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

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, except in specific circumstances.For instance, if asked whether there is a pen on my desk, the absence of observable evidence suggesting the presence of a pen is evidence that there is, in fact, no pen on my desk.This only works for well-defined questions where additional variables are not present. I could be asked if I have a cold, for example, and could actually have the virus and not be expressing symptoms yet, and so an absence of symptoms is not evidence of being uninfected.However, there's an incredibly important missing component to the statement that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.1) The burden of proof still rests on the claimant. If there is no evidence, there is no reason to believe the claimant. Without symptoms, for example, there is no reason to believe that I do have a cold.2) Extraordinary claims still require extraordinary evidence. A cold is a mundane thing. A cold is a mundane thing - the assertion that I could be infected by the virus while not yet showing symptoms is a well-evidenced possibility. There may be no reason to think I have a cold without symptoms, but it would still be rational to acknowledge it as a possibility.People who bring up the "Absence of evidence" argument nearly always ignore these two facts. It's impossible to prove that god(s), ghosts, goblins, fairies, Santa Claus, elves, wizards, the Tooth Fairy, Jaboo On the Mountain, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Ceiling Cat, or malfunctioning chakras do not exist through an absence of evidence. There is, however, no reason to believe in any of them without evidence presented by the claimant, and the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary evidence is required.God(s) and ghosts and the rest are not well-evidenced, commonplace phenomenon. They aren't even well-defined. They're on the same level as all other conceivable possibilities - every flight of fancy, every work of fiction, every daydream.It's possible I have a cold and am simply not showing symptoms. It's also conceivable that I may have malfunctioning chakras disrupting my spiritual energy flow. I can never prove a negative, not without evidence of a mutually exclusive positive claim.But without evidence from the claimant, I have absolutely no reason to believe such claims whatsoever. I don't think I have a cold. I don't think I have chakras, malfunctioning or otherwise. And I don't think any god(s) exist. My beliefs will remain the same until actual evidence is presented by a claimant. To do otherwise, to believe a claim when no reproducible, falsifiable, testable evidence has been presented, especially an extraordinary claim, would be completely irrational.

The concept of an empty desk is in and of itself a determination made from seeing a lack of evidence of objects on the desk. You cannot positively observe a negative. You can only not observe the positive - the absence of evidence is evidence of absence in such a tightly defined instance. Very few things actually exist in a total evidential vacuum. For instance, in the pen on a desk scenario, we have evidence that pens exist - we know what we're looking for. The desk is a defined area - an absence of visual evidence for the pen over the entire surface can serve as evidence of the pens absence only because the possible locations of the pen are finite and easily observable to the naked human eye. A pen is an inanimate object, and so cannot simply hide or otherwise actively foil the search.Ghosts are an excellent counter-example. There is no set definition of what a ghost really is. We don't even really know what we're looking for. Ghosts are typically considered to be invisible and intangible, often with their own wills - meaning they can possibly fool us by appearing for some tests and not for others. The can be the fairy in the garden, always hiding when we look. You can't provide evidence for the absence of something when the search area is not defined, when the subject of the search can easily affect the success, and when you don't even really know what you're looking for. Ghost hunters tend to use photographic "orbs," EVP phenomenon, and magnetic fields along with "spooky" locations (typically older buildings, expected to have noisy plumbing or electrical systems) as evidence, and use "instruments" that are highly subject to outside interference (some recorded EVP for instance has simply been interference from a distant baby monitor). In the case of ghosts, we actually have significant evidence that of those phenomenon that can be explained, they have universally turned out to be false, either through wishful thinking and false pattern recognition with flawed (to be friendly) methodology, or outright hoaxes.A true absence of evidence is very difficult to find.

What allows you to determine whether there is a pen on the desk?If you observe a pen, there is a pen on the desk.If you do not observe a pen, there is not a pen on the desk.An "empty desk" is the derivative of a lack of observing anything on the desk.You cannot observe an absence of something. You simply do not observe the presence of something.In this tightly defined case, the absence of evidence is what provides the evidence of absence. But you can only do this with very well-defined terms with a finite scope within the bounds of human observation.

And that's only half of it. The tight definition is the definition of what a pen is, and the specific, finite location of the desk that is easily within the bounds of human observation. The tight definition of the scenario allows us to examine every possible location for an object with specific properties.But it is the lack of observing evidenceof the pen that is the actual evidence for its absence. But it is necessarily true. Pens are not invisible. We can examine every possible location for the pen because the surface area of a desk is finite and within the bounds of human observation.If I change the question slightly and ask if a pen has ever been on teh desk, we run into an absence of evidence that is not evidence of absence becasue we cannot examine every point in time to determine whether a pen has ever been on teh desk.But under the specific question "is there a pen on my desk," an absence of evidence of the pen (the lack of observing the pen on the desk) is evidence that there is no pen on the desk. Again, this only works when we can examine literally every possibility and know exactly what we're looking for. That's why it can't apply to god(s) or ghosts or fairies. You're being pedantic. You cannot observe a negative. That's impossible. You cannot observe a lack of something - its a contradiction in terms. You can only lack an observation - you can have an absence of evidence. And again, you're missing half of the problem. The tightly defined terms of the scenario do not preclude a pen from actually being on my desk - the answer to the question could well be "yes" if a pen is actually observed. Within the finite scope of the present condition of the surface area of my desk, there could be a pen or there could not. Only the observation of a pen or the lack of the observation of a pen over the entire surface area can actually allow for a conclusion.Unless you think you can actually determine whether there is a pen on my desk without even looking? Because that would be the only way you can draw a conclusion from the scope of the scenario without actually making or failing to make an observation.

The problem is that the "fact" that I don't see a pen on my desk is actually derived from the absence of any facts indicative of a pen. There is an absence of an observation that matches the characteristics of the pen within the confines of the desk. That is an absence of evidence.The lack of pen-evidence is what increases certainty that the pen is actually absent. The more thorough the search, the greater the increase in certainty. Since a desk is a finite space easily within the abilities of human observation, a comprehensive search is possible, allowing certainty regarding the presence or absence of the pen to approach unity.This differs from other phenomenon where a similarly comprehensive search is impossible or impractical. In those cases, the absence of evidence is still suggestive of actual absence, proportional to the amount of searching possible and peripheral evidence.Searching for god(s) and fairies is simply not possible to the degree of searching for the presence of a macro-scale inanimate object at rest within a specific space. This means that the degree of certainty conveyed by a lack of evidence does not come nearly as close to 100% as the pen search in these cases...but it is a non-zero value.A true "I don't know, could be either way" conclusion is valid only when no search has been attempted (or is completely impossible) and where no peripheral evidence is available. The number of assertions where these conditions are true is relatively tiny.

Quite right - it's the end-point of teh "God of teh Gaps" argument.If God fills the gaps in our knowledge by filling in that which is uncertain and unknown/unknowable, the final gap to fill is simply to make the God concept itself so poorly defined as to be its own gap.Asking if there is a pen on my desk is an easy question to answer. But if I ask whether there is a glarnofeeb on my desk...how can you say, if you can't even define what it is you're supposed to be looking for?

It does work that way. Unless you are also ambiguous as to the existence of fairies, trolls, goblins, ghosts, and magic.This isn't a criminal trial. "Innocence" and "guilt" are terms which carry a connotation that is entirely inappropriate for this discussion.Whenever we look in a place where god is supposedto be, we find an absence of evidence. Outright falsification is impossible becasue of the nature of the idea of god(s) - sentient entities can simply not cooperate with experiments for example, and after all, god works in mysterious ways. But we looked at lightning, and discovered no evidence of Thor, Zeus, or Jupiter. We looked at the Sun, and didn't find a chariot wheel. We examined the dying, and detected nothing suggesting a "soul." We've tried prayer, and not once has appealing to a deity for intercession resulted in a statistically significant result.Each of these things gradually increases confidence that god(s) are unlikely to exist. Each of these is the absence of evidence, which in fact do provide evidence (though not proof) of absence.Let's go back to the pen and desk again. I'll rewrite the quoted paragraph above from the context of that scenario:

quote:

---

Putting terminology aside, I think the question posed by the OP is this: if someone says to you that there is no evidence for the existence of a pen on my desk, can they then use this lack of evidence as support for the assertion that there is not a pen? My answer is that they have to do more than that. Saying absence of evidence about the pen is equal to evidence for the absence of the pen is basically saying that the pen is guilty of non-existence until proven innocent. But it doesn't work that way. The pen should be considered neither innocent nor guilty until someone can come up with some evidence, and not lack thereof, that can contribute to the question of whether or not the pen exists.

---

By your standard, even if we examine my desk and find no evidence for a pen, we should remain undecided as to whether there is actually a pen on the desk. This is, frankly, absurd. I have no evidence suggesting that you are not an alien from another galaxy - should I consider you neither innocent nor guilty of being such an alien?The lack of evidence is evidence of absence, the strength of which increases as more effort is put into finding the evidence relative to a 100% completely exhaustive search. This is how rational thought works. Since a completely exhaustive search for a pen within the confines of my desk is entirely possible, we can be nearly certain that there is in fact no pen because of the lack of any evidence for the pen's presence. Since a completely exhaustive search for god(s) is not entirely possible, our certainty that god(s) are unlikely to exist is not nearly as strong, but is still non-zero because while we cannot exhaustively search all of reality, we have found no evidence in the places we are able to look.

"Indication" is a decent synonim. "Evidence" is really just one or more facts that support one hypothesis above others. It denotes an increased certainty above zero, but is not always necessarily sufficient to draw a conclusion - evidnece can support multiple hypotheses equally, in which case only a very general conclusion can be drawn (for example, an unidentified footprint supports only the conclusion that something with feet passed by this location).There are also multiple kinds of an absence of evidence. One is simply a lack of all facts. In a complete and utter absence of facts, all conclusions are simply raw speculations with no tie to reality. Obviously this form of an absence of evidence cannot be evidence for anything.The other is significantly different. An absence of evidence can be similar to our pen-desk model, where an absence of any observations supporting the presence of the pen despite searching does in fact support the absence of the pen above the presence of the pen. In this scenario, the absence of facts supporting the presence of the pen is the cumulative fact that supports the hypothesis that the pen is not present.It may seem like simple semantics, but "an empty desk" is not a positive observation, and this is an important distinction. The empty desk is itself a conclusion drawn from the absence of facts supporting objects resting on the desk. The "empty desk" is a derivative of the absence of evidence. The problem here is that you're using "conclusion" without any degree of tentativity.But all conclusions are tentative, some more than others.In the case of a pen-less desk, our conclusion carries little tentativity because we can easily search the entire desk.In the case of ghosts, gods and fairies, our conclusion from the absence of evidence must be extremely tentative - but we can still draw the conclusion. And as we search in more and more places for them, as we close the gaps of knowledge in which they hide, our tentativity decreases as well. We cannot prove that Apollo does not exist, but our degree of tentativity regarding his practice of driving the Sun across the sky is so low as to be zero. We cannot prove that Thor doesn't exist or "cause" lightning, but the presence of a demonstrably accurate natural explanation and Occam's Razor lead us to the conclusion that Thor either doesn't exist or is too busy fighting Frost Giants to interact meaningfully with Midgard.Let's try another example. If I claim to have been abducted by aliens (no, I'm not trying to be condescending or mocking, it's just an easy example), what would we do to verify my claim?We could search for signs of forced entry in my home, or try to detect abnormal radiation levels. We could examine me for signs of a recent examination, scan my body for any sort of implant or chip. We could ask neighbors to see if there were witnesses. We could set up video surveilance in case they returned.Obviously, if we find something unusual, perhaps an eyewitness, a bizarre burn pattern on my roof, an implanted object completely different from any known human device, and some radiation levels that are not explainable, we could tentatively start to believe me.But what if we find nothing? What if there is an absence of evidence supporting my claim? No radiation? No implant, no witnesses, no burn patterns, no signs of a struggle or forced entry, no signs of a recent medical examination?I contend that a reasonable person would understand that the burden of proof rests with the claimant, and without positive evidence to support an extraordinary claim, the tentative conclusion must be that the claim is likely false. The absence of evidence is itself a fact that supports falsification of the claim above verification. The absence of evidence is in fact evidence of absence - there was no abduction.We see this in science and law all the time. In the real world, we continually use the absence of evidence to draw a tentative conclusion of absence. If we test a medication and see no evidence that the medication has any effect, we use that absence of evidence as evidence of absence to draw the tentative conclusion that the medication just doesn;t work. If someone is accused of murder, but there is no body, no motive, the individuals never knew each other, no murder weapon, the absence of evidence leads us to the tentative conclusion that the accused did not commit murder.If I don't see a pen on my desk even though I've looked, I tentatively conclude that there is in fact no pen on my desk.Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. But like all evidence, an absence of evidence is not dead-certain proof, and the degree of tentativity of any conclusions drawn from an absence of evidence can range from the extremely high (do fairies exist) to the near-zero (there is no pen on my desk).

Appeal to Authority much?Really, the "fine-tuned for life" argument falls flat on its face because it makes the unfounded assumption that life as we know it is somehow a "goal" of the Universe.It is readily observed that the universe does not mold itself around life, but rather life molds itself to fit the Universe. Universes with different constants or other laws of physics would have very different results, which may or may not include "life," which may or may not bear much resemblance to the forms we have on Earth.When a pothole is made, it may or may not fill with water. If it does, the water will conform to the shape of the pothole, not the otehr way around.The Universe bears no signs of being "fine-tuned" to life as we know it. Life as we know it is "fine-tuned" to one specific planet with a set of environments within a set range of tolerances.Considering the distribution of matter in the Universe, I would say that the Universe is more "fine-tuned" to support Hydrogen than it is to support life.These arguments are nothing more than extensions of human self-centered-ness.

Quite to the contrary - you have completely ignored the point that the "fine-tuning" argument rests entirely on the unfounded assumption that life as we know it is somehow a "goal" of the Universe.Show support for this assumption, or the rest of your house of cards topples.I won't hold my breath. So?Let's return to the pothole-puddle analogy.Instead of a pothole, we could have a flat patch of ground, or even a mound - a place where water would not have a place to fill. Does this mean that potholes are fine-tuned to hold water? And again...so?You continue to operate under the unfounded assumption that life as we know it is a "goal" for the Universe. I didn't appeal to a YouTube video. I don't argue via proxy - I'm capable of presenting my own argument. I couldn't care less what that YouTube video says - I didn't even watch it.But again - your source argues using the unfounded assumption that life as we know it is a "goal" for the Universe"

quote:

---

from the perspective of obtaining a habitable universe.

---

This assumption is key to the remainder of the argument. If life as we know it is not a "goal" for the Universe, then the Universe cannot be "fine-tuned" to support life.No evidence has been presented to support the concept that life as we know it is a "goal" for the Universe. In fact, I alluded to evidence that this is explicitly [i]not[i] the case in my previous post...which you ignored, in favor of simply repeating yourself. Allow me to be more specific:The concept that human life is a "goal" for the Universe is on the level with the assumption that the Earth is the center of the universe. You can make a self-consistent argument using both assumptions, but there is no reason to think they are true beyond simple human self-importance.Life as we know it occupies a single small planet orbiting a single star in a Universe so inconceivably vast that to assume that the purpose of the whole thing is to give rise to us demonstrates a staggering level of arrogance. The vast majority of the Universe is not "fine-tuned" to life. The Universe is far more "fine-tuned" to support Hydrogen or Oxygen or stars or galaxies or interstellar dust particles or comets or water or any number of other things that by far outnumber and out-mass every living thing that has ever existed combined.The basic laws of the Universe may have been inevitable, the only way that a Universe can form. Or it may have been one of an infinite number of infinitely varied Universes, ranging from those that can support life throughout their entire volume to those where no life or even matter could ever form. We simply don't know. What we do know is that our Universe bears no evidence of having been "tuned" to cause us to form - rather, we show very conclusive evidence of having evolved and adapted to fit one niche within the Universe. This is the assumption of many Theists, but is still an unfounded, unevidenced assumption upon which the entire concept of "fine-tuning" rests.We are the water, and the Universe is the pothole. We formed to fit the Universe, not the other way around. If the pothole had a different shape that could still hold water, "life" would simply possibly exist in a form different from ours. If the pothole was not a pothole but was rather a flat patch of ground or a mound or a mountain or an empty space or any number of other options, then life would simply not have formed. None of which means that the pothole was specifically dug in an exact shape to cause water to fill it in a precise way.In other words, you continue to babble about irrelevant topics rather than addressing the root of the problem:Your argument only follows if the assumption that life as we know it is a "goal" for the Universe is true.You have not shown that it is true. Therefore, your argument does not follow. You have shown no evidence for the "fine-tuning" of the Universe because your argument rests on an unproven premise. End of story. QED. Done.Support that basic assumption with evidence, and then your other arguments will be relevant. Until then, it's a house built with no foundation.

Except that nobody (I'm aware of) is claiming that all (A) mustbe made up.We've simply claimed that, as we have plenty of (B) cases of known human constructs, and zero cases of (C) verified deities, it is reasonable to conclude that any specific deity in (A) is most likely to be a figment of human imagination than it is to actually exist.Let's use another analogy - we all know what a cat is. Let (A) in your diagram be all possible cats that have ever lived. Let (B) be the cats that have been documented. If all of (B) have 4 legs, is it not reasonable to conclude, when hearing that your friend just acquired a cat, that the cat most likely has 4 legs?The cat could possibly have been born with 3 legs, or a fifth through a birth defect. But it is more likely given the information available that the cat has 4 legs. Is that not true?What about crop circles? Let (A) be all possible crop circles, and (B) be the crop circles that have been documented. If all of (B) have proven to be hoaxes, it is still possible that some of (A) could be real alien phenomenon...but given the information at hand, isn't it reasonable to hold that any given crop circle is most likely another hoax as opposed to the result of an alien spacecraft?