Absence of evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2015, 06:21 AM
Absence of evidence
(22-08-2015 05:32 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 05:27 AM)Chas Wrote:  Due to the lack of evidence, I conclude that there are no gods.

Do you also conclude that there are no alien spacecraft?

Yes, one should conclude that there are no alien spacecraft as there is no evidence for them. Alien spacecraft are actually plausible though because there exists at least one species in the universe that has developed such technology.


Why do you keep shifting the goal posts?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
22-08-2015, 06:24 AM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2015 07:16 AM by epronovost.)
RE: Absence of evidence
Evidence of absence is defined as the absence of an expected piece of evidence. For example, Zeus lives on mount Olympus and shoots lightning bolts like javelins. We went to mount Olympus and never found him and discovered that lightning bolts could not be thrown like javelins but generated by friction. Thus, Zeus doesn't exist because all the elements that we could use to determine if he is real and that defined him were absent. This is evidence of absence. Deism describe God as outside time and space and non-interventionist. This describe a being that occupy no space, thus made of no matter or energy, and outside of time which means completely immobile and incapable of doing anything because of this. This is the very description of something that doesn't exist. My imaginary friend Smiley the Mega Tyrannosaurus is more real than that god for I describe him has from and in my imagination while god is not. My imagination is temporal, the time I dedicate to it, and physical since it's made by the electrical impulse of my brain. My Mega Tyrannosaurus is made of brain impulse and will evaporate when I will forget about him.

That's the core of the interpretation of Sagan's Garage Dragon by free and unbeliever (they can correct me if I misrepresent them here). It describe something that doesn't exist. Let's think about it. What are the criteria of something that doesn't exist compared to something that does? I would say that something that doesn't exist would have to be unobservable, have no direct impact on anything and occupy no space and time. To me, the deist god that exist outside time and space and doesn't intervene in the universe meet all the criteria for something that doesn't exist. If he does intervene, we need to clarify where and how and see if we can observe it. If we can't, that constitute evidence of absence just like for Zeus and we can say that he doesn't exist. We simply reject the claim, as opposed to refute/negate it, when the piece of evidence observed was inconclusive or could not be analysed. What is rejected has inapplicable isn't the concept of god himself, but the method to demonstrate his existence. Since god find himself without anything to demonstrate his existence, he, de facto, doesn't exist because he remains stuck outside of time and space which means outside existence. You must have faith to believe in God, because there is no evidence for him which means he is evidently absent. What do you think constitute proof of abscence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like epronovost's post
22-08-2015, 06:30 AM
RE: Absence of evidence
(22-08-2015 05:32 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 05:27 AM)Chas Wrote:  Due to the lack of evidence, I conclude that there are no gods.

Do you also conclude that there are no alien spacecraft?

I already answered that it is very unlikely that any aliens are aware of us and that it is very, very unlikely that any are approching us.

Stop conflating things that are not detected with things that are not detectable.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
22-08-2015, 06:31 AM
RE: Absence of evidence
(22-08-2015 06:21 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 05:32 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Do you also conclude that there are no alien spacecraft?

Yes, one should conclude that there are no alien spacecraft as there is no evidence for them. Alien spacecraft are actually plausible though because there exists at least one species in the universe that has developed such technology.


Why do you keep shifting the goal posts?

I'm not sure he knows what goalposts are. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
22-08-2015, 06:36 AM
RE: Absence of evidence
(22-08-2015 06:31 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 06:21 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Yes, one should conclude that there are no alien spacecraft as there is no evidence for them. Alien spacecraft are actually plausible though because there exists at least one species in the universe that has developed such technology.


Why do you keep shifting the goal posts?

I'm not sure he knows what goalposts are. Drinking Beverage

Consider Plausible

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 06:45 AM
RE: Absence of evidence
(22-08-2015 06:24 AM)epronovost Wrote:  Evidence of absence is defined as the absence of an expected piece of evidence. For example, Zeus lives on mount Olympus and shoots lightning bolts like javelins. We went to mount Olympus and never found him and discovered that lightning bolts could not be thrown like javelins but generated by friction. Thus, Zeus doesn't exist because all the elements that we could use to determine if he is real and that defined him were absent. This is evidence of absence. Deism describe God as outside time and space and non-interventionist. This describe a being that occupy no space, thus made of no matter or energy, and outside of time which means completely immobile and incapable of doing anything because of this. This is the very description of something that doesn't exist. My imaginary friend Smiley the Mega Tyrannosaurus is more real than that god for I describe him has from and in my imagination while god is not. My imagination is temporal, the time I dedicate to it, and physical since it's made by the electrical impulse of my brain. My Mega Tyrannosaurus is made of brain impulse and will evaporate when I will forget about him.

That's the core of the interpretation of Sagan's Garage Dragon by free and unbeliever (they can correct me if I misrepresent them here). It describe something that doesn't exist. Let's think about it. What are the criteria of something that doesn't exist compared to something that does? I would say that something that doesn't exist would have to be unobservable, have no direct impact on anything and occupy no space and time. To me, the deist god that exist outside time and space and doesn't intervene in the universe meet all the criteria for something that doesn't exist. If he does intervene, we need to clarify where and how and see if we can observe it. If we can't, that constitute evidence of absence just like for Zeus and we can say that he doesn't exist. We simply reject the claim, as opposed to refute/negate it, when the piece of evidence observed was inconclusive or could not be analysed. What is rejected has inapplicable isn't the concept of god himself, but the method to demonstrate his existence. Since god find himself without anything to demonstrate his existence, he, de facto, doesn't exist because he remains stuck outside of time and space which means outside existence. You must have faith to believe in God, because there is no evidence for him which means he is evidently absent. What do you thing constitute proof of abscence.

That's all fine and dandy, but you won't convince any theists with this argument. They don't define god as non-existent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 06:46 AM
RE: Absence of evidence
(22-08-2015 06:31 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 06:21 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Yes, one should conclude that there are no alien spacecraft as there is no evidence for them. Alien spacecraft are actually plausible though because there exists at least one species in the universe that has developed such technology.


Why do you keep shifting the goal posts?

I'm not sure he knows what goalposts are. Drinking Beverage

The alien spacecraft example points out the obvious flaw in your reasoning.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 06:47 AM
RE: Absence of evidence
(22-08-2015 06:45 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 06:24 AM)epronovost Wrote:  Evidence of absence is defined as the absence of an expected piece of evidence. For example, Zeus lives on mount Olympus and shoots lightning bolts like javelins. We went to mount Olympus and never found him and discovered that lightning bolts could not be thrown like javelins but generated by friction. Thus, Zeus doesn't exist because all the elements that we could use to determine if he is real and that defined him were absent. This is evidence of absence. Deism describe God as outside time and space and non-interventionist. This describe a being that occupy no space, thus made of no matter or energy, and outside of time which means completely immobile and incapable of doing anything because of this. This is the very description of something that doesn't exist. My imaginary friend Smiley the Mega Tyrannosaurus is more real than that god for I describe him has from and in my imagination while god is not. My imagination is temporal, the time I dedicate to it, and physical since it's made by the electrical impulse of my brain. My Mega Tyrannosaurus is made of brain impulse and will evaporate when I will forget about him.

That's the core of the interpretation of Sagan's Garage Dragon by free and unbeliever (they can correct me if I misrepresent them here). It describe something that doesn't exist. Let's think about it. What are the criteria of something that doesn't exist compared to something that does? I would say that something that doesn't exist would have to be unobservable, have no direct impact on anything and occupy no space and time. To me, the deist god that exist outside time and space and doesn't intervene in the universe meet all the criteria for something that doesn't exist. If he does intervene, we need to clarify where and how and see if we can observe it. If we can't, that constitute evidence of absence just like for Zeus and we can say that he doesn't exist. We simply reject the claim, as opposed to refute/negate it, when the piece of evidence observed was inconclusive or could not be analysed. What is rejected has inapplicable isn't the concept of god himself, but the method to demonstrate his existence. Since god find himself without anything to demonstrate his existence, he, de facto, doesn't exist because he remains stuck outside of time and space which means outside existence. You must have faith to believe in God, because there is no evidence for him which means he is evidently absent. What do you thing constitute proof of abscence.

That's all fine and dandy, but you won't convince any theists with this argument. They don't define god as non-existent.

This is not about what level of argument theists would accept for the nonexistence of their god. They assume on faith so as to prevent their disbelief. That response was to you and your examples.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 06:47 AM
RE: Absence of evidence
(22-08-2015 06:46 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 06:31 AM)Chas Wrote:  I'm not sure he knows what goalposts are. Drinking Beverage

The alien spacecraft example points out the obvious flaw in your reasoning.

No, it really doesn't.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 06:52 AM
RE: Absence of evidence
(22-08-2015 06:47 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 06:46 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  The alien spacecraft example points out the obvious flaw in your reasoning.

No, it really doesn't.

If your reasoning wasn't flawed, it would work all the time...Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: