|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: If it can be, how can the "Absence of Evidence" be "Evidence of Absence?". | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meldinoor Member (Idle past 4808 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Hi ICANT,
ICANT writes: I on the other hand add the witness of several men that wrote down several things that had happened along with a lot of things that were going to happen. Since many of those things that they foretold came to pass in my lifetime, I tend to believe the other things they wrote. Is this really sufficient evidence? If straggler wrote a book about his twelve and a half magic pixies, and threw in a few predictions that came to pass in my lifetime, do I then have sufficient cause to convert to Straggler's religion? Just a thought. Respectfully, -Meldinoor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Is this really sufficient evidence? If straggler wrote a book about his twelve and a half magic pixies, and threw in a few predictions that came to pass in my lifetime, do I then have sufficient cause to convert to Straggler's religion? If it convinced you, would you really have a choice?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meldinoor Member (Idle past 4808 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: If it convinced you, would you really have a choice? I guess not. But it would be apparent to me that using Straggler's holy book as evidence for its own veracity, would be futile in a discussion with others who do not accept its truth a priori. Respectfully, -Meldinoor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Catholic Scientist writes:
I guess not. But it would be apparent to me that using Straggler's holy book as evidence for its own veracity, would be futile in a discussion with others who do not accept its truth a priori.
If it convinced you, would you really have a choice? It was a reason for believing in god, not a reason that the book is true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meldinoor Member (Idle past 4808 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: It was a reason for believing in god, not a reason that the book is true. If I'm going to be convinced that the 12 fairies exist, then I also have to be convinced that their holy book has veracity, IF I intend to use it as supporting evidence. Respectfully, -Meldinoor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Meldinoor,
Meldinoor writes: Is this really sufficient evidence? If straggler wrote a book about his twelve and a half magic pixies, and threw in a few predictions that came to pass in my lifetime, do I then have sufficient cause to convert to Straggler's religion? Just a thought. You have a mind that knows good from evil and with that mind you can choose to do, think, or believe anything you desire too. I have that same ability. So I exercise my ability by believing in God and trying to follow the teachings of Jesus, and the Apostles. It has made me a better husband, father, friend and neighbor. In the process I have been fulfilled and am satisfied with my accomplishments in my 70 year journey here on earth. I can say with Paul I have fought a good fight, kept the faith, and am now ready to be offered. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meldinoor Member (Idle past 4808 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
ICANT writes: It has made me a better husband, father, friend and neighbor That's great! However, the sole question I was trying to raise was whether the existence of a book is "evidence" for anything except the existence of the writers of the book. I'm not questioning the basis of our faith, only the use the Bible as evidence in a discussion about the existence of God. Respectfully, -Meldinoor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Meldinoor,
Meldinoor writes: That's great! However, the sole question I was trying to raise was whether the existence of a book is "evidence" for anything except the existence of the writers of the book. I'm not questioning the basis of our faith, only the use the Bible as evidence in a discussion about the existence of God. Since it is His book I would think yes. Should we use a book like Origin of the Species in which Charles Darwin says he don't know if God created one lifeform or many in the beginning to support evolution? I don't know you tell me. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meldinoor Member (Idle past 4808 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
The Origin of Species is not evidence of evolution. It is evidence that Darwin existed, it is evidence that he forumulated the theory of evolution and it is evidence that he studied evolution. I presume (I haven't read it) that it contains arguments and references to evidence for evolution.
The evidence itself is external and is ubiquitous in nature. Respectfully, -Meldinoor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Peepul
RAZD, when you say 'absence of evidence' what do you mean - sorry to ask this question so far in the debate but I'd like to be clear on it. Do you mean the absence of POSITIVE evidence for a proposition or the absence of ANY evidence either for or against? When I note that some people claim that "the absence of evidence is evidence of absence" then it is understood that the absence of positive evidence is being claimed as sufficient "evidence" to not believe the concept. When we are talking level III concepts, we see that they need to (a) be supported by objective empirical evidence AND (b) not be contradicted by objective empirical evidence, ie - not be falsified.
We also carry this condition of not being falsified by contradictory objective empirical evidence down to any concept being considered: if it is falsified by objective empirical evidence then it cannot be considered possible without explaining the contradiction. Note that there can be subjective evidence on both sides of the issue, subjective evidence that can be a basis for a personal opinion about the issue, but not anything that can lever a concept from level II to level III. Thus we see Catholic Scientist discussing religious experiences as evidence for belief in god/s, and Staggler et al saying that people making things up is evidence that god/s are made up concepts. These opinions are not sufficient for an agnostic to be convinced, because each possibility allows a contrary possibility. Objective empirical evidence does not allow a contrary possibility, otherwise falsification would not work. The evidence for an old earth does not allow for the possibility that the earth is young without some explanation of the contradiction posed by the objective empirical evidence for old age/s. Hope that helps. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Straggler,
Your "logical" argument remains plagued by the fact that we need to have decided whether we believe the irrefutable something under consideration exists or not before we put it through your silly formula. Because once we have done so we are "rationally" required to be agnostic towards it. Do you seriously not see the rather significant problem with this? Nope. The validity of the logical construction does not depend on the content of the argument, only on the form. As noted before, you want to assume your conclusion, and then pick the evidence to fit your argument. You claim to have a "6" position and you have also categorically stated:
quote: There was no weaseling about the definition of god/s in that claim, it is a claim of a proclaimed "6" position holder and demonstrated pseudoskeptic. Pseudoskeptic because your logic is false, invalid, wrong, and your "evidence" does not speak to your claim that there are no gods. Your "6" position is logically indefensible without empirical objective evidence that god/s do not, or cannot, exist.
You appear here to be saying that the defining evidential difference between those irrefutable concepts that you have concluded are the product of human invention (e.g. magical Santa, Easter Bunny, etc. etc.) and the gods/deities that you are requiring us to be agnostic about is subjective evidence? But surely not. Correct. I do not need them to justify belief that god/s are possible. Rather this is just one simple example of why your argument about human invention is necessarily incomplete and therefore cannot lead to a valid conclusion that god/s do not exist. The fact is that god/s remain possible for simple logical reasons. Furthermore, I've noted that you could prove that every subjective experience description -- the interpretation of the event by the people involved -- could involve human invention, and this would still not prove that god/s do not, or cannot, exist. The point being that to make your argument valid you need to prove that all such experiences are indeed involving human invention AND that this means that god/s do not or cannot exist as a result. You have not done the first, and you have not even begun to attempt to provide this second link at all, rather all you have done is assume you are correct a priori and then tried to use the conclusion from your assumption as evidence that the assumption is correct. This is begging the question, circular reasoning, affirming the consequent, etc: logical fallacy.
RAZD's dictionary definition of desim writes: deism (dē'ĭz'əm, dā'-)n. The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation. Deist Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com In advocating the above you are making a whole host of completely unjustifiable assumptions to derive your desired deistic conclusion. In doing this you are in denial of the indispitable facts available. What the definition assumes and what I assume are two different things. After all the same source defines atheism as follows:
quote: And several people here who call themselves atheists disagreed with this definition. I assume that god/s are currently unknown, that the issue of whether they can be known, in part or in whole or not at all, is currently unknown, and I assume that what we see in the universe could be the result of god/s creation, either directly (by making it so) or indirectly (by establishing the natural laws that cause the result). I assume that my personal belief in the existence of god/s is just personal opinion until such time as there is empirical objective evidence for or against the existence of god/s. If this belief is "based solely on reason" then I am bound by limits of logic and the limits of empirical objective evidence, which is why I necessarily end up as an agnostic theist "3" position:
quote: I would need to have more than subjective evidence to move from "3" to "2" and be based on reason. This is also why an atheist position based on reason, logic and the available objective empirical evidence can only justify a "5" position, rather than a "6" position.
So by your own criteria we find that the human invention argument is entirely justified. History is awash with the discarded remains of erroneous supernatural explanations for natural phenomenon. Verified objective historical evidence supporting the fact that humans invoke supernatural concepts to fill gaps in human knowledge and understanding. Exactly as you are doing when you plug the cosmic origins gap with the particular object of your deistic belief. Curiously, the history of human knowledge is awash with all kinds of failed concepts on how things work, not just supernatural explanations, but when an old idea explaining how something works by (proposed) natural laws is falsified and discarded, it is held up as an example of how well science works, rather than claim that all science must be wrong because of all the discarded concepts that were wrong. All such previous "naturalistic" explanations of how things work were also the product of human invention, so this either proves that science is just the product of human invention OR that your argument is logically false. Our knowledge of reality is refined by discarding falsified concepts, and it should not matter what kind of concept we are talking about, as logically it is the process of discarding falsified and invalidated concepts that leads to a refined knowledge of the possibilities of reality.
Hi RAZAWO ... before we put it through your silly formula. Amusingly, your attempts at ridicule, of both the person and the argument, just demonstrates that your inability to deal with the actual argument is a product of cognitive dissonance rather than a logical and reasoned position. If your position is truly valid, then why is it only supported by logical fallacies, personal opinion, and unsupported assumptions? Until such time as you can show that the "silly formula" is indeed silly, it will continue to invalidate your argument/s. Curiously, I don't find that simple fact silly at all. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
This is the op:
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?From my own experience I find that those who believe in Jehovah reject Zeus. My point is what evidence are these Theists using to reject Zeus, Ra, Thor, Xipe, etc. Still through out the topic, no-one has answered my question:
From my own experience I find that those who believe in Jehovah reject Zeus. My point is what evidence are these Theists using to reject Zeus, Ra, Thor, Xipe, etc.
I again ask. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi bluescat,
bluescat48 writes:
Still through out the topic, no-one has answered my question:
From my own experience I find that those who believe in Jehovah reject Zeus. My point is what evidence are these Theists using to reject Zeus, Ra, Thor, Xipe, etc. I again ask.
The gods you are talking about is based on Genesis 1:2 with Chaos the void producing Tartarus Hell, Gaius the earth, Eros Desire, Erebus Darkness, Nyx the Night. Tartarus and Gaia produced Typhon the Wind. Gaia produced Ouranos the Sky. Gaia and Ouranos produced Ourea Mountains, and Pontus the Sea. Since those are based on an eroneous understanding of Genesis chapter 1, what evidence do I need to not believe in their offspring as god/s? If I look up Chaos Here I find:
Chaos (Greek khaos) refers to the formless or void state of primordial matter preceding the creation of the universe or cosmos in creation myths, particularly Greek but also in related religions of the Ancient Near East. If I look up God Here I find:
God is a deity in theistic and deistic religions and other belief systems, I was also taught in our public school system about Greek mythology. The Bible is the only book that tells us how the universe began to exist and why. It is also the only book that tells us how life came to exist. Be it right or be it wrong it is the only source for that information. I have asked here many times for the answers to those questions and the best answer given so far is "WE DON'T KNOW". God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Why do you think that if someone reads The Bible and believes it, then they should believe in some random made-up god that you just threw together? If they want to read Lord of the Rings and then believe it represents reality that is frankly up to them. The problem I have is when they then demand that I treat it as any more likely to be true than any other similarly unevidenced story. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ICANT writes: So you agree that there is a possibility, that god/s exist. How many times do we have to declare this? Yes a possibility. A possibility in exactly the same way that any other disprovable concept is a possibility.
ICANT writes: There is no evidence for or against their existence. There is much evidence to suggest that gods are human inventions.
Straggler writes: No more so than the twelve and a half pixies that magicked the universe into existence last Thursday. That statement denies the possibility of god/s existing. No it doesn't.
ICANT writes: I have been a resident of the planet earth for some 70 years therefore it was not magicked into existence last Thursday. No ICANT. Because they magicked you into existence along with the rest of the universe with a fully complete set of memories. You cannot disprove this. Thus it is a possibility. But in all probability it is just an invented concept. Just like gods.
ICANT writes: Stragler writes: Why do you give your chosen possibility any more credence than any other wholly objectively unevidenced possibility? Be specific. As many times as I have in the past, why should I bother? To demonstrate that you can?
ICANT writes: Straggler you are totally incorrigible. That is the nicest thing anyone has said to me today.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024