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

If P then E
If not E then not P

No that is not 'absence of evidence is evidence of absence.' That is 'absence of evidence results in an absence of belief.' Which appears perfectly rational. Why would you believe a claim which has no evidence? Your new scale has its own ambiguities. The atheists have been telling you that they aren't certain about their position (at least when we know what is actually being discussed). Is that the same as not being sure? In which case they are '5's and always have been by this scale.So yeah - I'm not completely sure but I think it is likely that Yahweh doesn't exist, for example.

That wasn't what you quoted Straggler as saying. And reading Straggler's full post he seems to be quite keen on pointing out that he doesn't believe claims for which there is no evidence (if you told me that you owned the Brooklyn Bridge, I'd want to see evidence before I buy it off you. I don't have to believe you don't to be cautious in this matter. Likewise I want to see the ownership documents if I buy a car. If someone tells me they can cure muscular dystrophy, it's not that I believe that person is telling an untruth if I don't automatically believe the claim. It is rational to withhold belief in a claim before evidence in favour of it because most claims that can be made are false - so it would be safer not to accept an evidenceless claim. This is something of a value judgement: it is 'better' to have some false negatives than many many false positives.However Straggler goes on to point out that there is evidence for the contrary position which it is his position gives us a heavy preponderance against the position for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Evidence for the position that god is made up in human imagination is evidence that god does not exist. Not proof that it definitely doesn't, but evidence nevertheless.He has more recently had you agree with this with regards to Santa. We have evidence that it has taken something real and spun it into a whole mythological story of its own full of magic and stuff. We have evidence that this happens often in culture, and Santa is one of the biggies. I think Straggler's point being that Santa shares many pertinent properties with God, but you don't feel the need to apply this same reasoning there: that there isn't an absence of evidence on the subject at all.The way out of this dilemma, by the way, is to argue that it is possible that there is a real supernatural Santa spirit that inspires gift giving and inspired the historical personage and is the reason why we have evolved to gain pleasure from gift-giving. That Santa could be the why behind all these things, not just the how. Or something like that.Anyway I don't see him actually saying that he thinks the lack of evidence for a deity is on its own evidence for the lack of a deity -only a reason to not believe that there is one. It is of course evidence of the lack of an evidence leaving deity. Agreed. The portion you quoted Straggler as saying was about the former and nothing to do with the latter. After all, Straggler believes that there is contradicting evidence to the God claim: Evidence that god is a human invention. Which is off topic and much hashed out so I won't address it further. But my position has been described as pseudoskeptical and yet I could qualify as a '5' on your scale. That was the issue I was raising here. Is my being 'somewhat certain' as opposed to merely 'uncertain' based on anything but your personal subjective opinion? I only use 'likely' in the sense above: There are more false claims than true ones so if you start believing claims without evidence you are 'likely' to believe false things. If you want to name a specific evidenceless claim such as 'God exists' then I'm going to be put into the position of saying that without evidence it is more likely false than true and that you should withhold belief.We seem to agree that one should withhold belief, but we disagree in the epistemological argument behind why. I can certainly support the core argument in my epistemological position: That there are more false claims than true ones. I am not entirely sure as to the justification of your epistemological reason for not believing a claim that has no evidence for it. Yes, but so what? It's just a meaningless tautology: Unless it has been ruled out, it hasn't been ruled out. No. And I haven't. Not that saying this for the billionth time will have any impact, but I feel compelled to repeat it anyway. I haven't decided that god is impossible. That you say this is evidence that you aren't really paying attention to what your opponents are saying which serves as an explanatory framework as to why this argument has been going on for so long. What is astonishing is that you talk about me saying that it is 'unlikely' or what have you and then ask the rhetorical question why rule it out as a possibility as if to imply anybody has.

You still seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that I take the claim 'God does not exist' and I believe that it is true. There is evidence for the claim that gods are figments of our imagination, and if that hypothesis is true that would mean gods don't exist. I do think, therefore, that there is a preponderance of evidence for the claim 'God does not exist' - but I wouldn't commit to saying that the claim is definitely true. What you think I have claimed and even what I have actually claimed is actually irrelevant to what I was saying. I was pointing out that you were still erroneously painting Straggler as someone who was saying something that he explicitly wasn't saying. And nobody is claiming 'therefore god does not exist'. So I fail to see why you insist on bringing it up every three seconds. Perhaps the strawman is easier to fell than the real deal? They usually are, and they are so much fun to pound - but when your real opponents are attacking you in the flank - it's usually a good idea to turn your attention to the matter at hand, yes? Are you telling me that a troupe of flying ungulates pulling a sleigh and visiting all children on earth, assessing their annual tally of morality, and distributing gifts accordingly without being seen, squeezing through impossible gaps etc etc is not supernatural? Oh. Right.But no - we are talking about the characters within myths and folklore. Don't think the philosopher's god or the deist's god are not folklore - they are just limited to a smaller group of folk. A being created the universe and is now doing other things isn't an appealing folk story to most - but some people like it. Right. Folklore, myths and legends can be about many things. Including gods. Are you really arguing this? Right. Nor does it mean that Santa or Paul Bunyan per se does not exist. Exactly - which is why I am confused as to what you are talking about. (Though many cultures through history would have called Santa a god if we described him to them.) You really do a terrific job at misunderstanding things RAZD. Nobody is suggesting that this shows that concepts of supernatural beings are 'entirely made up'. I think everybody is comfortable with the idea that Santa wasn't some brain fart based on nothing at all, that became popular - but instead that it was based on natural facts about the world. We're just saying that you seem happy to accept that the 'core reality' behind Santa is based on natural facts about the world, but you seem to think it a terrible thing to suggest that god is likewise based on a 'core reality' of natural facts. Such as human psychology, the psychology of hierarchical social groups (eg, people claiming to be divine for political purpose), hyperactive agency detection, the theory of mind, embellishment of stories etc etc. Let's try not to equivocate over the word 'spirit' shall we? I don't mean 'widespread mood' I mean an actual self aware being made of non-material things independent of the minds of humans. If you want to argue the claim 'the concept of god exists' then you won't find any sane dissenters. It's only marginally interesting. But we atheists been saying this to you for some time. But when we say that people might have 'embellished' religious experiences, revelations, whose core reality seems to be embedded into idiosyncracies in our brain structure (which being an evolved organ is likely to be imperfect and filled with such idiosyncracies as we obsever with optical illusions): You say that we're dismissing god as being 'made up' and therefore impossible. We're really only saying that given the way things seem to operate: Claims like Santa and the like are often based on some real (and rather mundane) thing (either a person, or an unexplained (from the experiencer's perspective) phenomena etc) and the story grows in the telling until it meets skeptical querying and then it starts to become more of an undetectable being that only interferes in the affairs of humans in non obvious ways (like our philosopher's Santa). Agreed. Which is what atheists have been doing around here. I've argued that without evidence one should not believe a claim. There is evidence for the claim that gods, like Santa, are embellished ideas and stories stemming from mundane things such as real people, peculiarities in human psychology etc. It isn't, nor can it ever be (due to the unfalsifiable nature of many of the entities in discussion) 100% proof. But it is a claim, and it does have supporting evidence. You might choose not to believe the claim, which is fine. Right - but like I said - so what? Nobody has claimed otherwise.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Yup. It's pretty clear. Straggler does not believe in something for which there is no evidence. Lack of evidence results in a lack of belief. Exactly what I said earlier in Message 252. The absence of belief in the existence of god/s is the defining theme of atheism. Nope - unless you are claiming that god/s do not exist all you need to do is justify why one lacks belief in a claim that has no evidence. Correct. It is evidence that a group of humans over time can (and often do) take a mundane event that seems extraordinary and spin it into a fantastic tale of magic and supernatural beings with wonderful powers who act as arbiters of right thought and actions. I'm not sure what argument you are arguing against. Most of us here are perfectly comfortable with the idea that god/s are ideas based on real phenomenon (such as epilepsy, brain hiccups, hyperactive agency detection, conflicts with the 'theory of mind' and so on) and have been expanded upon by imagination.By 'completely made up' I mean out of nowhere, based on nothing whatsoever. Which I don't remember seeing anybody actually arguing. That's why I said: Nobody is suggesting that this shows that concepts of supernatural beings are 'entirely made up'.That's what the next few sentences were saying but you chose to interject with that for some reason as if it were a killer rejoinder. Because I was talking about the self aware type of spirit since that is something which I don't think exists. I do think some of the other definitions of spirit exist. And I asked you to not equivocate between them. Yup - a claim for which there is no evidence. So there is a claim that the core reality is something mundane - something which you accept there is evidence for as with Santa and other such figures who poets have imbued withe supernatural powers. And a claim that gods actually do have supernatural powers - something which you accept has no evidence for it.So the preponderance of the evidence weighs towards? So you are no longer a deist? Or are you one of those people that uses a word 'deist' to mean 'agnostic'? It's based on the concept that most entities that can be conceived of do not exist. It is based on the idea that most claims that can be made are false. It is based on the evidence in favour of human's very strong tendency to imbue mundane brain hiccups with supernatural backgrounds. So why do you not believe a claim unless there is evidence for it? I'm still bereft of an answer to this question.

Hi RAZD, I'm not sure why you think repeating yourself is the same as clarifying something. But I'll play along. Really? I see two types of statements from him.1) He doesn't believe claims for which there is no evidence.2) There is evidence for the claim that gods are essentially figments of the imagination.The section you have quoted, and done so many times using multiple pretty colours is the first kind of statement. It is quite clearly a statement about Straggler's lack of belief, and a brief explanation for it. It is a position I have got you to agree with before now, so I find it difficult to understand why it is giving you trouble again.Do you agree that there is no evidence of gods?
Do you agree that one should not believe a claim for which there is no evidence?
Do you agree that this means one should not believe in a claim for gods?You don't have to agree with any other arguments or conclusions, and if you really really still think that the bit that Straggler says says what you think it does - then could you answer the above questions as if we weren't referring to Straggler's position? Straggler's full system of belief is one thing. What Straggler is saying in the section you quoted is something else. All he is expressing in the quote you are given is a lack of belief in claims for which there is no evidence. He does not say 'I think claims without evidence are necessarily false'. By trying to read Straggler's full position into everything that he says you are getting confused like an apologist that attempts to read the Old Testament through the 'lens' of a certain Gospel or letter.Now - what you call this state of affairs, is up to you. If you want to call it 'active disbelief' that's fine. But it also means that Straggler 'actively disbelieves' in claims that he has yet to hear for which we stipulate there is no evidence.And maybe, just maybe, when we consider Straggler's position in its totality we learn that Straggler does 'actively disbelieve' because of the existence of some evidence (or maybe he does so for no good reason at all). But based on the statement you quoted I would think it is better described as an expression of 'passive disbelief'.The question at the heart of all this, which I have asked a number of times now is: Why do you not believe claims for which there is no evidence? No. It is a belief in the existence of a being. It means you believe it exists. Without evidence. This is not agnostic. That is a belief.

quote:

---

The difference is that I don't assume one is true, but not the other.

---

It seems you do 'assume one is true, but not the other' You 'assume' that the claim that god exists, created the universe, and then abandoned it, is true. There is nothing about waiting patiently for evidence - there is a belief in a claim. One might argue that it is a belief in a claim for which no evidence presently exists and one day might. But that isn't agnosticism, it's faith. Sorry about that.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.