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

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.

Nothing wrong with that. You have more information now then you did for your previous posts on this thread. No one can (reasonably) make any negative comments towards someone who restructures their opinion once they have new information. In fact, such a motion should garner respect. I completely agree. And I believe this is very similar to the position put forward by onifre as well. Of course, we must therefore also admit that the chances of a god existing (as described above) is equivalent to the chances of a glarnofeeb existing Personally, I don't believe in "God" (or "god", if there's a difference in your mind). However, I do believe in people and things like hope and passion and willpower. You could say I'm as much removed from the deist position of God as the deist is removed from any specific position of God.That is, the deist doesn't think a specific description of God is adequate (or possible). So they have a concept of a general God, general higher-power type thing. I take one step further back and think that adding the concept of God is unneccessary. We have our higher-powers and miracles and such residing within oursleves.For example:
Hope is a powerful idea. Some have hope in God, some have hope in justice, some have hope in their spouse or family. But they all have hope. Hope certainly exists, and it is independant of what the individual has hope in. Different people may obtain varying degrees of "personal power" by having hope in different things. What you have hope in doesn't matter too much (as long as you believe it ). What does matter, is that you have hope. I don't believe in God, I believe in the virtue of Hope.Or something like that.
(This blatently ripped off concluding disclaimer brought to you by the letter D and the number 4)

Hi RAZD, just a quick question as I follow along (I like the sidelines )Your diagram here: What is the purpose? What is it trying to show?I may just be muddling posts together, but is it supposed to help give some sort of approximation or help in identifying "level of confidence in a concept being part of reality" or not?It's just, both sections (all known made up explanations and all possible made up explanations) seem to have an equal credibility to me for "level of confidence in a concept being part of reality."Obviously we can both agree that all possible made up explanations have a possiblity for being part of reality.But don't you agree that all known made up explanations also have a possibility for being part of reality?For instance, black holes were made up and entirely fictional before any evidence of their actual existence was found. Therefore, we know that even a known to be made up explanation has a possibility for being part of reality, don't we?If both A and B have possibilities for being parts of reality, what is the point of showing that one group is larger than the other, or contained within the other for the purposes of attempting to identify confidence levels of something being a part of reality?Or... maybe I'm just muddling things together and this diagram isn't for helping to identify levels of confidence within reality?

I don't think we're talking about the same thing.Science fiction writers invented black-hole-like-concepts within their entirely made-up and fictional books before we had any scientific notions that such a phenomenon could actually exist within reality. Before any of the mathematical models were created, or even had indication that were required to be created.For some time, black-holes were just as fictional as Middle Earth or elves.Now, I'm sure that the black-hole-like-concepts used in fiction books were not described to work in any way how actual black holes function in reality. But the idea... the concept... was imagined before it was found in reality. My guess is that the science fiction concept evovled from an over-inflated imagination on vacuum suction power.The point is that sometimes things that are created with the knowledge that they are created from pure imagination can sometimes turn out to have real-world counterparts.Along the same lines of Star Trek, but more natural.Technology of having books, or (the entire human library for that matter) digitized and available on a note-pad sized hand-held screen were imagined and part of The Next Generation before they were actually available or even create-able in real life (viewing the internet on a Blackberry or iPhone).Sometimes things that are known to be human imagination can turn out to be a part of reality.

Perhaps I am jumping the gun a bit. Black holes fact or fiction? (January 2002)

quote:

---

Einstein shared the view of most physicists of the time that such objects, later dubbed black holes, were too outrageous to exist.

​

...

​

The dramatic idea of a black hole, which would rip to shreds anyone caught inside it, fired the imaginations of scientists, artists and writers alike. But no one has ever rooted the drama in fact.

---

Not sure of the exact time-line.Perhaps the maths and "OMG look at this!" thought did exist before the writers took hold. But the point still stands that the writer's imaginative works on black holes existed long before any direct objective evidence of their existence was found.So maybe it was a bad example and I should have stuck with Star Trek But the example (good or bad...) doesn't affect the point. Which is, as you say: Therefore, my question (for RAZD) is still: How does any aspect being a known-to-be-human-created-fictional idea give it any more (or less) credence than any aspect being an unknown-to-humans idea in terms of identifying levels of confidence for the aspect being a part of reality?Both could be discovered to be a part of reality in the future.

I agree that there is a logical fallacy in what you're talking about here.But, if asked, I think bluegenes would agree that even known human inventions have a (minute) possibility of being a part of reality. This is what he said: He uses words like "infer" and "high degree of confidence."He's not talking about absolutes.It's more of a:Of all the ones we know about (we are able to test their objective observations), there are no exceptions from them being human inventions (or at least they are not required aspects for reality to function)... Therefore, it is inferred with a high degree of confidence that the ones we do not know about (have no objective observations at all) will behave in a similar fashion.That seems logical to me.There isn't any claim that a human invention must not be a part of reality, just that it's likely that the current non-objective (known) supernatural concepts will be similar to the current objective supernatural concepts as time and testing progresses. If so, then it seems logical to tentatively infer that the non-objective supernatural concepts are as likely to be a part of reality as other human inventions are... that possibility exists, it's just miniscule.I think bluegenes is saying that if we have an infinite number of unknown supernatural concepts... we cannot make any inferences at all. But, after we test 10 of them, and see that they are all human inventions, then test 100 of them, and see that they are still all human inventions, then test 1000 of them, and they are all still human inventions... it is then logical to tentatively conclude until shown otherwise that all of them are human inventions.I don't see another rational conclusion for future progress.I don't see bluegenes (or anyone else) claiming that human-invention = absolutely, 100%, not a part of reality.I see people claiming that human-invention = likely not a part of reality (high confidence level) since out of all human invention, only a small portion have been shown to have semblance in reality.There are 2 steps here:1. We have high confidence that human invention is generally not a part of reality. But this is not an absolute, 100% concept.2. We have data to rationally, logically (and tentatively) infer that unknown supernatural concepts are human invention (just like all as-of-yet known supernatural concepts have turned out to be).Out of those two ideas, do you agree with either? Or do both of them give you pause?