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

Wouldn't that be the presence of trackless snow that was your evidence that the bear wasn't there?How about instead, while you were sleeping someone put a blindfold on you and when you look outside the tent you see nothing at all. Now that would be an absence of evidence and you wouldn't be able to tell if there was a bear there or not.

I dunno. Isn't it the positive evidence of the presence of the an empty desk that allows you to conclude that there's no pen on it and not the absence of evidence for the pen, itself?I mean, you not seeing a pen doesn't mean a pen isn't there but rather seening an empty desk does.I guess I'm not really sure what an absence of evidence really is...

I'm not sure this is a distinction or not but, isn't that the instance is tightly defined what allows us to conclude, from the absence of evidence of pens on the desk, that the desk is empty of pens, from which we conclude that there is not pen on the desk rather than us concluding that there is not a pen on the desk from the absence of evidence of a pen?Did that make sense?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

I think its the "tight definition of the instance". But that's not necessarily true. That's why we can't conclude that a pen isn't on the desk soley from the lack of evidence for the pen. Not just that but going further by observing that there is not a pen on the desk. And we know that because of the "tight definition of the instance". And I think its the "very well-defined terms with a finite scope" that allows for the conclusion and not the absence of evidence.

But the simple lack of evidence isn't what allows us to conclude that the pen is not on the desk. Its because we have a tight definition that allows us to determine that the desk does not have a pen on it. Yes, but also if we are standing here with our eyes closed and haven't really looked for the pen, then we would have an absence of evidence of the pen, but we wouldn't be able to conclude that there is no pen on the desk. We have to have exhausted the search of the desk to conclude that it is void of pens to conclude that the desk doesn't have a pen on it. I not just trying to be pendantic. I think I see a real distinction between lacking evidence of a pen on the desk and actually searching the desk for a pen and finding that there isn't one there. But simply not seeing the pen doesn't allow us to conclude that there isn't one there. Maybe we overlooked it or maybe we weren't even looking at all. We have to have looked and found that there are not pens on the desk in order to conclude that there isn't one there. And that is not simply an absence of evidence. That's not what I meant. Failing to make an observation of a pen does not allow us to conclude that the pen is not on the desk, we have to have determined that a pen is not on the desk and what allows us to do that is the observation of whole tightly defined scenario.

So I state my hypothesis that there is no pen on the desk. Then I stand here with my arms crossed and my eyes closed and viola, I have a lack of evidence for a pen on the desk. Therefore I conclude that there is no pen on the desk.It doesn't work that way. To conclude that there is no pen on the desk, I have to have evidence of a desk with no pens on it.

My issue with the absence of evidence being evidence of absence is not really knowing what evidence of absence is.I think part of the problem is the word 'evidence' being equivocated and/or conflated.Some have brought up the distinction between evidence and conclusive proof. Although I don't think we need the word "proof" in this thread at all.I'm going to use the word indication in place of 'evidence' as something that we can't really make a conclusion from to distinguish it from evidence that we can make a conclusion from.So, absence of evidence is an indication of absence but I don't think that absence of evidence is something that we can conclude absence from. And if we can't make a conclusion from it, then is it rightly being called evidence of absence? Or is it better described as an indication of absence?

No, I meant tentative conclusion.Absence of evidence is an indication of absence but I don't think that absence of evidence is something that we can tentatively conclude absence from. And if we can't make a tentative conclusion from it, then is it rightly being called evidence of absence? Or is it better described as an indication of absence?Does that change your response? I think that "despite searching" is the important qualifier.And that since we've searched we no longer have an absence of evidence....Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

But that doesn't preclude their existence or affect on those things. They won't. But that doesn't show gods not existing.

You're implying it, otherwise I don't see you having a point. You said that a naturalistic explantion for a phenomenon overturns a supernatural one. What did you mean? I believe in one god. But I also think that man's primitive descriptions of lessor gods could be incomplete descriptions of one god. So it doesn't really matter if we understand fertility enough to make those gods redundant. 2 or 3 etc's would have been enough....When you get into very specific concepts, it is easier to show where they are wrong and reach higher confidence of their non-existence. But since naturalistic explanation don't preclude the gods' existences, you're not showing that they don't exist. I'm saying that you haven't shown that they were false. We can show that the specific descriptions are inaccurate, but that doesn't show that gods don't exist. Maybe when you realize I'm not doing it? If you're not showing that gods don't exist then how are you evidentially justifying that they don't!?

From Message 208: I agree, and that's on with what I meant. I didn't mean that each piece of evidence makes a conclusion on its own. I meant that if we have a piece of "evidence" that we can't use to draw a conclusion from, then is it rightly being called evidence?I don't think you can draw the conclusion of 'no pen on the desk' simply from the absence of evidence of a pen on the desk. I think you need more than that. You have to have the well defined area of the desk that has been searched in its entirety in order to draw the conclusion that there is no pen on the desk.From Message 211That's what I'm saying.And since we cannot draw a conclusion simply from the absence of evidence for the pen, then I'm saying that it should not be called "evidence", ergo it is not evidence of absence but merely an 'indication' of absence.

That would be a total absence of evidence.However, lets say we divided the desk up into sections and that there is no pen in section A1. How would we know that the pen isn't in that section? Wouldn't it be by the absence of evidence for a pen in that section? That we lacked any indication of the pen being there?When you search for a pen and don't find it, is that an absence of evidence for the pen there? Or is it the empty portion of the desk that shows there is no pen there? What is that positive evidence against the pen being there? The presence of an empty desk? Do we get that from the absence of evidence for the pen?I'm not sure.

From the message you replied to:

quote:

---

I on the other hand add the witness of several men that wrote down several things that had happened along with a lot of things that were going to happen. Since many of those things that they foretold came to pass in my lifetime, I tend to believe the other things they wrote.

---

Why do you think that if someone reads The Bible and believes it, then they should believe in some random made-up god that you just threw together?

If it convinced you, would you really have a choice?

It was a reason for believing in god, not a reason that the book is true.