As I tried to explain in Message 223, strictly speaking, "absence of evidence" is never "evidence of absence." "Absence of evidence" is a neutral concept. You can get this by closing your eyes. We often use the term "absence of evidence" incorrectly when what we really mean is that a partial search was performed and nothing was found. This is, strictly speaking, more than just an "absence of evidence;" it is "evidence of absence" over the parameter space which was searched.
I just made a post, #461 in the Faith & Skepticism thread (see Message 461), that gets to this - from probability theory and the concept of The Mean Time Between Failure using probability equations, the parameter space which was searched can be used as Positive Evidence. If we liken all parameter space to a huge deck of cards and the amount searched as how far down the deck we have looked, then the answer of whether there is, as rumoured by some, an Ace of Spades buried in the deck somewhere can be speculated on based on our rough ideas of how big the deck of cards is. In that post I came up with the term Coelacanthic Ace for this.
There may or may not be a Coelacanthic Ace in the deck. We have turned over 83 gazillion cards so far. Have we turned over enough to make the probability of an Ace so small that we can claim it as Empirical Objective Evidence of 6.0 Dawkins?
Now, compare "all deer are born from animals" or "all modern organisms are born from other organisms" with "all supernatural beings are born of the human imagination", another way of phrasing my theory that all supernatural beings are human inventions.
Still begging the question, still a logical fallacy.
No. Read my post again. The theories that all modern organisms are born from other organisms and that all supernatural beings are born of the human imagination are built on evidence. What begging the question would be is making a statement like: All supernatural beings require human invention; therefore all supernatural beings are human inventions. The conclusion is assumed.
The theories are strong theories because they have good evidential support and have never been falsified. Like evolutionary theory, they are not logical "proofs". They can be falsified by observations. Would you care to attempt to falsify my theory that all supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination and do not exist in reality?
Don't confuse ideas like "god did it" for the actual beings. You seem to agree that such ideas are human products, but the beings themselves are the mechanisms behind such ideas, just as variation and selection are mechanisms of the theory of evolution. Their existence needs to be verified if you want to build theories around them.
RAZD writes:
bluegenes writes:
An idea like "fairies created the universe" does not gain a near 50/50 probability in the minds of rational people merely because it has been proposed and cannot be disproved.
But the problem, for you, is that ultimately it does not matter what specific description is used, either the universe was created (by X) or it was not, where X is as undefined about god/s as "cheese" is a description of all possible kinds of cheese known now or in the future. Either god/s created the universe or they did not.
Cheese is cheese. Fairies aren't really gods. I agree entirely that "either gods created the universe or they did not." Either universe making machines created the universe, or they did not. Either the the universe was created inadvertently by the fart of a celestial cow, or it was not. Either the universe was formed by the collision of two five dimensional rocks, or it was not.
None of these ideas became 50/50 propositions without evidence to support them. Your promotion of the "god/s" idea to that level without supporting evidence is unwarranted. What about the universe being formed by an extra-universal mega-dimensional cheese (of any kind that might be known in the future) rotting? How many 50s do you count in 100?
Your comments on omphalism seem to imply that you have managed to put the biblical ~6,500 yr omphalist god on a Dawkins "6" level at last. Congratulations, you old pseudoskeptic.
RAZD writes:
Likewise you can make all the endless lists that you want of descriptions of god/s that are not likely, or extremely unlikely, on their own, but in their totality, all you need is one to be even mostly correct, and you end up with god/s creating the universe. The possibility cannot be eliminated without objective empirical evidence that actually shows that god/s do not, or cannot, exist.
And who's eliminating the possibility? Do you still not understand the description of the "6" position? Universe creating gods are possible, just as universe creating cheeses are possible, with all the endless lists of individual possible but very unlikely cheeses we can make up.
Look at what you're saying above, and it seems that you are now at least coming around to the idea that some individual described gods might be "very improbable".
Being a newcomer, I don't know if it goes against etiquette to respond to a post from so long ago, but I figured I'd go ahead and reply.
Seeing as you are new here, and we are unfamiliar with your actual stance on issues (you seem a little ambivalent in your posts so far), I think it is only fair to first establish where you stand and then take a devil's advocate pose.
Consider that god/s created the universe as it is, complete with the natural laws that govern galactic, solar, planetary orbits and weather conditions. These natural processes put in place by god/s result in lightening and thunder - so are they not then caused by the god/s?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ancient/classical Greek view of Zeus was not that he put natural laws into place, but that he literally threw down thunderbolts to smite people. As I said before, this is hardly compatible with our modern scientific explanation of lightning.
Perhaps you are confusing cartoon portrayals of beliefs with actual beliefs, and thus your incredulity is based on a straw man: that's two logical fallacies in one claim.
Unless Greek artists were trying to get some chuckles by putting a thunderbolt into Zeus's hand when they sculpted him, their portrayals were not cartoon at all.
What's more, its description of natural phenomena are much more accurate then that of the ancient Greek myths.
Science explains how lightening occurs by natural laws, it does not explain how the natural laws occur, why lightening in a necessary part of life on earth.
In that quote, I wasn't actually talking about science, but the Bible. What I was pointing out is that the Bible never specifies how God creates lightning, which leaves open the possibility of the theory about natural phenomena you described.
This depends extensively on how the bible is interpreted in order to be compatible with the evidence of reality, what mechanism is used to test for reality, and what resolution is reached when reality conflicts with the bible.
Exactly. The point is that the Bible can be interpreted. Many deities, including Zeus, are portrayed so literally and concretely that it's not feasible to interpret them in any other way than the way they are shown. The God of the Bible is not one of these deities (at least in most cases).
In science the mechanism is the scientific method, and the resolution with conflicts with reality are resolve by accepting reality and changing the science.
When the U.S. Constitution conflicts with reality, some (but of course not all) people resolve the conflict by accepting the reality of the current day and interpreting the Constitution in a way that may not follow it down to the letter, but preserves its spirit. That is what I personally do with the Bible. I do not believe it is true down to the letter, as this would conflict with countless scientific realities, but I do think its spirit is worth upholding.
"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so." - Douglas Adams
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ancient/classical Greek view of Zeus was not that he put natural laws into place, but that he literally threw down thunderbolts to smite people. As I said before, this is hardly compatible with our modern scientific explanation of lightning.
We would have to go back to the ancient greeks to see what they say. I think most modern depictions are cartoons of actual beliefs rather than factual representations of the belief in question. Interestingly, what I see is that this is used as an explanation for thunder and lightening, not as evidence that a god per se existed.
It should be noted that the greeks had an overall pantheonic belief that accommodated many different gods from different backgrounds, with different god/s treated in different ways throughout the greek lands, and each city had their own special god/s, very democratic. Zeus comes from an Indo-Hindu background, older than the golden greek civilization period.
What we see is that the explanation of a god personally delivering lightening bolts is false, but that this does not mean that god/s, having created the universe as it is, complete with the natural laws that govern galactic, solar, planetary orbits and weather conditions, are not ultimately responsible for lightening and thunder, etc.
In other words the model for why lightening and thunder exist has been refined, rather than invalidated with god/s being shown to be non-existent, in much the manner that the scientific process refines concepts about how thing work.
Unless Greek artists were trying to get some chuckles by putting a thunderbolt into Zeus's hand when they sculpted him, their portrayals were not cartoon at all.
Those would be iconic representations, rather than realistic. You look at a statue and see the lightening bolt, and you know that the statue is supposed to be of zeus.
Message 244: Now I have. I suppose you could describe me as a Jewish deist.
Well you are blatantly unable to dispute the fact that deistic claims necessarily operate in the objectively evidenced context of human history, culture and psychology. Nor can you dispute the relevance of this objective evidence to assessing the validity of such claims.
Which means that for all your bluff and bluster your relentless and ubiquitous assertion (namely that atheism necessarily equates to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence") is just plain wrong.
I guess after so many years of reciting this mantra it is too much to expect you to ever now actually admit this error. But the fact remains there is not, and in fact can not ever be, an "absence of evidence". You would rather actually deny the mere existence of objective evidence than give up on your preconceived position. It is plain for all to see.
Straggler writes:
No it isn't. He is not making a statement of logical certitude. He is making a tentative evidence based argument of likelihood.
In other words, he is giving his opinion rather than a logical conclusion - an opinion that is based on the logical fallacy of begging the question, and hence questionable at best.
Opinion is not a fact, not a known true premise for a logical conclusion.
It is logical in the same sense that all evidence based or scientific conclusions are. Logical but tentative based on the evidence available. That is not the same as an IF THEN statement of logical certitude. Nor is it the same as an "opinion".
But given your cognitive blindspopts regarding evidence and the fact that you think as yet undiscovered species of fish are evidentially equivalent to gods I don't really expect you to understand this point.
See Message 508, it answers the meat of your post, such as it is.
I notice that there is not much difference between this thread and the Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith? anymore, and suggest that one or the other be closed.
The other is longer, well past the 300 mark, and not accomplishing much more than entrenchement.
It has been stated here at EvC and at other evo/creo fora the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
So be it. When I say I don't believe in any gods I get asked what evidence is there that no gods exist?
What we see is that absence of contradictory evidence shows that something MAY be true, but that is the best one can go on ... if that is all you have.
I've presented an argument for levels of confidence for concepts:
This shows that as we move away from the areas where science can provide answers, that the answers we can derive by logic and reason have less confidence, and the answers derived solely by opinion have even less real confidence (if any).
We've seen the Dawkins Scale recast to remove some flaws in it:
Strong Theist: the existence of god/s is more likely than not.
Weak Theist: the existence of god/s is possible, maybe likely, but not sure.
Agnostic: god/s may exist or they may not, there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other.
Weak Atheist: the non-existence of gods is possible, maybe likely, but not sure.
Strong Atheist: the non-existence of god/s is more likely than not.
Absolute Atheist: knows that god/s do not exist.
(In order to take out the false impression that the word "probability" implies (ie - that some actual mathematical calculation is being made, but based on unknowns).)
We see from logical analysis of the forms of the argument that positions 1, 2, 6 and 7 develop contradictions due to their form:
Compare:
to:
OR:
Now, let Y = notX:
... and by the form of the argument, X(a) still can be true true ... which is valid, and a true conclusion is reached.
3D, 4C and 5E fit this pattern. Possibility is a valid conclusion from a lack of contradictory evidence.
versus:
... and by the form of the argument, X(a) is still absolutely true ... which is a contradiction ... unless you have objective empirical evidence that directly contradicts one or the other being true: without such evidence there is a contradiction in the form of the argument and the argument is invalid, falsified, void.
As the second premise is the same as above, we see that the first premise is falsified. 1A and 7B fit this pattern and are logically FALSE arguments.
OR:
... and by the form of the argument, X(a) is still more likely true than false ... which is a contradiction ... unless you have objective empirical evidence that directly contradicts one or the other being true: without such evidence there is a contradiction in the form of the argument and the argument is invalid, falsified, void.
As the second premise is the same as above, we see that the first premise is falsified as well. 2F and 6G fit this pattern and are logically FALSE arguments.
Thus, once we move off level III, where empirical objective evidence supports a scientific conclusion (albeit with scientific tentativity), that the logic of the arguments means that only possibilities can be concluded, not probabilities, not absolutes, and thus:
The absence of contradictory evidence shows that concept {X} MAY be true.
Still unable to explain how deistic claims can possibly occur in a complete void of historical and cultural evidence I see. Still basing your entire anti-atheist argument on an "absence of evidence" that does not exist and never can exist in any practical sense.
Your relentless and ubiquitous assertion that atheism necessarily equates to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" is just plain wrong. I guess after so many years of reciting this mantra it is too much to expect you to ever now actually admit this error. You would rather actually deny the mere existence of objective evidence than give up on your preconceived position. It is plain for all to see.
RAZD writes:
Summary Time or Time to readress the Topic?
I love the way you seek to moderate the threads in which you are the major participant. It is just so you. But if you want a summary here is one.
SUMMARY 1) ALL of the atheist arguments you have been presented with (by numerous people across multiple threads) are evidence based arguments. In any evidence based argument a degree of uncertainty is inherent and innate. Insisting that logical fallacies are being committed by conflating these arguments with statements of logical certitude is unjustifiable and simply demonstrates that you have no coherent counter-argument.
2) A high degree of scepticism towards the existence of a concept is entirely justified if sufficient evidence in favour of the concept being a product of human invention is available. Even if the concept in question relates to an undetectable being that is inherently "unknowable" and logically irrefutable (e.g. Santa Claus). Insisting that it be shown that such concepts "do not or cannot exist" is a pointless, ridiculous and futile debating tactic. We cannot prove that the Easter Bunny "does not or cannot exist" but we can cite historical evidence regarding the origins and evolution of a concept to show that it is in all probability a human invention.
3) There is no such thing as an "absence of evidence". All claims are unavoidably made in the objectively evidenced context of human history, culture and psychology. This is simply inarguable despite your bewilderingly stubborn and increasingly hysterical ongoing refusal to concede on this point.
4) Human history is literally bursting with claims of the supernatural. None of these claims have stood up to scrutiny. All but a tiny minority have been completely abandoned as examples of human invention. Those god concepts that remain in circulation have retreated into the darkest recesses of human ignorance. They have evolved into gods of the most difficult to fill gaps. Exactly as you would expect of concepts that inspire deep personal conviction but which have no actual basis in reality. ALL of the available objective evidence indicates that the very concept of the supernatural itself is a human invention. NONE of the objective evidence available suggests that there is any reason to think the supernatural actually exists. For more on this see here: Message 499.
Thus the evidence based and rational conclusion with regard to supernatural gods is that they are most likely human inventions and in all probability do not actually exist.
See Message 508, it answers the meat of your post, such as it is.
Having analysed your linked-to-post in more detail it has become obvious that you have actually conceded on the practical impossibility of "absence of evidence". Albeit it in your own inimitable and highly charming manner. And with some surreptitious thread hopping thrown in to disguise this fact. Nice try.
We will presumably no longer be hearing your much stated and entrenchently defended assertion that has been the mainstay of your anti-atheistic argument over the years? Namely that atheism necessarily equates to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". We can at least do away with that silly misconception. Finally.
C) Agnostic - There is no evidence. There is a complete vacuum of all objective evidence pertaining to the existence of your god (including any historical, cultural or psychological objective evidence that might be relevant to assessing the likelihood of human invention) and the only rational response is therefore pure agnosticicm.
RAZD writes:
I notice that you do NOT quote me as saying this, amusingly, just after complaining about my misrepresenting you with a full, complete and documented quote. One wonders where you come up with these ideas, because it does nothing but highlight the paucity of your own arguments.
Intriguingly, it should be relatively easy to find an actual quote of what I actual post as the agnostic position, as it has been repeated on this thread many times. For instance, here's one from earlier in the thread:
Rrhain writes:
That presumes a complete absence of evidence
No, it presumes that there is an absence of convincing evidence, that what exists is insufficient for decision/s pro or con.
So not an absence of all objective evidence after all. Apparently just an absence of evidence that YOU find "convincing". Hardly the same thing are they?
CONCLUSION Anyway: What you can never ever ever do again is legitimately proclaim that the atheist position necessarily 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 said so. And you agreed with him.
SUMMARY 1) ALL of the atheist arguments you have been presented with (by numerous people across multiple threads) are evidence based arguments. In any evidence based argument a degree of uncertainty is inherent and innate. Insisting that logical fallacies are being committed by conflating these arguments with statements of logical certitude is unjustifiable and simply demonstrates that you have no coherent counter-argument.
2) A high degree of scepticism towards the existence of a concept is entirely justified if sufficient evidence in favour of the concept being a product of human invention is available. Even if the concept in question relates to an undetectable being that is inherently "unknowable" and logically irrefutable (e.g. Santa Claus). Insisting that it be shown that such concepts "do not or cannot exist" is a pointless, ridiculous and futile debating tactic. We cannot prove that the Easter Bunny "does not or cannot exist" but we can cite historical evidence regarding the origins and evolution of a concept to show that it is in all probability a human invention.
3) There is no such thing as an "absence of evidence". All claims are unavoidably made in the objectively evidenced context of human history, culture and psychology. This is simply inarguable despite your bewilderingly stubborn and increasingly hysterical ongoing refusal to concede on this point.
4) Human history is literally bursting with claims of the supernatural. None of these claims have stood up to scrutiny. All but a tiny minority have been completely abandoned as examples of human invention. Those god concepts that remain in circulation have retreated into the darkest recesses of human ignorance. They have evolved into gods of the most difficult to fill gaps. Exactly as you would expect of concepts that inspire deep personal conviction but which have no actual basis in reality. ALL of the available objective evidence indicates that the very concept of the supernatural itself is a human invention. NONE of the objective evidence available suggests that there is any reason to think the supernatural actually exists. For more on this see here: Message 499.
So with regard to gods we have to provide contradicting evidence that shows that gods do not, or can not exist to justify any scepticism. No assessment of probability is even possible as a result of objective historical evidence that implies human invention of such concepts.
You are making two conceptual errors here. The first is that you can make a calculation when you only know part of the possibilities and have no idea how large the set is. It's not a probability, it is just an opinion based on your world view of what you think the probability is: there is no calculation. This pseudo-probability argument is just the argument from incredulity dressed up.
Second, you are making a logical leap, confusing the map with the mountain, and resulting in a logical fallacy:
• there is not evidence that gods exist • there is evidence that people make things up &there4 gods do not exist
is no different from
• there is not evidence that gods exist • there is evidence that mushrooms grow in the forest at night during a new moon when it is pouring rain &there4 gods do not exist
There is no connection between premise 2 and the conclusion, and this connection is absolutely necessary for a valid conclusion.
It is curious that the concept of gravity as used by the greeks has been invalidated and replaced by later concepts of gravity, and this is seen as the process of science in revising old views to be consistent with new information, but when we look at greek concepts of god/s and say that they are invalidated, suddenly the replacement of old concepts with later concepts is not seen as scientific, rather it is seen as "evidence" that people make things up, suddenly people take a different approach?
No, the nail in the coffin is that "people make things up" does not provide evidence that god/s do not, or cannot, exist, as acknowledged:
Message 516: They are magical undetectable beings that are inherently unable to be directly refuted in the ridiculous way you are demanding.
It is not yhe way tha I demand, it is the way logic demands to have a valid conclusion:
• there is no evidence that gods exist • there is evidence that people make things up &there4 gods do not exist
You need evidence that god/s do not, or cannot, exist in order to reach the conclusion that god/s to not, or cannot exist: anything less is a fallacy.
Straggler has not responded to the logical issues here or in the other thread, leaving the impression that he can't, and instead chooses to just repeat his position.
We will presumably no longer be hearing your much stated and entrenchently defended assertion that has been the mainstay of your anti-atheistic argument over the years? Namely that atheism necessarily equates to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". We can at least do away with that silly misconception. Finally.
CONCLUSION Anyway: What you can never ever ever do again is legitimately proclaim that the atheist position necessarily equates to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence".
Once again, confusing the agnostic position with what is observable from atheists does not mean that atheists do not use this logical fallacy. In fact we have one on record:
Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist?, Message 332: RAZD started this argument by relentlessly declaring that the atheist position amounted to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". He relentlessly and repeatedly asserted this despite numerous actual atheists telling him that this was not their position at all. ... There is no evidence of gods. Nor is there any evidence to suggest the possibility of gods. If there was such evidence gods would be evidentially viable concepts. If there was such evidence faith would be redundant. ... I am an atheist because I consistently do not believe in the actuality of that for which there is no evidential reason to even think possible.
"There is no evidence of gods." ... "I consistently do not believe in the actuality of that for which there is no evidential reason to even think possible."
The difference, of course, being that the agnostic position, that there is insufficient convincing evidence for making a valid conclusion, is a valid position, while the atheist position, that "the absence of evidence is evidence of absence", is not a valid position.
As has been shown, by logical analysis, the best one can conclude from an absence of evidence is the possibility of absence. This is an atheist "5" position, not an atheist "6" position.
"There is no evidence of gods." ... "I consistently do not believe in the actuality of that for which there is no evidential reason to even think possible."
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?
As has been shown, by logical analysis, the best one can conclude from an absence of evidence is the possibility of absence. This is an atheist "5" position, not an atheist "6" position.
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.
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.
Because they don't believe in things they don't think exist, and they don't think they exist because there is an absence of evidence for them ... this is just semantics.
Be that as it may, there are other examples of people claiming the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and no amount of hand waving will make those claims go away: some atheists do admit to saying this.
It may appear reasonable, especially if this conforms to your world view, but at heart it is still a logical fallacy. Why would one want to believe a logical fallacy?
Why would you believe a claim which has no evidence?
There is a difference between believing a claim with no evidence, and being open minded to a claim that has no contradictory evidence. The agnostic position is that neither side can justify their position by evidence, which seems, to me anyway, eminently reasonable.
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.
A point I've made before -- one is either a "5" or a pseudoskeptic when all you have is personal opinion and insufficient empirical objective evidence to form a logical conclusion.
So yeah - I'm not completely sure but I think it is likely that Yahweh doesn't exist, for example.
Except that when you use a term like "likely" or "unlikely" you move from being uncertain to being somewhat certain, and the question is where that somewhat certainty comes from -- additional evidence? or just opinion.
Strong Theist: the existence of god/s is more likely than not.
Weak Theist: the existence of god/s is possible, maybe likely, but not sure.
Agnostic: god/s may exist or they may not, there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other.
Weak Atheist: the non-existence of gods is possible, maybe likely, but not sure.
Strong Atheist: the non-existence of god/s is more likely than not.
Absolute Atheist: knows that god/s do not exist.
When you move to a point of saying "more likely true than false" or "more likely false than true" then you are making an assertion about the likelihood of the claim, and this is an additional claim that needs to be supported by evidence and not opinion (or one makes an illogical conclusion).
The question on this thread is "If it can be, how can the 'Absence of Evidence' be 'Evidence of Absence?'" ... and what we see, again and again, here and in other threads, is that absence of contradictory evidence is evidence of possibility. This is certainly consistent with science, where theories are never proven, just validated by supporting evidence, and the absence of contradictory evidence, showing that the theory is the best explanation we currently have.
Why would one want to rule out a priori a possibility that is not contradicted by empirical objective evidence? Is that reasonable?
I am making a general reply since I am not aiming the following remarks at anyone in particular.
1) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it is simply the absence, period.
2) With no evidence then the default position is non-existence, until such time as someone can provide evidence.
The point is the same whether it is a deity, the Easter Bunny, Superman, Harry Potter, James bond or Rhett Butler, simply a character created by someone's imagination. I don't disbelieve in deities, I reject them do to no evidence of existence.
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
Because they don't believe in things they don't think exist, and they don't think they exist because there is an absence of evidence for them ... this is just semantics.
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.
There is a difference between believing a claim with no evidence, and being open minded to a claim that has no contradictory evidence.
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.
The agnostic position is that neither side can justify their position by evidence, which seems, to me anyway, eminently reasonable.
Which is off topic and much hashed out so I won't address it further.
A point I've made before -- one is either a "5" or a pseudoskeptic when all you have is personal opinion and insufficient empirical objective evidence to form a logical conclusion.
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.
Except that when you use a term like "likely" or "unlikely" you move from being uncertain to being somewhat certain, and the question is where that somewhat certainty comes from -- additional evidence? or just opinion.
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.
absence of contradictory evidence is evidence of possibility.
Yes, but so what? It's just a meaningless tautology: Unless it has been ruled out, it hasn't been ruled out.
Why would one want to rule out a priori a possibility that is not contradicted by empirical objective evidence? Is that reasonable?
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.
™ Version 4.2
(1)