Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-22-2019 5:54 AM
15 online now:
Jon (1 member, 14 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,297 Year: 12,333/19,786 Month: 2,114/2,641 Week: 69/554 Day: 6/63 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
subbie
Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(3)
Message 5 of 1392 (675381)
10-10-2012 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by 1.61803
10-10-2012 5:42 PM


Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.

Well of course it does. What it does not mean is proof of absence. That's because there are levels of evidence. Finding the fingerprints of someone at the scene of a crime is evidence that they were present, but it's not proof. Perhaps there's some other way to account for the fingerprints being there besides the person being there. But the point is that the presence of fingerprints does not need to definitively prove that the person was there to be evidence that they were there.

Similarly, the absence of evidence is evidence that someone or something is absent. There may be an alternative explanation for the absence of evidence that would account for the someone or something being there without leaving evidence, but that does not mean that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by 1.61803, posted 10-10-2012 5:42 PM 1.61803 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-11-2012 1:29 AM subbie has acknowledged this reply

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 23 of 1392 (675440)
10-11-2012 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by New Cat's Eye
10-11-2012 10:45 AM


To a degree you have a point. Without some kind of definition of God, it is quite difficult to determine whether the evidence that we have supports the nonexistence of God.

It seems to me that virtually every description/definition of God that any culture has devised contains at least one item in common, some degree of supernaturality, either in the nature of God's being or in the things that he does, or both. If this is true (and I invite anyone to correct me if I'm in error), then the complete lack of any evidence anywhere of any type of supernaturalness, and the complete consistency of all evidence that shows the world is governed by natural laws, without exception, strongly support Stile's position.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-11-2012 10:45 AM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 36 of 1392 (675463)
10-11-2012 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by ringo
10-11-2012 1:51 PM


Re: Neener
It's always better to "know" things based on positive evidence rather than lack of evidence.

True. However, Stile has investigated and found no evidence where such evidence would be expected to be. That is in fact some positive evidence.

How else would you suggest we come to conclusions about the existence or nonexistence about beings that in fact do not exist? Or do you maintain that we should stay in a constant state of agnosticism about any and all entities that do not exist?

Edited by subbie, : Tyop

Edited by subbie, : Doh!


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by ringo, posted 10-11-2012 1:51 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by ringo, posted 10-11-2012 4:10 PM subbie has responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 40 of 1392 (675476)
10-11-2012 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Stile
10-11-2012 2:40 PM


If we use their definition of "knowing" (because it feels right... because it happened to me... because I don't think I was under a delusion... because I've heard of similar things... etc) we would be forced to include a whole whack of other things that would then also be "known" that wouldn't make any sense (like the idea that the world is flat - some people feel that is true; and also round at the same time - other people feel that is true).

Not only that, but many vast collections of multiple beliefs that are all mutually contradictory.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Stile, posted 10-11-2012 2:40 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 48 of 1392 (675497)
10-11-2012 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by ringo
10-11-2012 4:10 PM


Re: Neener
subbie writes:

Or do you maintain that we should stay in a constant state of agnosticism about any and all entities that do not exist?

ringo writes:

Yes.

But you don't. You don't actually maintain an agnostic position on the existence of Sherlock Holmes as a real person. You might pretend to for purposes of an academic discussion on the nature of reality and knowledge (and I'm not necessarily saying that such a position isn't defensible), but you know, in your heart of hearts, that he doesn't really exist.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by ringo, posted 10-11-2012 4:10 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by ringo, posted 10-12-2012 2:37 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019