Agnosticism vs. Atheism

quote:

---

If absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, what is?

---

What is evidence of absence? There isn't any.

quote:

---

If something didn't exist, wouldn't we expect an absence of evidence for its existence?

---

Yes, but it doesn't mean that you can infer the thing's non-existence. Consider:1) If ~(exist) then ~(evidence)
2) ~(evidence)This is your argument, yes?There is no way to logically get to ~(exist).Didn't we go through this with Rrhain, during which discussion you took the side I take now?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

I also think the evidence from the world around us renders the existence of god very, very unlikely but not yet totally disproven.

---

That is my position. You call it atheism. I call it agnosticism. It isn't proven, therefore, I don't know-- which is why I find it very irritating when people refer to agnosticism as cowardice.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Now, if you don't believe something exists, it means you believe it doesn't exist, because things either exist or they don't.

---

There is a third option-- "insufficient evidence."BTW, your sentence "there's no evidence that leads us to believe that there is a god" does not translate to "you don't believe something exists." "No evidence for..." puts the subject in limbo. We can't use it in argument, but neither can we call it "proven to be non-existent."------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

But what evidence would be sufficient?

---

For non-existence, there isn't any sufficient evidence. Think about how you'd show that something doesn't exist in a limited set. "6" does not exist in "1,2,3,4,5." You can tell because you can see the whole set and simply compare. It is simple deduction. The problem is that with the universe-- meaning all that exists-- you can't see the whole set. Thus, any claim to non-existence is based on insufficient evidence. Claims of existence are different. One cat and you know that at least one cat exists. You can limit a set by other means- say, "things in two dimensions" or "non-contradictory things." This is where science operates-- within the very limited set of human experience. We have no choice, really. Claiming that within our knowledge there is no Puffinstuff is one thing. Claiming that there is no Puffinstuff at all, is quite another.

quote:

---

Since it is possible for something to fail to exist, it must be possible to determine non-existence.

---

Sure, if you know everything about everything and know with certainty that you know everything. I'm not holding my breath.

quote:

---

How is this to be done if not by reaching the conclusion that there's way less evidence - none, in fact - than we would expect if the thing existed?

---

This is logically flawed, crash. In fact, it is 'Intro. to Logic' material. That is what I was trying to explain in my previous post to you. I think you are wanting to use the formulation that "if something exists then it will leave evidence." This is logically equivalent to "if there is no evidence then it doesn't exist." Though this formulation makes a lot of common sense, it doesn't work. You can't know that all things that exist will leave evidence, especially since our perspective is limited and probably always will be. You have to use the formulation that "if there is evidence, then something exists." This is not equivalent to the previous formulations, and lack of evidence will not allow you to prove non-existence.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Never heard of anyone TASTING God

---

You should read some of the world's mystics-- St. Theresa of Avila, for example.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

The vast, vast scope of religous experience by humanity implies that no, they do not.

---

The vast majority of mystics from various religions do agree, however, to a surprising degree.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

That's what I think too.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

The formula "If (God exists) then (evidence of God)" does lead to ~(God exists) if you have ~(evidence of God). The problem is with the direction of causality in the premise. You can't know that God would leave ( detectable ) evidence, if he exists. Consider: If gravitons, then evidence. We have no evidence for gravitons, therefore the do not exist. Well, this works just fine until someone finds evidence for a graviton. You can plug in any number of things. A few hundred years ago there was no evidence that heavier than air vehicles could fly, therefore heavier than air vehicles can't exist. It just doesn't work. The formula that does work is "If (evidence of God), then (God exists)." This is not equivalent to the previous formulation, and ~(evidence of God) does not lead to ~(God exists).------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

1. If (God A exists) then (evidence of God A)
2. If (God B exists) then (evidence of God B)

---

Sure. If god is supposed to perform an action, or is supposed to have performed an action, which can be checked, then we can confirm or deny that conception of god. What we are confirming or denying is the conception, really, not the god. It is great fun nonetheless.

quote:

---

...
n. If (God n exists) then (evidence of God n)
n+1. Not (evidence of God {A, B,...n})

---

Mathematical induction only works in rigidly defined systems. Think of it as toppling dominoes-- you've probably heard this analogy. In a system like mathematics, you know the next domino will fall-- it is built into the system. In the real world, you don't know that the next domino-- the next conception of God-- will fall. All you can do is check one at a time. You will be busy for eternity.

quote:

---

At what point is it rational and reasonable to declare Not (God)?

---

I think it is rational to behave as if there is no God until evidence for one is found. This is the same for anything else. I will behave as if there are no alien colonists on Earth until someone finds evidence for such. This is not to say I believe in alien colonists, nor does it say I don't.

quote:

---

Anyway, it is my position that any truth (small "t") claim can be assigned to a position on a continuum of confidence based on evidence. "not (evidence)" may not permit you to declare absolutely that "not (claim)", but "not (evidence)" iterated over a sufficiently large data set may allow you to provisionally declare "not (claim)" with a high degree of confidence.

---

I just really don't see it that way at all. Only things that have evidence get onto my continuum of confidence, as you put it. Things that don't have evidence just sit in limbo.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Anything that doesn't leave any possible evidence, doesn't exist.

---

You can't know that. It is possible that some things exist which we can never detect-- previous or alternate universes for example. It is very questionable whether we can ever settle this. It isn't a statement of existence or non-existence. We simply can't know. Something we can't detect may not make a difference to us and we ought to be able to ignore such things; but that isn't a statement of non-existence.

quote:

---

Granted there is plenty we can't detect now, which is why I say we don't know yet that god doesn't exist.

---

That is exactly the problem with 'lack of evidence' arguments. It is always a matter of what we can detect right now. You can't know what will be detectable a few days, weeks, or centuries from now; and so you can't make claims of non-existence based upon lack of evidence.

quote:

---

It's not a question of there being no evidence.

---

Sure it is. There isn't any evidence. That makes it about 'there being no evidence.'

quote:

---

There is evidence, but it's in the negative.

---

I think you mean what a logician would call contradictory evidence. We can refute a lot of particular claims. What this proves is that the particular claim is wrong. You will never exhaust the particular claims and you can't generalize from particular to universal. It would be like trying to prove that there are no red marbles in a box of infinite size. There really is no contradictory evidence. The only way to prove the postulate is to investigate every single aspect of the box. The box being infinite, this is impossible.

quote:

---

There are things that should be observable based on the god construct which aren't. God, by it's very nature, must be a pretty obvious thing, a 'god' which hides in some dark corner of the universe and quietly shuffles dust particles is no god at all.

---

It is your assumption that a God would be obvious. You don't know that, and you can't know that, without having the ability to investigate God. And if we could investigate God, we would have positive proof of God's existence and we wouldn't be having this conversation. There are conceptions of God which do not fit your criteria. You cannot brush them aside to make your argument work. That is special pleading.

quote:

---

Your graviton example is completely different. We don't have evidence either way. We just can't find them.

---

Which is exactly the same case as with God... How is the example not apropriate?

quote:

---

Or more accurately that either they don't exist or our theoretical predictions are wrong.

---

Now apply the same logic to the idea of God. "God doesn't exist, or our idea of God is wrong."------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

I'm gonna skip down to where you start disagreeing.

quote:

---

I'm not sure I can agree with this bit, in the sense that it almost smacks of begging the question.

---

I don't understand how. I don't even understand enough to guess at a response.

quote:

---

There are beaucoup claims for which we can have only very speculative inference (like the Higg's boson or abiogenesis or extraterrestrial sentience) for which there appears at this point to be little or no direct evidence, but yet can be provisionally accepted as a reasonable inference (i.e., placed somewhere on our confidence scale).

---

Inference is acceptable. I don't see the problem. Inferring a God would be acceptable as well. I don't know of any such thing. It would really change the debate if someone could present something like that.

quote:

---

Do you believe in ESP, remote viewing, etc? No? If not, do you simply state "there is not evidence" and claim agnosticism?

---

Well, yeah, I do actually. I don't know of any good evidence for ESP, but I don't consider it impossible either.

quote:

---

How about Noah's Ark?

---

The ark story in the Bible is specific enough that I think it can be effectively refuted. It could have been based on some real event-- a sea-faring migration, perhaps, or just a large local flood.

quote:

---

Absence of evidence for a great flood aside, do you state that Noah's Ark doesn't exist?

---

The Flood story is not just about a lack of evidence. We know enough about floods to know what traces one would leave behind. "God" isn't so simple a postulate. We don't have any evidence of small local gods which might tell us what evidence a large God would leave behind.

quote:

---

Even though we are looking at simple lack of positive evidence in favor, there are in fact many reasons why arkian remnants - even if the ship had once existed in some form - might have disappeared over the intervening millenia. Are you an arkian agnostic, or do you state "It didn't exist"?

---

I agree that an Ark, had it existed, may have disintegrated, or perhaps is buried and simply hidden from view at the moment in some unknown location. But I am not an arkian agnostic. The ark story is specific enough that one can say it didn't exist. It is too small to hold the animals it must have held. It would have been too large for the wooden structure to hold. You get the idea. But this is a conclusion about the particular ark recorded in the Bible. Some ship, or artifact, may have had a myth build around it. This is the same as refuting a particular example of God. A God that invariably answers prayers can be refuted or confirmed. But we don't know that a God would invariably answer prayers. In fact, assuming God has a will of its own, it is reasonable to assume God wouldn't invariably answer prayer-- perhaps deeming some prayers too trivial or some requests distasteful.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

From a deductive logic point of view you are, of course, correct. However, from a deductive logic point of view we can't really know anything.

---

Right-o.

quote:

---

So any reasonable world view is forced to assume certain things.

---

Yes. The lowest common denominator is perception. It is all we have. With perception as a starting point, you can only gain information about what is, not about what isn't. To get negatives you have to limit the set to a bite sized chunk and essentially list what is in the set and subtract. Simple deduction. If you can't limit the set like that, the process doesn't work.

quote:

---

Most people would agree that it is reasonable to assume that there is a real world.

---

"Real" is such a loaded term. Renaisance astronomers screwed the church's real world. Einstein screwed Newton's real world. Quantum mechanics screwed Einstein's real world. Einstein returned the favor. Most people assume a materialistic world-- classicly materialistic-- which is patently wrong as per modern atomic and sub-atomic physics. Things aren't solid, even the particles aren't solid. They aren't even matter, really. The universe isn't a neat 3D box...

quote:

---

I therfore assume (or take on faith, if you prefer) the non-existence of an entity with no possible evidence.

---

Functionally, I make the same assumption. It is an assumption, however, not a proof or conclusion derivable from anything we have.

quote:

---

Incidently, you're wrong about previous or alternative universes necessarily being un-knowable. There's an interesting discussion of this in a recent Scientific American (I think it was the June issue, but I'm not sure).

---

Must have missed that. But you got the point.

quote:

---

I'm not making it on lack of evidence. I'm making it on contary evidence. We don't observe what we should observe if there is a god, therfore not god. Not we don't observe god therefore god.

---

If you have a conception of a god who should leave evidence, then you can test it and prove or disprove that conception. You would spend eternity disproving conceptions that might leave evidence. It is an impossible task. Take gravity. I could go through thousands of ideas-- millions of ideas-- to explain gravity. Disproving all of them would not disprove gravity. With gravity the process would eventually stop because I would, one hopes, stumble upon an idea that does work. With God that might never happen, but assume that God exists and does leave some kind of evidence just as does gravity. How many refuted ideas, refutes the thing?

quote:

---

If there were an infinite number of gods to refute this would be true. But I don't think there are. I think you have moved from discussing the existence of god to discussing the existence of hypothetical entity #n.

---

There is an infinite set of gods.Take A,B, and C. These are gods.One can refute A and B, leaving C.Logically, by a process called addition, I can add D, E, and F.Refute C, leaving D, E, and F.Refute D and E.Addition.etc. etc. and so on forever.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Ultimately, I don't I disagree with much of your argument, John, but with what your concept of 'god' is.

---

I think that is the problem. I don't know what god is other than 'some entity who influences or once influenced humans and/or the world we call the real world.' I'm not even sure about the 'entity' part-- the tao doesn't qualify for example.

quote:

---

We can know that these gods don't exist?

---

You should be able to prove or disprove a great many common, even uncommon, ideas about god. I don't know whether you can get them all, however.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com