of life on the planet"
-we examine the diversity of life on the planet, and we find that God is not a necessary factor in any way
-this is, therefore, evidence that God does not exist"God grants us a moral system"
-we examine moral systems, and we find that God is not a necessary factor in any way
-this is, therefore, evidence that God does not exist"God grants us feelings of elation such as love or awe or peace or happiness"
-we examine feelings of elation such as love and awe and peace and happiness and we find that God is not a necessary factor in any way
-this is, therefore, evidence that God does not existSo, if we use your terminology, it would seem that there's a lot of evidence that God does not exist. Wouldn't you agree?One can always say "well, maybe we haven't found out how God does exist, or how His existence affects this universe." And I would agree. Just as if we look at an empty table we can always say "well, maybe we haven't found out how the pen actually does still exist, even though we can't see it."Neither plea causes any of the evidence (as you used the term regarding the pen) that the pen does not exist, or that God does not exist, to go away.Are you sure you're using the same terminology about "evidence" and "lack of evidence" when you're talking about pens and Gods? If so, it would seem that your statement I quoted above is in grave error. I agree. It doesn't work that way.But, you fail to acknowledge that we've looked for God everywhere anyone has yet to say that He produces some sort of difference within this universe (throughout the history of humans!). Time and time again, we learn that God is not a necessary factor in any way and there is an objective Godless explanation. That's why it's said that God doesn't exist. Because we've looked, and He's not there.It does work that way, just as you explained with the pen analogy.It's a fact that no one has ever been able to show God in this universe in any objective, repeatable way, ever.If it was a fact that no one has ever been able to show a pen on a desk in any objective, repeatable way, ever... wouldn't you say that pens do not exist on desks?Then... shouldn't the above be evidence that God does not exist within this universe?Of course, none of this is proof, it's just the rational reasoning we're capable of concerning the factual information available to us at the time. It's quite possible that tomorrow there will be objective, factual evidence of God's existence. In which case I will change my conclusions. But, until that time, I cannot honestly come to a "the jury is out" or "can't say either way" conclusion while we have the information we have.------------AbE: And hello!! Welcome to EvC, hope you like it here, the board software is kick-ass! Yes, that's a blatent ass-kissing to the owner (Admin = Percy, if you didn't know) in hopes of getting some free points. Points that can later be spent on saying "ass" in my posts. Wait...Edited by Stile, : Damnit! I always forget my manners when replying to new members.

Hi Domino and welcome to EvC. I'm sure you're going to find this place to your liking. But Zeus isn't the only deity who has been said to control lightning;

quote:

---

Job 37:10-15
By the breath of God ice is given, and the broad waters are frozen fast. He loads the thick cloud with moisture; the clouds scatter his lightning. They turn around and around by his guidance, to accomplish all that he commands them on the face of the habitable world. Whether for correction or for his land or for love, he causes it to happen. Hear this, O Job; stop and consider the wondrous works of God. Do you know how God lays his command upon them and causes the lightning of his cloud to shine?

---

The Bible is rich with claims that God controls or commands any number of meteorological phenomena. If the presence of natural explanations for his sphere of influence is sufficient to prevent us from believing in Zeus, why should the same not be true for Yahweh?It seems to me that the only thing that would distinguish between Christianity and Zeus worship in such circumstances, would be special pleading. This would leave the Christian with a faith founded upon logical fallacy.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

I think a lot of these misunderstandings come from our difference in the definition of evidence. Here's mine: Evidence is a fact that supports a belief. So I'm not ambiguous as to the existence of these things, because I have evidence that they do not exist: the fact that I have never observed any of them or any trace of them during the course of my life. I still can't figure out why you don't acknowledge that the fact that appealing to deities produces no result is evidence for the nonexistence of said deities. Think about it logically. Conducting experiments, such as identifying the source of lightning, results in facts, such as "lightning comes from clouds and not from Zeus," which results in evidence that Zeus does not exist. Not doing an experiment results in not collecting facts, which results in an absence of evidence. There's a big difference between absence of evidence and negative evidence.That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that if someone puts a blindfold on me, leads me in front of a desk, and asks me whether there is a pen on it, I should say "I don't know." By your standard, I should say "No." This is another misunderstanding we seem to have. You are saying that you have no evidence that I specifically am an alien. But more general evidence has been collected that says there are no aliens on this planet. This should be enough to tip the scales in favor of the opinion that I am not an alien.The one thing you fail to realize in all of these examples is that there are two categories of evidence. One supports the hypothesis that a pen is on the desk, and the other supports the hypothesis that a pen is not on the desk. You may say that there is an absence of evidence in one category, i.e., there is a lack of evidence that there is a pen on the desk, but that just comprises evidence for the other category, i.e., that there is not a pen on the desk. Remember that difference between absence of evidence and negative evidence. You can say the same for God. If you state that there is a lack of evidence for the existence of a God, you have just stated a fact that can be used as evidence for the nonexistence of a God.

---

"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Douglas Adams

It seems that your position is that the only way one can have an absence of evidence would be if one conducted no inquiry whatsoever, and if one looks for evidence and finds none, then that lack of supporting evidence is in and of itself evidence.While I don't really disagree with your position, I question its relevance to this discussion. In this discussion, we are addressing the question of the existence vel non of deities. I daresay that none of us here would claim the position of having spent our lives on this planet without giving the least bit of consideration to the question or having conducted no examination of the evidence offered in support of such existence. Thus, we are in the position of one who has looked for evidence and found none, and not in the position of one who hasn't even looked.So, while you may have a valid point in the abstract, it has nothing to do with this topic.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I completely agree with everything you're saying; I think you misinterpreted my original statement. Basically, I was trying to extend the analogy of the pen to the God issue. If you're blindfolded and never see the desk, you should remain ambiguous towards the existence of the pen. Similarly, if you are somehow "blindfolded" and never see the world around you (perhaps if you live in a cave for your entire life), you should remain ambiguous towards the existence of God. Only when you go out in the world and find examples like the ones you mentioned will you have evidence that God doesn't exist. However, on second thought, the God situation can't really be compared to the pen situation, because according to religious doctrine, the presence of God is everywhere, meaning that even in an isolated cave one would expect to feel the presence of God somehow.But in general, my point is that the fact that something doesn't manifest itself to you doesn't qualify as evidence for its nonexistence. Only when you see that it fails to appear where it should appear can you say that it (probably) doesn't exist.And by the way, thanks for the welcome . . . and I always appreciate advice on free points! Edited by Domino, : Forgot something

---

"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Douglas Adams

Hi Subbie, No, not quite: investigating only those inquiries that support your hypothesis while ignoring some other possibilities would accomplish the same thing.The problem you have, is knowing when you have investigated all possible avenues -- which means you now know everthing. Without that you are guilty of a hasty generalization.The absence of evidence is evidence of the absence of evidence. Assuming anything else is making an assumption, not a conclusion.Enjoy.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) • • •

By that logic, all of science is hasty generalization. Any theory you'd care to mention can potentially be disproven by the discovery of the right piece of evidence. That evidence can hypothetically exist anywhere or any time in the universe. We obviously haven't, and cannot, investigate all possible avenues of anything non-trivial.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Remember, it's effectively impossible to improve that any given deity does or does not exist, due to the elusive nature of supernatural figures. However, it is possible to accumulate strong enough evidence that it is very hard to logically believe in a deity. In Zeus's case, the conflict between his power to hurl down thunderbolts and the natural explanation for lightning is enough by itself to convince me, and many other people, that Zeus does not exist. (After all, the idea of a "thunderbolt" being a physical thing that someone, even a deity, can hold in his hand is so far removed from the scientific explanation of lightning that the two are virtually incompatible.) However, the Bible is much more ambiguous about its God and is open to interpretation, which might be part of the reason that it is still the most-read book in the world. What's more, its description of natural phenomena are much more accurate then that of the ancient Greek myths. All of this means that the explanations of lightning by the Bible and science, though not entirely compatible, can feasibly be resolved. Surprisingly, the reason that lightning forms is still a matter of debate. Could the concept of a "divine spark" be taken literally in this case?I'm not necessarily saying I believe all this; I'm just playing devil's advocate here.And by the way, thanks for the welcome!

---

"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Douglas Adams

hi Domino i disagree on this point, I think enough evidence has been accumulated to logically believe that there MUST be a diety.by studying the physical world, from the minute subatomic particles to the vast galaxies, scientists have discovered that all known natural phenomena appear to follow certain basic laws. IOW they have discovered logic and order in everything that is taking place in the universe, and they have been able to express this logic and order in simple mathematical termsIn the laws of the universe there are certain factors whose values must be fixed precisely for the universe to exist. These fundamental constants are things like the unit of electric charge on the proton, the masses of certain fundamental particles, and Newton’s universal constant of gravitationEven minute variations in the values of some of them would drastically alter the appearance of the Universe. For example, if the force between nucleons (protons and neutrons) were only a few per cent stronger, the Universe would be devoid of hydrogen and there would go the sun and water for a start. Once water is gone, so is all life.
So, the evidence is that the universe in every aspect is governed by laws hence there must be an intelligent lawmaker who formulated or established the laws.

Hi Domino, Of course, if God were to appear over Times Square and work a few miracles, it would go some way towards proving he existed. Of course, one could argue that it was not God and actually Satan in disguise, which just underlines the innate foolishness of believing in supernatural entities in the first place. They can never be confirmed or denied, no matter how great the evidence. *Ahem* "By the breath of God ice is given, and the broad waters are frozen fast.". That is as far removed from the natural explanation for ice as Zeus' thunderbolts are from the natural explanation for lightning. There is no ambiguity here. God makes ice with his breath. That is what the text says. It is making just as absurd a claim as Zeus and his thunderbolts. The only difference is that you have chosen to ignore the absurdity when it's in connection to Yahweh. It's classic special pleading. Yes, very accurate. Just this morning, I saw God out there breathing on a frozen lake...Your claim is false. The Bible contains no accurate meteorology. It is mostly vague about what causes weather, other than to say that God commands it. There is no actual claim to be accurate about in such cases. Where the text does get specific, it is ludicrously, laughably wrong, as in the breath example above or its claims that the winds reside in storehouses. The only difference between this and Zeus worship is that you are wiling to turn a blind eye to Yahweh's absurdities and yet you are not willing to do so for Zeus. As I say, special pleading. No. It would achieve nothing. Inserting God into any gap in our knowledge tells us nothing, increases our understanding by zero and drop-kicks the principle of parsimony out of the window. We have, to echo Laplace's memorable phrase, no need of that hypothesis. It also can't be applied to the ice example. There is nothing you can do to rescue that particular bit of nonsense. That example is highly specific and utterly absurd, exactly the same grounds upon which you so casually dismiss Zeus. Then why not drop the act and state what you do believe?Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Not really the difference would be that it would have a higher degree of Deuturium rather than Protium. A neutron-Proton combination is an H² ion with the same properties as a Hydrogen ion, only heavier. Still neutrons would continuously be made as they are in such things as Novae. It in no way validates whether God exists or not.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Hi Subbie, let's explore this issue a little more, seeing as this IS the topic. And if all science had to work from was an absence of evidence for any theory or an absence of evidence against any theory, then science would indeed be guilty of a hasty generalization, and would indeed be on weak and shaky ground.Are you claiming that the absence of any evidence for (X) is on a level equivalent to the positive evidence used to support science? That counting 5 tree rings and concluding that this shows 5 years of age in a tree is the same level of conclusion you reach from an absence of evidence? Correct, as demonstrated by Coelacanth's showing that the absence of evidence for millions of years is not evidence of absence. What it was also evidence of was that either not looking for evidence or looking in the wrong place did not discover the evidence.The problem is, when ALL you have for a concept is an absence of evidence pro or con, that you do not HAVE a theory, you have at best an unconfirmed hypothesis.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) • • •