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

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) • • •

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) • • •

Hi Domino, I missed your first posting, so welcome to the fray. Seeing as you are new here, and we are unfamiliar with your actual stance on issues (you seem a little ambivalent in your posts so far), I think it is only fair to first establish where you stand and then take a devil's advocate pose. Otherwise I will assume all your comments are not much better than those of a troll who posts to annoy people rather than to debate in good faith (re which see forum guidelines). But is this really a conflict or a matter of interpretations being different.Consider that god/s created the universe as it is, complete with the natural laws that govern galactic, solar, planetary orbits and weather conditions. These natural processes put in place by god/s result in lightening and thunder - so are they not then caused by the god/s? Perhaps you are confusing cartoon portrayals of beliefs with actual beliefs, and thus your incredulity is based on a straw man: that's two logical fallacies in one claim. Science explains how lightening occurs by natural laws, it does not explain how the natural laws occur, why lightening in a necessary part of life on earth. Curiously, I don't think this is a valid conclusion either. This depends extensively on how the bible is interpreted in order to be compatible with the evidence of reality, what mechanism is used to test for reality, and what resolution is reached when reality conflicts with the bible. In science the mechanism is the scientific method, and the resolution with conflicts with reality are resolve by accepting reality and changing the science.Enjoy.

Hi Subbie, Only to the degree that all possible avenues have been explored. Can you quote an article on that? Science has concluded that an anachronistic plesiosaur is highly unlikely to be the cause of the original experience. Science has demonstrated that luminiferous aether is not needed to explain light etc, and thus whether it exists or not is irrelevant. I don't claim victory, especially when it isn't necessarily earned. I leave that to others. And our ability to test all areas of inquiry involved. Agreed. These would include ones where the ability to get information is limited. Indeed, in limited cases where all possibilities are reasonably eliminated, and even then, those conclusions are still accorded normal scientific tentativity.The varying factor is not the completion of evidence either pro or con, but the degree of completion of the investigation of possibilities. Only when all the possibilities have been eliminated are you left with the evidence of absence.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) • • •

Sorry Subbie, but I still don't agree. If I take a picture of my family gathering, and everyone is in the photo except my son, the photo is evidence of the absence in the photo, while in fact he is beside me.The absence of evidence is evidence of the absence of evidence.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) • • •

Hi Subbie, Such proofs are only in maths and logic, and are based on accepted base assumptions ("self-evident truths").Evidence is different. My son could be in many such pictures but not in a way that is identifyable as him, or he could have been there in a way that cannot be photographed (sleeping in a carriage with the cover closed), or perhaps we did not stay long enough to be caught in any pictures except the ones I took.But it is not the individual absence that is evidence, it is the evidence of the completeness of the coverage of evidence gathering that makes the conclusion possible.We can also talk about Coelacanths and Ivory Billed Woodpeckers, among the class of animals thought to be extinct due to lack of evidence.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) • • •

Hi Domino, finally a stand? Agreed.You seem to have studied the issue a fair bit. Have you looked at deism and pantheism? Just curious.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) • • •

Hi Subbie, The point is that you need to establish this is the case before you can say that the Without the first, you cannot claim the second. Your problem is establishing that you have "a sufficient quantum of evidence" to support a conclusion. The burden is on the claimant to substantiate the claim.Let us take nessie as an example. Would you agree that a lot of time and trouble has been undertaken to "flesh out" nessie to prove that an anachronistic plieseosaur did not exist in Loch Ness in recent times?Do you think all avenues pertinent to the initial reported experience have been covered?Or do you want to do Yeti first - I haven't seen your reference list of scientific papers that conclude he doesn't exist yet. I'd like to see them.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : yeti

---

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) • • •

Hi Peg, A bigger problem for science is to explain why gravity exists at all - all they can attempt is to explain how it appears to work (and even there they have problems with anomalies), but the big question is why did gravity emerge in this universe.Without it, nothing as we know it would exist.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) • • •

Hi Huntard,I'm with Peg on this issue of why the natural laws are as they are. That is the crux of the issue isn't it? We can't compare a designed universe with a non-designed one, so that makes it difficult to tell one from the other.Certainly if gravity did not exist at all the universe would be very different. Same for the binding forces of atomic particles. Science explains (or tries to) how these forces work, with formulas that approximate reality, some closer than others, all with anomalies. Science does not explain why these forces exist in the first place.That science is not equipped to test these concepts does not mean they are invalid, it just means that "the model" is incomplete.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) • • •

Thanks Huntard, Curiously, I don't. I think god/s may be possible, but I have no certainty on this issue. The empirical objective evidence is that they do exist. Some people wonder why.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) • • •

Hi Straggler, lying again? You stoop to quote mining and fabricating an exchange that does not exist.You confirm my low opinion about you and the depths you will go for no apparent purpose.I guess nagging doesn't work to make me respond to your petty whims and childish fantasies, so now you resort once again to lies.All you ever do is clutter up threads with relatively irrelevant and banal banter.Good-bye again.

---

For the casual reader this is the context: Note that Huntards comments are in response to different comments about the natural laws of the universe.Where Straggler quotemined the response to Huntard is Message 141

quote:

---

Yes, so why claim that something must be "designed" when in fact, we have no way to tell.
Yes. So why then claim something with such certainty?

Curiously, I don't. I think god/s may be possible, but I have no certainty on this issue.

Yes, they would be different.
Why would there need to be a reason for them to exist?

The empirical objective evidence is that they do exist. Some people wonder why.

---

Obviously, when the context is put in place, the comment that "the empirical objective evidence that they exist" is referring to the existence of natural laws and NOT of god/s.Each line of my response is to the previous quoted comments, and Straggler omits the first box of Huntard's comments to create a false impression. This is quote mining, and if this is not intentional lying, then it is either delusional or indicative of inability to comprehend simple debate.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : added the context.Edited by RAZD, : ...

---

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) • • •

Hi Straggler, nice to see you can admit making a mistake. Not evidence per se, no. Just that it can't be ruled out that the reason they exist is that this is how the creation of the universe would function if god/s were responsible.One could make the same pseudo-probability kind of calculation that people have shown to discount god/s existence, by saying that the numbers of possible configurations for working universes is quite small compared to the likely near infinite total number of possible configurations of all the factors involved, so the probability of it occurring by chance is small.This, of course, means nothing, as such "probabilities" are just made up arguments, not real calculations. One has to wonder at your seeming obsession with certain arguments, and virtually predictable attempts to get people to dance to your tunes while ignoring larger issues, such as your providing evidence to substantiate your contention that god/s are 6.9999/7 unlikely. What objective emprical evidence that god/s do not, or cannot, exist do you have? (and no, I don't mean evidence that you think some other phenomena is occurring, I do mean evidence directly related to the existence of god/s). It is not evasion when your argument IS almost entirely based on a false representation of my argument/s, and not of fair debate. You were never able to substantiate your impression of my position the previous (one) time when you were called out on it, and the logical conclusion is that you were not able to substantiate it because it was not my position. There you go again, implying you have found some major contradiction by fabricated arguments, rather than actual reference to actual posts and arguments taken in context.Santa Claus (disambiguation) - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Santa Claus, also known as Saint Nicholas, Father Christmas, Kris Kringle or simply "Santa", is the legendary and mythical figure who, in many Western cultures, brings gifts to the homes of the good children during the late evening and overnight hours of Christmas Eve, December 24[1] or on his Feast Day, December 6 (Saint Nicholas Day).[2] The legend may have part of its basis in hagiographical tales concerning the historical figure of gift giver Saint Nicholas.

​

While Saint Nicholas was originally portrayed wearing bishop's robes, today Santa Claus is generally depicted as a plump, jolly, white-bearded man wearing a red coat with white collar and cuffs, white-cuffed red trousers, and black leather belt and boots. This image became popular in the United States and Canada in the 19th century due to the significant influence of caricaturist and political cartoonist Thomas Nast.[3] This image has been maintained and reinforced through song, radio, television, and films. In the United Kingdom and Europe, his depiction is often identical to the American Santa, but he is commonly called Father Christmas.

​

One legend associated with Santa says that he lives in the far north, in a land of perpetual snow. The American version of Santa Claus says that he lives at his house on the North Pole, while Father Christmas is often said to reside in the mountains of Korvatunturi in Lapland Province, Finland. Santa Claus lives with his wife Mrs. Claus, a countless number of magical elves, and eight or nine flying reindeer. Another legend of Santa says that he makes a list of children throughout the world, categorizing them according to their behavior ("naughty" or "nice") and that he delivers presents, including toys, candy, and other gifts to all of the good boys and girls in the world, and sometimes coal to the naughty children, on the single night of Christmas Eve. He accomplishes this feat with the aid of the elves who make the toys in the workshop and the reindeer who pull his sleigh.[4][5]

​

There has long been opposition to teaching children to believe in Santa Claus. Some Christians say the Santa tradition detracts from the religious origins and purpose of Christmas. Other critics feel that Santa Claus is an elaborate lie, and that it is unethical for parents to teach their children to believe in his existence.[6] Still others oppose Santa Claus as a symbol of the commercialization of the Christmas holiday, or as an intrusion upon their own national traditions.[7]

​

Early Christian origins

​

Saint Nicholas of Myra is the primary inspiration for the Christian figure of Santa Claus.[citation needed] He was a 4th-century Greek Christian bishop of Myra (now Demre) in Lycia, a province of the Byzantine Anatolia, now in Turkey. Nicholas was famous for his generous gifts to the poor, in particular presenting the three impoverished daughters of a pious Christian with dowries so that they would not have to become prostitutes. He was very religious from an early age and devoted his life entirely to Christianity. In Europe (more precisely the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria and Germany) he is still portrayed as a bearded bishop in canonical robes. In 1087, the Italian city of Bari, wanting to enter the profitable pilgrimage industry of the times, mounted an expedition to locate the tomb of the Christian Saint and procure the remains. The reliquary of St. Nicholas was desecrated by Italian sailors and the spoils, including his relics, taken to Bari[8][9] where they are kept to this day. A basilica was constructed the same year to store the loot and the area became a pilgrimage site for the devout, thus justifying the economic cost of the expedition. Saint Nicholas became claimed as a patron saint of many diverse groups, from archers and children to pawnbrokers.[10] He is also the patron saint of both Amsterdam and Moscow.[11]

​

Influence of Germanic paganism and folklore

​

Numerous parallels have been drawn between Santa Claus and the figure of Odin, a major god amongst the Germanic peoples prior to their Christianization. Since many of these elements are unrelated to Christianity, there are theories regarding the pagan origins of various customs of the holiday stemming from areas where the Germanic peoples were Christianized and retained elements of their indigenous traditions, surviving in various forms into modern depictions of Santa Claus.[12]

​

Odin was sometimes recorded, at the native Germanic holiday of Yule, as leading a great hunting party through the sky.[13] Two books from Iceland, the Poetic Edda, compiled in the 13th century from earlier sources, and the Prose Edda, written in the 13th century by Snorri Sturluson, describe Odin as riding an eight-legged horse named Sleipnir that could leap great distances, giving rise to comparisons to Santa Claus's reindeer.[14] Further, Odin was referred to by many names in Skaldic poetry, some of which describe his appearance or functions; these include Sgrani,[15] Sskeggr,[16] Langbarr,[17] (all meaning "long beard") and Jlnir[18] ("Yule figure").

​

According to Phyllis Siefker, children would place their boots, filled with carrots, straw, or sugar, near the chimney for Odin's flying horse, Sleipnir, to eat. Odin would then reward those children for their kindness by replacing Sleipnir's food with gifts or candy.[19] This practice survived in Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands after the adoption of Christianity and became associated with Saint Nicholas as a result of the process of Christianization and can be still seen in the modern practice of the hanging of stockings at the chimney in some homes.

​

This practice in turn came to the United States through the Dutch colony of New Amsterdam prior to the British seizure in the 17th century, and evolved into the hanging of socks or stockings at the fireplace. In many regions of Austria and former Austro-Hungarian Italy (Friuli, city of Trieste) children are given sweets and gifts on Saint Nicholas's Day (San Niccol in Italian), in accordance with the Catholic calendar, December 6.

​

Numerous other influences from the pre-Christian Germanic winter celebrations have continued into modern Christmas celebrations such as the Christmas ham, Yule Goat, Yule logs and the Christmas tree.

​

Modern origins

​

Pre-modern representations of the gift-giver from church history and folklore, notably St Nicholas and Sinterklaas, merged with the British character Father Christmas to create the character known to Britons and Americans as Santa Claus. Father Christmas dates back at least as far as the 17th century in Britain, and pictures of him survive from that era, portraying him as a jolly well-nourished bearded man dressed in a long, green, fur-lined robe. He typified the spirit of good cheer at Christmas, and was reflected as the "Ghost of Christmas Present", in Charles Dickens Festive classic A Christmas Carol, a great genial man in a green coat lined with fur who takes Scrooge through the bustling streets of London on the current Christmas morning, sprinkling the essence of Christmas onto the happy populace.

​

In other countries, the figure of Saint Nicholas was also blended with local folklore. As an example of the still surviving pagan imagery, in Nordic countries the original bringer of gifts at Christmas time was the Yule Goat, a somewhat startling figure with horns.

​

In the 1840s however, an elf in Nordic folklore called "Tomte" or "Nisse" started to deliver the Christmas presents in Denmark. The Tomte was portrayed as a short, bearded man dressed in gray clothes and a red hat. This new version of the age-old folkloric creature was obviously inspired by the Santa Claus traditions that were now spreading to Scandinavia. By the end of the 19th century this tradition had also spread to Norway and Sweden, replacing the Yule Goat. The same thing happened in Finland, but there the more human figure retained the Yule Goat name. But even though the tradition of the Yule Goat as a bringer of presents is now all but extinct, a straw goat is still a common Christmas decoration in all of Scandinavia.

​

American origins

​

Modern ideas of Santa Claus seemingly became canon after the publication of the poem "A Visit From St. Nicholas" (better known today as "The Night Before Christmas") in the Troy, New York, Sentinel on December 23, 1823 anonymously; the poem was later attributed to Clement Clarke Moore. In this poem Santa is established as a heavyset man with eight reindeer (who are named for the first time). One of the first artists to define Santa Claus's modern image was Thomas Nast, an American cartoonist of the 19th century. In 1863, a picture of Santa illustrated by Nast appeared in Harper's Weekly.

​

The legend that Santa Claus lives at the North Pole may also have been a Nast creation. His Christmas image in the Harper's issue dated December 29, 1866 was a collage of engravings titled Santa Claus and His Works, which included the caption "Santa Claussville, N.P."[24] A color collection of Nast's pictures, published in 1869, had a poem also titled "Santa Claus and His Works" by George P. Webster, who wrote that Santa's home was "near the North Pole, in the ice and snow".[25] The legend had become well known by the 1870s. A boy from Colorado writing to the children's magazine The Nursery in late 1874 said, "If we didn't live so very far from the North Pole, I should ask Santa Claus to bring me a donkey."[26]

---

There's a lot more, much of it quite interesting, but the facts that come out of actually looking up the background of the Santa Clause legend shows (a) that there is no one modern figure\embodiment involved, but many variations due to cultural adaptations, (b) that the initial source is an actual historical human being, Saint Nicholas of Myra, a man of extraordinarily kind and benevolent nature, and (c) that much of the modern american version of "santa clause" is based in part on fictional work by a poet and a cartoonist and in part on the myth\legend\folklore of Saint Nick - Sinterklaas - brought by the Dutch colonists to America.Much of the supernatural aspects attributed to Santa Clause are actually adaptions from different countries of other supernatural beings, such as Odin, from other previously existing myths and legends.Thus we can be very confident (level III) that an actual historical person, Saint Nicholas of Myra, actually existed, and that he is the basic source of the Santa Clause legend: there is empirical objective evidence that he existed.We also have objective empirical evidence that much of the modern adaptation of the Sinterklaus myth\legend\folklore into the modern Santa Clause story is strongly influenced by wholesale adaptation of the documented fictional work of two historical people, Clement Clarke Moore and Thomas Nast.We can also be highly confident (level III) that the other attributes, the supernatural ones, have been acquired by processes common\typical to urban mythology, where they are taken and adapted from legends and myths found in the countries where those specific adaptations were made. Again, there is empirical objective evidence of these older myths and legends having these aspects recorded in them, and predating the appearance of the Sinterklaus\Santa Clause being brought in by Christians, and there is empirical objective evidence that these adaptations were also encouraged by the church to convert pagan holidays into christian ones.Note that there are many conversions of pagan holidays into pseudo-christian ones, Easter probably being the other major notable one that most people know about -- originally a pagan fertility festival involving dancing naked in the woods under the moonlight of the first full moon after the spring equinox, 20~21 MAR, and this is also where the rabbits and colored eggs come from (symbols of the fertility goddess Eostre).Christmas is celebrated on 25 DEC because that was the date of the winter solstice when the Gregorian calendar was developed (the solstice is now 21~22 DEC due to calendar drift), and a lot of pagan cultures celebrated the winter solstice as a signal that the sun was "returning" to bring warmth and life back. Stonehenge is a famous ancient construction to mark this date, a rather rock solid bit of empirical objective evidence of such ancient celebrations, even though historical documentation has not been preserved from those times.Such celebrations marked the empirical objective observations made by ancient peoples of how the earth\sun system went through the annual phases of the tilted earth in its elliptical orbit about the sun.Thus the empirical evidence shows (level III confidence) that the modern "Santa Clause" is explained by a composite of actual historical human being, different bits of pagan myth\legend\folklore, and actual historical fiction, and this empirical objective evidence strongly suggests that Santa Clause is not a supernatural being.In my humble opinion, the spiritual\social value of the "true spirit" of giving, as personified by the historical person Saint Nicholas of Myra, is worthy of celebration and emulation, even if this is only done once a year, particularly if this giving is to those less fortunate, and NOT to with the crass commercialization typical of modern America. In this sense, yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. In this sense indeed, the spirit of Saint Nicholas of Myra lives on, larger than life, myth, legend and folklore.Every year the spirit of st nick delivers presents to people around the world, by inspiring people to voluntarily be willing intermediates, sometimes giving in their own name, and sometimes giving in the name of st nick.We see in many cultures, within many different religious backgrounds, that enlightened and inspired people exist, people that make a positive impact on human culture and society, an impact out of proportion to their value if we only consider such enlightened and inspired behavior to be just an artifact of "human invention" rather than due to something larger than an individual person. Like Gautama Buddha, Gandhi, MLK, Thoreau, John Muir, and others, Saint Nicholas of Myra fits this description.Any questions?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : moved on paragraph for clarityEdited by RAZD, : giving

---

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) • • •

Hi Straggler, thanks for showing me that I waste my time replying to you when all you do is claw what you want out of my posts with confirmation bias and ignore what is inconvenient to your beliefs due to cognitive dissonance. Just as the Wizard of Oz is made up fiction. Oh look: supernatural behavior in the Harry Potter stories is all made up fiction. Gosh that is a stunning admission, that known fiction is actually fiction. Are you admitting that "immaterial pink unicorns" and "ethereal turtles" are made up fictions seeing as you equate them with St Nick of Mayo's add ons?Sadly, for you, the fact that we can document one instance of conflation of an actual historical figure that actually existed with some other older myths\legends\folklore, and add in some known fictions, does not prove that all supernatural concepts are made up this way. It doesn't even come close.Here you have an actual historical figure mixed with a previous myth\legend\folklore behavior.The person of St Nick of Myra is not made up.
The behavior of giving gifts to others is not made up, but inspired by the original St Nick.I noticed that you completely ignored the impact of this actual historical figure on people today. Because of this myth, legend and folklore people are inspired to give, to do things that they otherwise would not do.The ghost of St Nick is still giving. Amusingly, the conclusion I reach is due to the objective empirical evidence that is readily available regarding St Nick.Now if you were to provide similar detailed evidence that god/s do not, or cannot, exist, why then you might have a valid argument. Asserting that you have evidence doesn't cut it.The reality is that you have yet to substantiate your position with objective empirical evidence.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : ...

---

Hi Straggler, still struggling with simple concepts of logic, I see. Now you have a model of how to provide evidence to substantiate a claim that X is based on human invention.We can likely do the same for the Wizard of Oz, the IPU, Russel's Teapot, Dawkin's Dragon, etc etc etc. Indeed the evidence shows that some people make some things up some of the time. It seems that this "evidence" is sufficient for Straggler to conclude that people must make up everything not supported by objective evidence that he does not agree with. This is cognitive dissonance at it's worst. Curiously, this conclusion does not follow from the previous arguments. Fascinatingly, starting with a concept that does have objective empirical evidence for it is NOT relevant to a discussion of cases where there is no such evidence.Further, showing that there is one kind of evidence, ie of documented human invention, in one specific case, does not mean there must be some kind of evidence for every case, and thus we see that Straggler has committed the logical fallacy of the hasty generalization once again.Interestingly, we also have this post: In other words, the absence of evidence is sufficient evidence for Straggler to not believe in god/s. This is objective empirical evidence that indeed the absence of evidence is used as sufficient evidence of absence to disbelieve in god/s. There are other similar quotes from other atheists on this forum, however it amuses me to use this one, for the simple reason that it neatly refutes his assertion that "This argument has now been utterly and completely refuted" all on it's own. And what we see here is a (typical Straggler) gloating assumption, based on confirmation bias, that this is universally true, a conclusion that is, as yet, unsupported by factual evidence or logical argument. And now that you have a model for how to make your argument, I expect you to provide the same level of evidence for god/s being a similar fiction. So have at it. What is the original empirical objective basis, and what is your supporting empirical objective evidence that this basis existed? All of which, btw, are not necessarily attributes of god/s, rather they all constitute part of Straggler's begging the question and false dichotomy logical fallacies. None of these assumed qualifications are necessarily true.http://theautonomist.com/aaphp/permanent/fallacies.php#bandw

quote:

---

Black-and-white fallacy - Making sharp distinctions between entities, events, or ideas on the basis of non-essential differences, treating some point between to extremes as one of the extremes, or treating a number of classes as though there were only two.

---

This is one of Straggler's favorite fallacies. Another is begging the question:http://theautonomist.com/.../permanent/fallacies.php#begging

quote:

---

Begging the question fallacy - Advancing an argument on the basis of statements which are assumed but need themselves to be proved, or assuming the conclusion or part of the conclusion in the premises of an argument. (Sometimes called circular reasoning.)

---

Is this all you've got? A conflation of multiple logical fallacies all into one (confirming the preconceived) conclusion? Finishing with the assertion that because one kind of evidence is sometimes true, that it must therefore be true for all other beliefs with no other evidence?People make up some things, they do not make up all things. Your opinion that in the absence of any other evidence, that this means a concept is made up is you assuming your conclusion, rather than demonstrating it. This is, of course, confirmation bias at it's worst.Lest we forget my favorite little diagram: A is some things made up, B is all known concepts ....Enjoy.

---