|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 58 (9200 total) |
| |
Allysum Global | |
Total: 919,257 Year: 6,514/9,624 Month: 92/270 Week: 5/83 Day: 5/12 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1632 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The persistent question of evidence ... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1632 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
From Message 774 on the Peanut Gallery thread, Coyote:
What they cannot tell is whether or not any of these communications come indirectly from supernatural sources. Thus they can experience communication of supernatural beings without knowing the source, without imagination and without direct experience of the supernatural. Is there any evidence for the supernatural? You keep ducking this question, yet your answers all seem to be based on your belief that there is a supernatural. What's your evidence? Is it anything but belief and wishful thinking? First, this questioning has no bearing on the great debate issue that should be the topic for the Peanut Gallery, so I have started this topic.
Is there any evidence for the supernatural? Curiously, I have not made any claims that supernatural entities do exist, so why you keep asking me this is rather amusing. However, I personally am not aware of an objective empirical valid evidence that would be likely sufficient to show that supernatural entities exist. In addition I personally am not aware of an objective empirical valid evidence that would be likely sufficient to show that supernatural entities do not exist. Nor am I aware of any subjective evidence that would likely be sufficient for you (Coyote) to accept, based on my observation of your attitude displayed to theists in this regard.
This would include all the world's religious literature, beliefs, myths, legends, etc., as well as instances like religious experiences and dreamtime visions, etc. These evidences are sufficient, imho, to suggest that god/s may possibly exist, but they are not definitive. Nor am I aware of any subjective evidence that can show anything more than the possibility that god/s do not exist.
This would include the absence of objective empirical evidence that god/s do exist If you have any additional evidence that god/s do not exist then please supply us with it, as this alone is a very weak argument, imho, because it involves a logical fallacy.
You keep ducking this question, yet your answers all seem to be based on your belief that there is a supernatural. My answers in regard to unsupported assertions that god/s do not exist or related arguments (ie the stuff that straggler first and bluegenes second try to pass off as logical) is to recognize and show the existing support for the possibility that god/s exist and to expose the logical fallacies of the various arguments. My personal belief is irrelevant to discussing arguments based on poor logic and ignoring the possibilities, or assuming that they do not exist. There is insufficient evidence, imho, to support a logical conclusion that god/s exist. There is also insufficient evidence, imho, to support a logical conclusion that god/s do not exist. Logically the only supported conclusion is no conclusion, that the evidence pro and con is insufficient to form a logical conclusion at this time. Being open-minded, I consider both existence and non-existence positions possibilities. Being skeptical, I see no reason to accept that either position is sufficiently demonstrated, however I do consider the possible non-existing position to be weaker than the possible existing position. The proper logical conclusion based on evidence and the "rules" of logic is agnostic. I have discussed this previously on several threads, including
quote: (4) is the position that logic supports: the default position when there is a lack of validated evidence is that no conclusion can be reached -- we don't know, can't know, which is true. (3) is the position of someone that recognizes that (4) is the logical position, but is of the opinion that god/s may exist. (5) is the position of someone that recognizes that (4) is the logical position, but is of the opinion that god/s may NOT exist. (2) & (6) are people that think their position is based on something more than their opinion, and they need to provide evidence to substantiate that claim. (1) & (7) are people that think their position is fact, not opinion, and they need to provide evidence to substantiate that claim. I am a (3) - weak theist, or agnostic theist. Enjoy. Note to admins: this will likely need to be in Great Debates due to the probability of one against many participants. Edited by RAZD, : clrty Edited by RAZD, : format, subtitle Edited by RAZD, : changed title 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1632 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi moose,
Since Coyote backed out, petrophysics has put in a new request = PNT Evidence. This appeals to me for three reasons: (1) bluegenes seems stalled on the presentation of evidence, and wants to continue to argue his "mutually exclusive" test etc that have been refuted (instead of moving on to a new test, etc, as one would do in science), (2) the peanut crowd can't help him yet attack me, and finally (3) it will be refreshing to defend the logic and open-minded skepticism approach from the other side of agnosticism. This may actually help to move the debate forward on the bluegenes thread. Yes I agree with petrophysics on a lot of issues, but the one he claims here:
RAZD, I am a #1 absolute deist. God does exist. I have looked for months here where the atheists could present no evidence. As an absolute deist lets see if I can do better. Indeed, lets. Perhaps bluegenes will agree to put our thread on hold to see how this new one works out? Enjoy. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1632 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It amazes me that I need to spell this out.
For those who think I have changed my mind (Rahvin Peanut Gallery Message 1002, etc), I suggest that perhaps you are actually understanding the position I have had for a long time. What I have said before is that:
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, rather it is evidence of the absence of evidence. Recently I have expanded this for better understanding. These quotes from recent posts are the gist of it: From Peanut Gallery Message 980:
quote: It is only when you have established that {A} == {B}, and the absence of evidence becomes an observed mundane tautological fact , that this can be used as {negative evidence of absence. This has been said before. This is the problem with proving a negative. This should also be evident from my previous post. and again Peanut Gallery Message 1000 quote: Here we see that {A} = {B} by the definition of {B} as being =={A}, and the absence of evidence then becomes a mundane tautological fact ... within the area defined as the limits of the search. Of course if you only consider the places where you have found an absence of evidence, then you will reach a (false) conclusion that it is evidence of absence. Even then you have only shown that the evidence applies to the times when the search was made and to the technology with which the search was made. I see absolutely no reason to make the assumption that all areas are searched in every case, or even in a high proportion of cases, and in those cases where this assumption is not, or cannot be, made, then the absence of (positive) evidence is not (negative) evidence (of absence), rather it is evidence of the absence of (positive) evidence - only in those areas where evidence has been sought, and only with the methodology\technology used to look for (positive) evidence.
Rahvin Peanut Gallery Message 1002:All of the components are important. But it's very clear that the adage "an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is not a universal, general rule. This is what I've said in every instance where I used the example of a pen on a desk, RAZD. Are you now, finally, saying that you agree? Yes, conditionally: when you absolutely limit the question to where {A} == {B}, and set observation time to only include those times an actual search was made, and where the object of the search is defined to be something that can be observed with current technology (ie the pen is not microscopic) as you have done with "All of the components" (or Modulus does by only considering {A}), then you have an observation of fact, not a probability, but a mundane truth that only applies when {A} = {B}. To apply this to any other cases you need to show that these qualifications apply. Amusingly, as soon as you move away from those few instances where you can observe fact, then the logic (and any attempt to calculate probability) fails to provide you with answers that are necessarily true or even likely to be true. As I said about the Coelacanths
quote: This, of course, is much more representative of the real world than artificial straw man hypothetical examples where you eliminate all other possibilities a priori, which then becomes meaningless jabberwocky. Of course, one positive result is all that is necessary for the (negative) assumption (of absence) to be totally and irrevocably falsified, so any calculations (however made) of high probability odds against it provide a false impression of security in the calculations. This is like the difference in a lottery between a specific ticket winning and the lottery being won by at least one ticket: it takes incredible luck or prescience to pick a single winning ticket, and yet time and again the lottery is won. Mathematical calculations, like opinions, are strangely incapable of altering reality in any way, and they only reflect truth/s to the degree that they are based on truth/s. Enjoy. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1632 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi AdminModulous,
Is there some good reason to be here? This PNT doesn't appear to be going to be promoted since it was for a GD where the other person declined. The GD was turned down by Coyote, that doesn't mean that someone else will not take it up. Of course they would need to ask.
It doesn't seem to be related to the OP. Message 1:
quote: So Message 5 is some additional information on that issue. Enjoy. 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024