Evidence Of Absence.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-08-2015, 11:07 AM
Evidence Of Absence.
It's not a matter of asking for evidence that doesn't exist (when it comes to asking for evidence of nonexistence), it's asking for evidence that can't exist.

So, it's illogical to assign a burden of proof on nonexistence.

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
24-08-2015, 11:11 AM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 11:02 AM)Free Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 10:56 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Not sure of him, but I would say since the proof does not exist, it's completely pointless or unreasonable to proclaim a 7. There is no discerning difference in practical matters.

Proof should be required of all claims to proclaim certain knowledge. Otherwise just remain at ignostic to the claim or at a default state until further understanding of the claim.

Again, you are asking for evidence that does not exist to be provided to warrant a 7.0 Atheistic position.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that it is pointless or unreasonable to proclaim a 7.0 position when there is absolutely no reason- such as evidence- whatsoever to contest it?

What is unreasonable about it?

Exactly.

Because of what actually "absolute" or certain knowledge is. Which is something of a near unreasonable claim in almost any position. And certain types of reasoning or processes typically used to discover knowledge need to be examined deeply and sometimes scrapped to get to a spot where a particularly biased being's perspective can make a absolute claim of something.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2015, 11:51 AM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2015 01:07 PM by Free.)
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 11:11 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 11:02 AM)Free Wrote:  Again, you are asking for evidence that does not exist to be provided to warrant a 7.0 Atheistic position.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that it is pointless or unreasonable to proclaim a 7.0 position when there is absolutely no reason- such as evidence- whatsoever to contest it?

What is unreasonable about it?

Exactly.

Because of what actually "absolute" or certain knowledge is. Which is something of a near unreasonable claim in almost any position. And certain types of reasoning or processes typically used to discover knowledge need to be examined deeply and sometimes scrapped to get to a spot where a particularly biased being's perspective can make a absolute claim of something.

This speaks from a philosophical position in regards to absolute knowledge and absolute truth. One such argument may be presented as so:

1) All knowledge is derived from our senses.
2) Our senses are capable of being deceived.
3) Therefore, we can never be certain of anything.

So what's the problem with this argument? Plenty of problems, but one obvious problem is how it contradicts itself. I mean seriously, if absolute knowledge was not attainable, then how can we accept the above argument that it is unattainable if the above argument itself is subject to its own standards?

What part of the argument above could we determine to be true if absolute knowledge was not within our grasp? Is this not a fine example of how the philosophy regarding absolute knowledge and truth is nothing more than circular reasoning?

We need to draw the line between philosophy and reality, so I accept that 1 & 2 are true, but 3 is a self contradictory positive claim of absolute knowledge itself and is countered by simply using a mathematical equation such as 1 + 1 = 2. That, and the fact that "something must exist" also invalidates it. We know that something exists because if it didn't we can not sense anything at all. We sense "something" in existence, and that alone is absolute knowledge.

Now that entire argument is invalidated, for it is an absolute truth that in whole numbers 1 + 1 = 2 and something exists.

No, we draw the line on such philosophies because we can have them invalidate themselves to demonstrate the non truthfulness of them.

In conclusion the positive claim that 100% certainty is not attainable hinges upon the subscription to "Absolute Knowledge Is Not Attainable" philosophy, which is nothing more than a philosophical assertion that has no evidence for support, is self-contradictory in its very nature, and invalidated by basic mathematics and the fact that "something" exists.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2015, 12:55 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 11:51 AM)Free Wrote:  This speaks from a philosophical position in regards to absolute knowledge and absolute truth. One such argument may be presented as so:

1) All knowledge is derived from our senses.
2) Our senses are capable of being deceived.
3) Therefore, we can never be certain of anything.

So what's the problem with this argument? Plenty of problems, but one obvious problem is how it contradicts itself. I mean seriously, if absolute knowledge was not attainable, then how can we accept the above argument that it is unattainable if the above argument itself is subject to its own standards?

Even taking that at face value, you'd have to toss in the false notion that the conclusion was absolute - if it isn't, your objection is meaningless.
(and it isn't - the conclusion is implicitly and necessarily no more certain than the premises, since that's how logic works)

And the contrary is untenable regardless - or at best, a pointless dead-end.

(24-08-2015 11:51 AM)Free Wrote:  What part of the argument above could we determine to be true if absolute knowledge was not within our grasp? Is this not a fine example of how the philosophy regarding absolute knowledge and truth is nothing more than circular reasoning?

No.

(24-08-2015 11:51 AM)Free Wrote:  We need to draw the line between philosophy and reality, so I accept that 1 & 2 are true, but 3 is a self contradictory positive claim of absolute knowledge itself and is countered by simply using a mathematical equation such as 1 + 1 = 2. That, and the fact that "something must exist" also invalidates it. We know that something exists because if it didn't we can not sense anything at all. We sense "something" in existence, and that alone is absolute knowledge.

Now that entire argument is invalidated, for it is an absolute truth that in whole numbers 1 + 1 = 2 and something exists.

Mathematics is an axiomatic construct.

It is not a good reference point for discussion external reality.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
24-08-2015, 12:57 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(23-08-2015 09:24 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Do you agree with TBD that we can conclude aliens don't exist?

He maintains that you are misrepresenting him.

I therefore conclude that your straw man is irrelevant.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
24-08-2015, 01:07 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 12:57 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(23-08-2015 09:24 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Do you agree with TBD that we can conclude aliens don't exist?

He maintains that you are misrepresenting him.

I therefore conclude that your straw man is irrelevant.

A summation of what I do say such that you can see how I use the word conclusion:

"Yeah, based on the current paucity of evidence demonstrating positive proof of life existing anywhere other than Earth, all we can conclude is that aliens don't exist elsewhere. But life is PLAUSIBLE to exist, so we can hypothesize it should exist somewhere else, so we continue to test that hypothesis. But without evidence demonstrating that life does exist elsewhere, we can't conclude it actually does (even though it is 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
24-08-2015, 01:16 PM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2015 01:28 PM by Free.)
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 12:55 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 11:51 AM)Free Wrote:  This speaks from a philosophical position in regards to absolute knowledge and absolute truth. One such argument may be presented as so:

1) All knowledge is derived from our senses.
2) Our senses are capable of being deceived.
3) Therefore, we can never be certain of anything.

So what's the problem with this argument? Plenty of problems, but one obvious problem is how it contradicts itself. I mean seriously, if absolute knowledge was not attainable, then how can we accept the above argument that it is unattainable if the above argument itself is subject to its own standards?

Even taking that at face value, you'd have to toss in the false notion that the conclusion was absolute - if it isn't, your objection is meaningless.
(and it isn't - the conclusion is implicitly and necessarily no more certain than the premises, since that's how logic works)

I understand this, but it still makes the positive claim that certainty is unattainable. I'm only pointing out the obvious with that assertion, which is- if it were true- we cannot accept the assertion itself as being true.

Quote:
(24-08-2015 11:51 AM)Free Wrote:  What part of the argument above could we determine to be true if absolute knowledge was not within our grasp? Is this not a fine example of how the philosophy regarding absolute knowledge and truth is nothing more than circular reasoning?

No.

John: Absolute knowledge is unattainable.
Jack: If that were true, how can we know that what you are saying is the absolute truth?
John: You can't because absolute knowledge is unattainable.

It is an unfalsifiable claim at best, and certainly demonstrated as circular.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2015, 01:36 PM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2015 01:39 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 09:35 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The "proof" of nonexistence is a paucity of evidence and observation, as that is all that can be expected.
If I say "I have no evidence that it is raining therefore it is not raining", Do you think my statement is truth?






Just because you assume something doesn't exist does that then let you lower the bar and claim that you don't need evidence "in this special case lack of evidence is evidence of absence"?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
24-08-2015, 01:38 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
.....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2015, 01:43 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 01:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 09:35 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The "proof" of nonexistence is a paucity of evidence and observation, as that is all that can be expected.
If I say "I have no evidence that it is raining therefore it is not raining", Do you think my statement is truth?






Just because you assume something doesn't exist does that then let you lower the bar and claim that you don't need evidence "in this special case lack of evidence is evidence of absence"?

There is evidence rain is plausible and possible. Where is the evidence a god is plausible or possible?

You are not comparing like things. You are comparing something known to exist/occur, with something for which there is precisely no evidence is plausible or possible.

All that can be expected of nonexistence, is nothing. So when a claim that is incongruent with reality has no evidence, it should be dismissed.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: