DHA's Wager

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

If the definition of what you are looking for requires the presence of a certain type of evidence under a given set of circumstances, then if you achieve those circumstances and find that the evidence is absent, you have proven that object you were dealing with does not exist.

---

​

Sorry, first this is evidence.

---

Incorrect. It is absence of evidence. By your definition, everything, including nothingness itself, is evidence.

quote:

---

A test has been set up with either result (Q) or result (T).

---

Incorrect. A test has been set up with either result Q or result ~Q. There is nothing that says it has to be T. The definition of A requires the result Q. That we get ~Q indicates that A cannot exist for A requires Q. In the absence of Q, we prove the absence of A.But again, this requires a definition of A. You cannot test A without having a definition of what A is.

quote:

---

Second, what it proves is that the concept that result (Q) would happen under those circumstances was invalid.

---

QED.Therefore A does not exist.That you wish to now change the definition of A to A' merely hammers the point home: A <> A' and thus A does not exist.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Add one sandpile to another sandpile. Do you have two sandpiles or just one big sandpile?

---

​

These are examples of misdirection and attempted strawman arguments.

---

Incorrect. The point out that your insistence that you don't need to know what A is in order to make statements about A are logically invalid. Suppose A were infinity. Well A + A would still not equal 2A for infinity + infinity = infinity (for identical versions of infinity...no disingenuousness and trying to make one of the infinities something other than what the other is.)

quote:

---

A sandpile is not an object but a loose group of objects

---

Incorrect. Every child knows what a sandpile is. The problem is that the definition of a "sandpile" necessarily includes all the sand.Once again, we see that one must have a definition of an object in order to make any sort of statement about the object.

quote:

---

You do not end up with a "pile" that is the equal of either starting "pile".

---

Irrelevant. The definition of a "sandpile" is to include all of the sand. The fact that one particular instance of a sandpile contains more grains of sand than another does not change the fact that a "sandpile" is all of the sand.Once again, we see that one must have a definition of an object in order to make any sort of statement about the object.

quote:

---

You don't need to know what {A} is to judge the validity of the mathematical concept of 1 plus 1 is 2.

---

You didn't say 1 + 1 = 2. You said A + A = 2A.You are changing the definition of your words in midsentence. Logical error.This is very much an example of creationist thinking: Insist that X never happens and then when shown an example of X, claim that it isn't an example of Y and hope to high heaven that nobody notices that you didn't ask for Y in the first place.If you want to argue that 1 + 1 = 2 given the standard metric, I won't do it. Bertrand Russell already spent too much time proving it.But you weren't talking about 1. You were talking about A.What makes you think that A behaves like 1? You haven't defined A and thus you have no idea of it behaves like 1 or like something else.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Her(BBHH) pinkness is part of her(BBHH) essense.This is all clearly staded n the Great Book.

Rrhain continues to equivocate.I misplaced my keys. I searched the entire apartment, my car and where I work, and found no keys. To Rrhain this is not {evidence of absence} of the keys, but an {absence of evidence} for the keys: to his logic they no longer exist.Based on my {evidence of absence} of the keys in those locations I look elsewhere, and they turn up at the grocery store. Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.All {A} is {B} does not mean that all {B} is {A} (it's only true when {A} = {B})All specific instances use definite objects to make the point, and then the general condition is extrapolated from that.Thus 1{A} plus 1{A} = 2{A} is first defined at 1 {apple} plus 1 {apple} = 2 {apples} then generalized. It matters not what the definition of {A} is because this is the same as saying 1 + 1 = 2 -- the idealized generalization of the specific case. The {A} needs no more definition that the {1} needs. This is elementary maths.Likewise the statement{Absent proof of the existence of {A} one cannot say that {A} exists} is a logical statement regardless of the definition of {A}And{Absent proof of the non-existence of {A} one cannot say that {A} does not exist} is an equally logical statement.And neither depends on the definition of what {A} is: it is a generalized condition.Putting these together: Rrhain would have us believe that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, that all {A} is {B} means that all {B} is {A} regardless of the definition of {A} or {B} but that {A} needs to be defined for the boxed statements above. In this he is plainly wrong on both counts.Pursuing further discussion on this topic without acknowledgement of these basic errors is futile.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

quote:

---

I misplaced my keys. I searched the entire apartment, my car and where I work, and found no keys. To Rrhain this is not {evidence of absence} of the keys, but an {absence of evidence} for the keys: to his logic they no longer exist.

​

Based on my {evidence of absence} of the keys in those locations I look elsewhere, and they turn up at the grocery store. Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.

---

This example is misleading, becuase you have selected "keys" as something known to exist. The problem with your actual argument is that god is not known to exist.Thus, according your argument, if you encountered and absence of evidence regarding the keys, this is qwualitatively indistinguishable from absence of evidence regarding UFO's. You wish to assert that it is JUST AS logical to believe in the existance of the keys as to believe in the existance of a UFO. That does not fly, as you had prior knowledge of the keys, and do not in the case of UFO's or god.

Not known to exist by SOME people....known to exist by others. You are insisting that we start where you are at, and we are insisting that you start where we are at. Thus the impasse.To a believer, we HAVE prior evidence. It is the basis of our belief.By the way, how have you been, Contra? This message has been edited by Phatboy, 03-28-2005 05:40 AM

quote:

---

Not known to exist by SOME people....known to exist by others. You are insisting that we start where you are at, and we are insisting that you start where we are at. Thus the impasse.

---

And we have a solution for that impasse - its called "evidence".Please show me your evidence for the existance of god. Just to be safe, please ensure its independantly verifiable.

quote:

---

By the way, how have you been, Contra?

---

Eh? Today is monday, there was a weekend.

And you know that I cannot. We would need something similar to Star Treks good old Vulcan mind meld so that you could share my viewpoint as the apriori origin. Even with the mind meld, all that would be established is that I was wired to believe and that I knew God.If God does exist apart from my mind and if I have been awakened to that fact, perhaps the mind meld would also enlighten you.Sigh..... but I really respect you even if you don't believe. I have always wanted to show you that not all Christians are totally insane.....how am I doing?
* * * *BTW D.H.A. you won't get too mad at me for straying off topic while I rap to contra, will you? LOL...your sense of humor behooves me! This message has been edited by Phatboy, 03-28-2005 05:54 AM

sorry.I picked keys because it should be obvious to anyone that their non-existence due to an {"absence of evidence is evidence of absence" logical fallacy} would be just plain ludicrous.Perhaps this is a problem with trying to reduce an already simple concept to such a basic level that a child can understand it but still finding that an obstinate adult can't (or won't)?This UFO example doesn't fly at all as I am not ascerting that UFO's exist, what I am saying is that absent proof that they don't exist you cannot logically say they don't exist, AND that absent proof that they do exist you cannot logically say that they do.The concept is simple in the first place, and shouldn't need to be {simplified\clarified\defined\etcetera} to be understood: I trust that sometime soon someone may actually answer the very simple question above, but until that actually happens I see no need to answer further nonsense that does not address the question.This message has been edited by RAZD, 03*28*2005 07:35 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Ah, a MYSTERY! Well, that explains it all, of course.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Whoa Rrhain, hold your horses there. ('Rrhain' them in?) I'm not saying that I've 'found' anything. I'm not a crank and I do not expect a Nobel prize any time soon.I was merely suggesting that it could, in principle, be possible that a luminiferous ether had some extra unknown properties that would cancel out the expected effects. I may be wrong on that account, but I was thinking that since, for example, quantum theory has taught us that sometimes nature may exhibit some very unexpected and counter-intuitive quirks (and strange quarks to boot), it would only be prudent, logically speaking, to hold off the boat until further evidence was in.Actually, I wasn't even very interested in the luminiferous ether itself, that was just the example at hand. It was the logical reasoning I objected to. I think that, in itself, absence of evidence is never enough reason to be taken as evidence of absence.But you are welcome, of course, to prove me wrong. If you can show me, without resorting to hindsight justification, how it can be logically concluded that absence of evidence can ever be taken as evidence of absence, I'll be happy to concede the point.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 29-Mar-2005 08:15 AM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Thank you, Rrhain, for taking the time to explain colour in such detail. However, I'm still stuck with the following question:In a world without eyes, is there red?{added by edit:}I know that in a world without eyes there can still be light of a certain wavelength, so there's no need to bother with that line of argument.Actually, my question is sort of rhetorical. It's there to make my point. But if you feel like responding, by all means, don't hesitate.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 29-Mar-2005 08:09 AM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

quote:

---

I trust that sometime soon someone may actually answer the very simple question above, but until that actually happens I see no need to answer further nonsense that does not address the question.

---

I did that already, although the issue is much the same, just organised differently. Using your logical construction above, I agree I cannot say "there are no UFO's", but it does NOT in any way imly either endorsement for the existance of UFO's, nor does it place UFO's on par with things known to exist. It puts them on a par with "anything we can imagine" no matter how absurd.And that is of critical importance because you claim agnosticism is a LOGICAL position. I rejected agnosticism becuase I felt it was illogical; a position that insists on failing to distinguish between the known and the unknown is nonsense. I therefore insist that you apply your agnosticism honestly and consistently, if I am to take you seriously. I will expect you to leave a bowl of milk for the brownies, a shot of whiskey for father christmas, and sleep on a raised bed for fear of the tokolosh.What we are really talking about here is superstition, all becuasae of a laboured intellectual twist intended, almost always IME, to allow the nostalgic believer to maintain their belief despite knowing it is baseless.I read a medieval Islamic poet some years ago, unfortunately I have never been able to find it again. But the translation, from memory read:You say that god is timeless and infinite
Everywhere and nowhere
But perhaps that is just a way of saying
That we don't know how to think straightThis message has been edited by contracycle, 04-01-2005 08:51 AM

that is implicit in the equaly weighty {we cannot say "there are UFO's"} isn't it?on all such items so definedincluding dark matter and energy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

RAZD responds to me but for some reason is responding to a post from contracycle:

quote:

---

Rrhain continues to equivocate.

---

Do you know what the term "equivocate" means? It means to use a word with one definition and then to use that same word with regard to a different definition as if it were the same definition as the original one.

quote:

---

I misplaced my keys. I searched the entire apartment, my car and where I work, and found no keys. To Rrhain this is not {evidence of absence} of the keys, but an {absence of evidence} for the keys: to his logic they no longer exist.

---

Incorrect. It is safe to say that we have a definition of "keys." And therefore, we have some knowledge about what would constitute evidence regarding the existence of these "keys."For example, "keys" can be in many places besides your apartment, your car, and your work. For example, I have a set of "keys" right here which is neither your apartment, your car, nor your work. Is there a particular reason why your "keys" could not exist outside of your apartment, your car, and your work?Once again, we are back to my original statement: You cannot make any comment about {A} until you have a definition of {A}.

quote:

---

Thus 1{A} plus 1{A} = 2{A} is first defined at 1 {apple} plus 1 {apple} = 2 {apples} then generalized.

---

Incorrect. Why apples? Why not sandpiles? Why not infinities? Neither of those things leads to 1A + 1A = 2A. Instead, they lead to 1A + 1A = 1A.But notice, you have done exactly what it is I said you needed to do:You defined {A} before you made a conclusion about it.And thus, we are back to my original statement: You cannot make any comment about {A} until you have a definition of {A}.

quote:

---

It matters not what the definition of {A} is because this is the same as saying 1 + 1 = 2 -- the idealized generalization of the specific case.

---

But it isn't true. 1 + 1 does not always equal 2. If I haven't mentioned this before, please try to remember that Bertrand Russell had to prove that 1 + 1 = 2 in his Principia Mathematica. Over 60,000 steps. And that's because he had to construct what 1, 2, addition, and equality were in the first place.It is not sufficient to just assert that 1 + 1 = 2. You are assuming that you are dealing with a commutative ring with structure. When was that aggreed to?

quote:

---

The {A} needs no more definition that the {1} needs. This is elementary maths.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?RAZD, you do recall that I am a mathematician, yes? You are making one hell of an assumption that {1} is an "elementary mathematical object." It is far from it.I'm reminded of a training I use when teaching tech support people about the dangers of assumptions. Stole it from a Foxtrot cartoon:A train leaves Station A at 10:00 am and arrives at Station B, 180 miles away, at 2:00 pm. What is it we must assume in order to calculate the average speed of the train?See, it is quite common for people who have taken the "elementary maths" tests to see this problem and immediately jump into problem-solving mode: 10:00 am to 2:00 pm is 4 hours. 180 miles in 4 hours comes down to an average speed of 45 mph.And most of the time, that is the right answer, but sometimes it isn't.You're assuming that the two stations are in the same time zone.
You're assuming that the train arrived on the same day that it left.
You're assuming that simply because the two stations are 180 miles apart, the track between them is 180 miles long.
You're assuming that the train went directly to Station B using the shortest distance rather than taking a great circle route.
You're assuming that the track is along the curved surface of the earth and doesn't tunnel directly there through the earth.
You're assuming that both clocks are working and are calibrated to the same measurement of time.
You're assuming that relativistic effects don't apply.There are plenty of assumptions that you have to make. Perfectly reasonable assumptions, all, but assumptions nonetheless. Your answer is only as good as the definitions by which it is calculated.

quote:

---

Absent proof that {A} exists AND
Absent proof that {A} does not exist ...
What is the logical conclusion:
(1) Yes {A} exists
(2) No {A} does not exist OR
(3) We don't know.

---

None of the above. Until you define what {A} is, no statement about it can be made...not even that we don't know.

quote:

---

Rrhain would have us believe that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, that all {A} is {B} means that all {B} is {A} regardless of the definition of {A} or {B} but that {A} needs to be defined for the boxed statements above. In this he is plainly wrong on both counts.

---

And how fortunate it is that I never said anything of the kind.Instead, what I said was that if we have a sufficient definition of {A} and if that definition of {A} requires the presence of a certain type of evidence, then the absence of that evidence is evidence of the absence of {A}. Logically:B only if A.
~A.
Therefore, ~B.This is known as the "contrapositive." The contrapositive of a true statement is always true. It involves taking the two terms, inverting them, and negating both. For example:All squares are rectangles.
This object is not a rectangle.
Therefore, this object is not a square.

quote:

---

Pursuing further discussion on this topic without acknowledgement of these basic errors is futile.

---

Indeed.It is clear that you do not understand that mathematics involved and until you acknowledge this and correct your basic errors, there is no way to make progress.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Parasomnium responds to me:

quote:

---

I was merely suggesting that it could, in principle, be possible that a luminiferous ether had some extra unknown properties that would cancel out the expected effects.

---

But then you're changing the definition of "luminiferous ether." Logical error: Ad hoc.You asked about X. We showed you that X did not exist. It is ilogical for you to then complain that it is not evidence about the non-existence of Y. You didn't ask about Y. If you meant Y, then you should have said so in the first place.There is no luminiferous ether. There is a definition for what "luminiferous ether" is (however incomplete it may be). That definition required certain things to exist.They didn't.Therefore, luminiferous ether does not exist.B only if A.
~A.
Therefore, ~B.

quote:

---

I think that, in itself, absence of evidence is never enough reason to be taken as evidence of absence.

---

True. But the only reason it is true is because one needs to have a definition first. That definition needs to be of a type that one can create a "B only if A" statement. If we can then establish the non-existence of A, we can logically conclude that B does not exist because B requires the existence of A.If we cannot make that statement, if we cannot devise a "B only if A" statement, then the absence of A doesn't tell us about the absence of B.

quote:

---

If you can show me, without resorting to hindsight justification, how it can be logically concluded that absence of evidence can ever be taken as evidence of absence, I'll be happy to concede the point.

---

The contrapositive of a true statement is always a true statement.All squares are rectangles.
A circle is not a rectangle.
Therefore, it is not a square.What more do you need?