Evidence Of Absence.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-08-2015, 04:02 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 03:48 PM)Free Wrote:  But what of the singular "physical" axiom of existence itself? Regardless of how we define the "something" in my position of "something exists," the reality is that it is axiomatic in its nature.
Well... if I don't think too hard about what it means to exist (to be an assembly of atoms at a particular time and place, and I don't even know what an atom is), then I can grant you the truth of the statement "something exists". I don't know what conclusion you draw from that - oh, I see, you claim it as absolutely a true statement. But now you have *one* statement, and even that I wonder if one can clearly be absolutely sure of it. Where to from here?

Quote:Do you think perhaps the universe is axiomatic?
I'm not quite sure what you mean, but if you mean that it follows mathematical laws, then as far as I am aware from my reading, yes, but there's no obvious reason why it should be so, and maybe there are indeed places in the universe where such laws are not followed. AFAIK it's not regarded as particularly useful to speculate about the same but... one cannot *completely* discount the possibility.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2015, 05:25 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 04:02 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 03:48 PM)Free Wrote:  But what of the singular "physical" axiom of existence itself? Regardless of how we define the "something" in my position of "something exists," the reality is that it is axiomatic in its nature.
Well... if I don't think too hard about what it means to exist (to be an assembly of atoms at a particular time and place, and I don't even know what an atom is), then I can grant you the truth of the statement "something exists". I don't know what conclusion you draw from that - oh, I see, you claim it as absolutely a true statement. But now you have *one* statement, and even that I wonder if one can clearly be absolutely sure of it. Where to from here?

Quote:Do you think perhaps the universe is axiomatic?
I'm not quite sure what you mean, but if you mean that it follows mathematical laws, then as far as I am aware from my reading, yes, but there's no obvious reason why it should be so, and maybe there are indeed places in the universe where such laws are not followed. AFAIK it's not regarded as particularly useful to speculate about the same but... one cannot *completely* discount the possibility.

In a sense, we are mixing philosophy with reality and trying to make them somewhat equivalent.

It appears to be self evident that the universe and all that exists within it will continue to exist without us because, according to my logic, something must exist, and something must have always existed due to the infinite regression et al.

That, at least to me, is axiomatic. Nature is axiomatic. 1 + 1 = 2 is axiomatic, even if it is a construct. It will be true everywhere where existence ... exists.

So, how can something be axiomatic without being eternal? That's a very big question to me, because when I look at axiomatic possibilities I cannot imagine anything about them being something that was ever created by anyone, or anything.

Would 1 + 1 = 2 exist at the beginning of the Big Bang? If so, and it is eternal, then it existed before the Big Bang. We did not construct this. We only discovered it.

I cannot fathom how anything axiomatic can ever have an origin or a demise. They all already existed, and all we ever did was discover them.

Hence, when I think about having absolute knowledge, and I see self evident things in existence from existence itself to basic mathematics, we can know for a certainty that something exists, with that "something" being determined by one axiom or another.

1 + 1 = 2 is knowledge, and we know that 1 + 1 = 2 for a certainty. We are 100% certain of it.

If we can know that, then we can also have knowledge for some other things, and we can know other things and be 100% certain about what we know.

We have precedents. We have 1 + 1 = 2, and we know something exists. These precedents are evidence to support the capability to have absolute knowledge of at least some things.

Yeah, maybe you're right. I'm probably nuts.

Big Grin

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2015, 06:11 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 03:27 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 01:43 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  There is evidence rain is plausible and possible. Where is the evidence a god is plausible or possible?
The example wasn't a question about the possibility of rain. It was an application of logic.
Quote:If I say "I have no evidence that it is raining therefore it is not raining", Do you think my statement is truth?
We could have instead laid this out in a more generic structure "I have no evidence for X therefore not X". Do you think this statement is truth?

By my understanding of "evidence of absence" is that you need to prove that things that should be there actually aren't.

For example, if a claim is that a cat is in a box. Then we can make the following subclaims.
For a cat to be in the box then we would expect the following testable claims to be true:
1. The cat's body should be visible inside the borders of the box when sufficient light is cast inside the box and all of the contents of the box can be seen.
2. The weight of the box should be equal to or heavier that that of the cat in question, unless the box is containing some floatation device or mechanism.
3. The cat, being warm blooded should be emitting heat, if the cat is hotter than the contents of the box and if the cat is alive.

The falsfing evidence alternatives would be:
1. A cat's body will not be visually detected within the box, under the conditions that the box's contents can be visually examined.
2. If the weight of the box is lighter than the cat and the box does not contain any flotation device and the cat is not suspended by something other than the box.
3. A heat examination of the box does not show any irregularities as would be expected if a living warm blooded animal were inside the box.

So if we do the appropriate experiments and show that the falsifying criteria is met then we can present this as evidence that the cat is not in the box. This is evidence of absence.

(24-08-2015 01:43 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.
Sure. But in my new example we don't know if the cat is in the box and we have a way to falsify the claim, by examining the contents of the box.

Quote: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.
Happy to dismiss a claim.
But disagree with the statement "All that can be expected of nonexistence, is nothing."
If the cat does not exist within the box there there are several tests that can be done to prove that the cat does not exist within the box.

It appears you take god as a special case, you assume gods don't exist therefore you claim that there will never be evidence that gods don't exist, therefore you lower the bar on the idea of "evidence of absence" in this circumstance.

So in order to lower the bar, you must first assume non existence and then you can use your lowered bar version of "evidence of absence" to conclude the non existence which is what your assumption was going into the formulation of this proof.

Why don't you instead ask the claimants for falsifiable criteria before making such an assessment?

"By my understanding of "evidence of absence" is that you need to prove that things that should be there actually aren't."

You don't "prove" absence. You observe absence by noting the presence of no positive evidence or observation for said claim.

"For example, if a claim is that a cat is in a box."

But you are still using an example that presupposes a scenario for which their are no logical contradictions with reality. Boxes exist. Cats exist. Cats could fit into boxes.

This is conceivably plausible to test.

Gods are not conceivably plausible as no god nor any attribute of a god has ever been shown to exist (whether it be the physical nature of the god, or the description of the place. The cat and box in your analogy).

"Sure. But in my new example we don't know if the cat is in the box and we have a way to falsify the claim, by examining the contents of the box."

But your new scenario is still plausible in the sense that it is congruent with what we know about the nature of the universe. Gods are not.

"If the cat does not exist within the box there there are several tests that can be done to prove that the cat does not exist within the box."

Still not a comparable example. Cats and boxes (in or not) don't rely upon claims that are incongruent with nature.

"It appears you take god as a special case, you assume gods don't exist therefore you claim that there will never be evidence that gods don't exist, therefore you lower the bar on the idea of "evidence of absence" in this circumstance."

No, I recognize that something that could plausibly exist not existing (the cat not in the box) can actually be tested directly for positive information that would not be contested. Anything that doesn't actually exist (but is widely believed to and has had special attributes assigned to it to avoid detection or allow for special pleading), can't have any direct measures for its nonexistence.

For instance, we can approximate the weight of a cat. We know the rough body temperature. We know its morphology, its diet, its evolutionary lineage, etc. No god concept has ever provided any measure that is congruent with reality. So there is no missing weight, mass, energy, presence, etc, that would indicate an absence of god in the same way it would indicate the absence of a cat in the box.

God concepts themselves have never been shown plausible. They must do this first before any god could actually tested. But theists have never demonstrated plausibility or possibility.

"Why don't you instead ask the claimants for falsifiable criteria before making such an assessment?"

I take the claims as I see them and look into them. But theists either shift the goal posts or rely upon some sort of bullshit unfalsifiable and untestable special pleading. I don't argue with theists about the existence of their imaginary friends anymore, it's pointless.

(in response to my Santa example)
"We could set up some experiments. We could do some calculations. We could gather some evidence supporting non existence of Santa. It just depends on how the claim is documented."

You could set up experiments to test the god claims and not a single theist would ever give a shit about your results. Why? Special pleading.

My point in all of this is that not only is it possible to be a 7.0 on Dawkins scale, it is entirely logical and consistent with where the burden of proof rests. I don't have a burden of proof in rejecting a claim with precisely no evidence of plausibility. In the case of your cat example, I would conceivably have a burden of proof in rejecting the claim that a cat is in the box, because that is a testable and falsifiable hypothesis.

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
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
24-08-2015, 06:22 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 02:28 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 02:19 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  cjlr,

Do you agree with TBD that it is reasonable to conclude that aliens don't exist?

His quote - which you have reproduced in its entirely, for reasons I cannot quite comprehend - states that we cannot conclude that it does exist.

You are asking me whether I agree that with the statement that we can conclude that it does not exist.

The particularly astute members of the audience might have noticed that these statements are not equivalent.

Given that BeardedDude clearly stated A, and that you have repeatedly asked whether I agree with BeardedDude that B, I can certainly conclude that you're either powerfully ignorant or hopelessly dishonest. So the answer is no; I do not agree with your straw man.

Really? You missed this part? And you consider yourself to be astute?

"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)."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2015, 06:25 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 06:22 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 02:28 PM)cjlr Wrote:  His quote - which you have reproduced in its entirely, for reasons I cannot quite comprehend - states that we cannot conclude that it does exist.

You are asking me whether I agree that with the statement that we can conclude that it does not exist.

The particularly astute members of the audience might have noticed that these statements are not equivalent.

Given that BeardedDude clearly stated A, and that you have repeatedly asked whether I agree with BeardedDude that B, I can certainly conclude that you're either powerfully ignorant or hopelessly dishonest. So the answer is no; I do not agree with your straw man.

Really? You missed this part? And you consider yourself to be astute?

"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)."

"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)."

Context matters. So when you quote mine one sentence in a paragraph to construct the argument you want, THAT IS A STRAW MAN VERSION OF WHAT I SAID AND DOES NOT REPRESENT MY POINT IN ITS ENTIRETY.

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
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
24-08-2015, 06:26 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
Also, where are those apologies, Matt? Drinking Beverage

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, 06:27 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 06:26 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Also, where are those apologies, Matt? Drinking Beverage

When will you learn the difference between absence of evidence and evidence of absence? This logic 101 and you fail to grasp it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2015, 06:29 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 06:27 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 06:26 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Also, where are those apologies, Matt? Drinking Beverage

When will you learn the difference between absence of evidence and evidence of absence? This logic 101 and you fail to grasp it.

Facepalm

You should refund the taxpayers for the money wasted trying to educate you.

How old are you? Have you finished high school yet? If not, voluntarily set yourself back to freshmen year and start over.

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, 06:38 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 06:27 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 06:26 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Also, where are those apologies, Matt? Drinking Beverage

When will you learn the difference between absence of evidence and evidence of absence? This logic 101 and you fail to grasp it.

After I made a post on your "Absence of Evidence Thread" highlighting your straw men/misrepresentations, you said the following on that very thread:

"Can anyone show where I said something that isn't true? I'll gladly admit my error..."


And
"Quote me saying something that is false, and I will apologize and admit my mistake.

I know I make mistakes, just point one out."


You seem to have a problem with actually being honest. You should work on that.

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, 06:38 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(22-08-2015 09:47 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
DEITY ASSESSMENT REPORT
COSMOS ENTERPRISES
6TH MILLENNIUM SINCE CREATION

SPONSOR: Humanity.
SCOPE: All of creation
ASSESSOR: TTA Consulting Services


TTA Consulting Services wish to express their thanks to Humanity for engaging the former for this important assignment.

This Assessment was conducted in accordance with ISO15504

Assessment Scope:
The capabilities and processes under review were as follows:
  • Prayer
  • Eschatology / rebirth
  • Creation by supernatural causes
  • Creation by natural processes
  • The existence of a deity / deities
  • The existence of a concept of a deity / deities

For detailed findings, please refer to the attached.

Executive Summary
Summary of the Approach
A 'class one' assessment was performed and as stipulated by ISO15504, this entails reviewing at least four (4) instances of each process or capability seeking evidence through observation, interviews, inspection and/or re-performing activities to ascertain the existence of artefacts, practices, goals and / or work products.

Assessment Constraints
- Only one universe was available for review
- Despite repeated requests, no actual deities were available for the arranged interviews. Instead, interviews were conducted with deputies or spokespersons.

Assessment Profile and Process Capability Attained
Prayer:
No clear definition of the process purpose was provided. The process was practiced but no benefits were evident.
Rating = 0

Eschatology / rebirth:
No clear definition of the process purpose was provided nor were activities defined.
Rating = 0

Creation by supernatural causes:
No clear definition of the process purpose was provided nor was any methodology defined.
Rating = 0

Creation by natural processes:
No clear definition of the process purpose was defined and no overall goal was identified although overwhelming evidence (artefacts) was produced to support the process and methodology.
Rating = 5

The existence of a deity / deities:
Nope, nothing, zip, zilch. Anecdotal evidence only. This was deemed insufficient to determine an accurate rating in the case of an unspecified non-interventionist deity but the expected evidence for an interventionist deity was entirely absent.
Rating = 0

The existence of a concept of a deity / deities
No clear definition of the process purpose was defined. Interpretations of the concept were inconsistent. Cultural impact was 'high'.
Rating = 3

Risks and Recommendation
The risks relating to the missing processes and capabilities (those rated as "0") and their definitions, artefacts and goals, is considered to be 'very low'.

The sponsor may wish to consider implementation solely for the placebo effect but the impact will be minimal (to nothing) with regard to output or productivity of Cosmos Enterprises.
Wow, what a huge load of bullshit.

Eat up, how does that taste.
Perhaps that taste of shit mixed with emptiness filled with greed will leave your palate once you wake up out of your little selfish dreamlands with no consequences or significance.

Not negative towards you all.

Negative towards the sorry bastards that manipulate false data and claim truth.

They will be of the truly damned unless they revert to selfless honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: