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

Of all of the supernatural explanations for various phenomenon posited throughout human history how many have been borne out as true? How many have been overturned by naturalistic answers?Imagine that each supernatural explanation ever invoked by humanity represents the toss of a coin. After thousands, maybe even millions, of coin tosses this coin has only ever landed one side up. In fact the other face of the coin has never even been seen. Not once. At what point do you start to think that this coin might be double sided? At what point do you start to think it unlikely that there even is a supernatural side of the coin at all? And how much would you bet on the next toss of the coin, the next supernatural Vs naturalistic showdown, landing naturalistic side up?How much evidence do wee need to conclude that gods are both unnecessary and unlikely?

If there were an absolute vacuum of all evidence then the claim that a supernatural cause was just as likely as a non-supernatural cause might have some merit.The coin toss in question is not representative of gods randomly doing things. It is representative of the chances of us being right without evidence about what they might be doing. That is not what I meant. See above.However most religions (or those of religion) do seem to think that god is required to fill some sort of gap in our knowledge. Even if it is the gap that relates to why people believe in gods. And there can be little doubt that gap filling has been a primary reason for invoking gods in the past. Pretty much all gods were unknowable gap fillers in their time. We have just come to understand fertility, weather, seasons, tides, planetary motions etc. etc. etc. in such a way as to make these gods redundant. On what basis do we think any remaining gaps will fare differently?To be honset I had spent a fair amount of time in the pub on Sunday and having explained what I actually meant with the coin tossing thing here now I agree that it is a poor and confusing analogy. So feel free to ignore it.

Did I ever say, or have I ever said, that it did?But how many fertility gods, weather gods, sea gods, moon gods, Sun gods etc. etc. etc. do you believe in CS? Do you think doubting the existence of these very specific god concepts (Thor, Apollo, Scarab, Eostre, Isis, Freyr, Ra etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.) as very unlikely to actually exist is evidentially justified? Or are you claiming we should all seriously consider these particular concepts as likely to be real? When are we going to get past this eternal conflation of knowing with believing and of proof with evidence? Yet again, I didn't say that it did.But I believe in the gods of those existing gaps little more than I suspect the average person here believes that Thor is overseeing thunderstorms. Yet you tell me this is evidentially unjustified.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I am starting to despair at your lack of comprehension. Preclude? I am not saying, and never ever have said, that any god concept definitely does not exist. I am saying that any given god concept is more likley to be the product of human invention than true.We know as a fact that humans can invent gods. There is no such factual basis for thinking gods might exist. In fact there is no evidential basis whatsoever. You just did do it. Twice: "that doesn't show that gods don't exist" etc. Nothing that is innately irrefutable can be shown to definitely not exist. You cannot show that the Easter Bunny, Santa, The Immaterial Pink Unicorn or any other such entity does not exist. But that doesn't stop us having a high degree of confidence in considering them to be the products of human invention rather than real entities. And no this isn't just "subjective world view". It is based on the exceptionally well evidenced fact that humans are able to invent such concepts and the more complex but also objectively evidenced reasons for them doing so.The only indication we have that any gods even might exist are the claims and beliefs of humans. We have previously agreed that no claim operates in a vacuum of all evidence. Likewise claims about gods and deities don't exist in a vaccum. They exist in the complex environment of human culture, psychology etc. But we never even get as far as examining any of that stuff because you and RAZD are so dogmatically set on the "absence of evidence" line that you simply deny the possibility of a naturalistic answer involving human invention is any more or less evidenced than your preferred god answer. But this is an act of denial on your part. We know human brains exist and we know they are capable of inventing gods.The question "Why is human belief in gods widespread" can be answered by a near infinite array of possible explanations. But only some of those have a factual evidential foundation (the naturalistic explanations involving human brains and their abilities). Most conceivable explanations (magic moonbeams, fluctuations in the matrix, the existence of gods etc. etc.) have no evidential basis at all.Isn't considering the evidenced possibilities over the unevidenced as more likely a rational conclusion?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Are you now claiming that there is empirical objective evidence in favour of the existence of gods?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

OK. I guess unless RAZD clarifies we can leave it at that. But he seems to me to be be suggesting that the existence of laws compatible with life is evidence of some sort of "why" question that implies the existence of gods. The fact that our models are always necessarily incomplete doesn't seem to justify what is being implied here.

Indeed they could. But the number of unevidenced possible causes for the universe and it's nature (of which gods are just a small subset) are all but infinite. Even if any of these actually are the cause the idea that anyone has guessed the right gap filler is 1 out of near infinity.And then we have the fact that all the evidence so far suggests that supernatural answers are more than likely just the result of humans asking the wrong questions.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Fine. However are you not claiming that the natural laws themselves are objective evidence in favour of gods? Oh do stop with the silly hissy fits.As soon as it became obvious that you are unable to agree that Santa doesn't exist without either confirming the validity of human invention arguments or completely contradicting yourself I knew this would happen. Message 268This mock indignation is just a silly evasion tactic. How many times have you resorted to this "liar liar" nonsense now? I really just cannot take it seriously.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Oh get over yourself and stop being such a melodramatic wally. So in short we know that the common notion of Santa Claus is a fictitious human invention because we have a vast amount of historical evidence telling us exactly how the myth of this particular magical being originated and evolved.So a wealth of evidence in favour of human invention can be sufficient grounds upon which to have a very high degree of confidence in the probable non-existence of a particular concept. A high degree of confidence without requiring proof that the concept in question "does not or cannot exist". A concept such as an undetectable, magical, red clad jolly fat man riding round on a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer. For example.Welcome back to reality RAZ. Now that you have finally conceded the validity of scepticism based on the likelihood of human invention you can stop with your silly proclamations of pure agnosticism towards pixies, immaterial pink unicorns, ethereal turtles and all those other entities you have recently decided to embrace*. So now we have established that:A) Based on the objective evidence alone human invention is the most evidenced possibility with regard to god concepts.
B) With sufficient evidence in favour of human invention we can have a very high degree of confidence in the probable non-existence of a concept.As painfully slow as it is and as much as RAZD is determined to resist until the bitter end I am almost detecting some progress here.*For anyone who thinks I am being derisory and antagonistic here please bear in mind that RAZD really has proclaimed himself agnostic in the sense of being "very uncertain" regarding these concepts.

In a startling return to topic I am going to discuss "Absence of Evidence". Except that you haven't shown that common notions of a magical and undetectable Santa "do not, or cannot, exist" have you? Given the inherently irrefutable nature of the entity in question this would be impossible. You have simply provided a wealth of historical and cultural evidence upon which to conclude that the whole concept of a magical Santa Claus as we know it today is almost certainly a human invention. Excellently done too I might add. Amusingly I could not agree more with you more.For years here at EvC you have been proclaiming that atheism equates to "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence". This has been the mantra upon which most of your anti-atheist arguments have been founded. This argument has now been utterly and completely refuted.Jolly old Santa has forced you to recognise that objective evidence in favour of human invention is not only legitimate but can be truly decisive. Even (I would say especially) where the concept in question is inherently immune from direct refutation due to it's magical, immaterial or ethereal undetectable and unknowable nature. Concepts such as Santa Claus. Or god.No human claim operates in a vacuum of all evidence. Ever. All claims are made in the context of human history, culture and psychlogy. This is just an indisputable fact of life. How significant or volumous such evidence is will vary on a case by case basis. The extent to which such evidence is relevant will depend on the reliability of the competing evidence in favour of the concept in question. But such evidence is ever present. And for those concepts which are entirely devoid of all supporting objective evidence, concepts like Santa or god, evidence pertaining to human invention is the only evidence available. I am happy to go on to discuss the significance and volume of the objective evidence specifically in relation to gods as human inventions. But what you can never ever ever do again is legitimately proclaim that the atheist position equates to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". Because no human claim ever operates in a complete vacuum of all relevant objective evidence.Santa says so. And you have agreed with him.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Your entire post is one long and silly straw man. Er no. RAZD why do you feel the need to completely misrepresent everything I am saying? Such misrepresentations do nothing but highlight the paucity of your own arguments. No. Yet another straw man. Let me try again. You have (quite rightly I might add) entirely dismissed the modern concept of Santa Claus as untrue on the basis of the objectively evidenced historical and cultural context in which the concept originated and evolved. Refuted to all practical intents and purposes by demonstrating that this particular magical undetectable and otherwise irrefutable concept is all but certainly a product of human invention.But you continue to deny that there is any historical or cultural context, any objective evidence at all to even consider, with regard to god concepts. This is contradictory. There is always a historical, cultural and psychological context to every human claim. This "absence of evidence", this complete vacuum of knowledge, you keep insisting upon, exists nowhere but inside your own head. We cannot even begin to consider the evidence in relation to any concept of "god" until you overcome your stubborn pride and actually admit that this context and the related objective evidence exists.So will you finally admit that there is objective evidence relevant to the qustion of "god"? Or are still insiting that there is a complete "absence of evidence"?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

It is next to impossible to discuss conclusions based on evidence with someone who sticks their metaphorical fingers in their cognitive ears and recites the mantra "ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE. ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE. ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE". Simply asserting that there is no evidence over and over and over again does not make it true. Your much repeated opinion on this matter has no bearing on the reality of the situation.So far in this thread I have not even attempted to get as far as showing that the objective evidence available justifies atheism. At this point I am simply trying to get you to acknowledge that objective evidence even exists. Are you denying that concepts relating to "unknowable" magical beings originate and evolve in the context of human history, culture and psychology? Are you saying that these areas of knowledge have absolutely no relevance when assessing the validity of deistic claims? Are you saying that these areas of knowledge are not objectively evidenced?We can only discuss the objective evidence relevant to any concept of god if you are first willing to give up on this "absence of evidence" mantra of yours. Until you overcome your pride and stubbornness and concede that there actually is objective evidence to consider no progress will ever be possible. There is no such thing as a complete vacuuum of all objective evidence. Not even when it comes to magical, ethereal and irrefutable beings.Santa said so. You agreed with him. And now you want to change your mind because you don't like the consequences. One step forward. Two steps back. The denial continues. You are unable to show evidence that common notions of a magical and undetectable Santa "do not, or cannot, exist". You can only cite the historical evidence that demonstrates that such inherently irrefutable beings are in all probability human inventions. Which part of that incredibly obvious argument do you still fail to understand? The relevant evidence is the objective historical and cultural evidence pertaining to the god concept in question. For some arguments against loosely defined concepts of deism see here Message 436 or here Message 382. We can consider this evidence further once you have conceded that there is actually evidence to consider. I have little doubt that different atheists will cite all sorts of reasons for their atheism. Some rational and some insane. But so what? Every single one of the atheists you are debating with currently (in this thread and others) disputes that there is an absence of evidence and that you are repeatedly misrepresenting and misunderstanding them. Yet you relentlessly say that atheism necessarily equates to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence".But you are wrong. There is always evidence. Objective historical evidence. Objective psychological evidence. Objective anthropological evidence. Etc. etc. etc. etc. No human claim operates in a complete vacuum of all objective evidence. Ever.Why can you not just concede that fact and move on?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The supernatural explanatory model has failed. Failed repeatedly and spectacularly. If it were not for personal conviction it would have been abandoned long ago. Any rational person will consider the entirety of human history and knowledge demonstrating this immense and unmitigated failure as being entirely relevant to assessing the potential validity of any further claims of the supernatural.Apparently you don't. Apparently the entirety of human history and knowledge doesn't exist or has no relevance as far as you are concerned. Apparently all you see is an "absence of evidence".I find your stance on this incredible. Truly incredible.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Just to pick up on one point. Do you honestly think that is true?Predictions derived from the mathematical models are "entirely fictional"? No different to Middle Earth or elves?Our models are based on empirical evidence and reality. The extrapolations of those are objectively evidenced (objective in the sense that they are the same for everyone) possibilities. They may or may not be true. But they are are not simply imagined and fictional. Even if not physically evidenced as actualities. That is why we are seriously looking for the Higgs Boson but not king Arthur's sword. For example. As for the diagrams...... It has always seemed to me that RAZD's diagrams ultimately assume that there is some non-empirical aspect to reality that we are necessarily unable to perceive (except possibly and bewildering via subjective experiences of some sort). So I too will be interested to see his clarification of what he means of this and his many other such diagrams.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

OK. Having read the rest of your post I think you are right. I wasn't aware of any. But it is entirely possible. Yep. No argument from me there. Wild speculation even on the flimsiest and most fantastical of foundations can turn out to have some basis in reality. In fact the truth is all too often stranger than the fiction in such instances.