Evidence Of Absence.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-08-2015, 06:38 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 09:35 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 09:33 AM)Chas Wrote:  Intellectually honest 100% certainty requires proof.

Evidence (or lack thereof) only allows for tentative conclusions.

"Intellectually honest 100% certainty requires proof. "
Not when evidence or proof is nonsensical to the claim such that all that could be expected is no evidence.

The "proof" of nonexistence is a paucity of evidence and observation, as that is all that can be expected.

You can accuse me of pedantry if you wish, but evidence does not equal proof.

I don't believe there is any possibility of theistic gods, but I don't actually know it. And neither does anyone else.

The reasonable person will look at the utter lack of objective evidence for any gods and the evidence of our knowledge of the working of the universe and conclude that there are no gods. We know how a lot of the universe operates, and there is no nook or cranny that requires the existence of an intentional entity to make it work. Not one.

I feel no need to even search for a proof of the non-existence of any gods, I expend no energy on searching for that proof, No one has ever presented on that wasn't as full of holes as a screen door.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
24-08-2015, 06:41 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.

He already knows.

You do not.

That will be all, thank you.

Dismissed!

Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
24-08-2015, 06:42 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 06:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 09:35 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "Intellectually honest 100% certainty requires proof. "
Not when evidence or proof is nonsensical to the claim such that all that could be expected is no evidence.

The "proof" of nonexistence is a paucity of evidence and observation, as that is all that can be expected.

You can accuse me of pedantry if you wish, but evidence does not equal proof.

I don't believe there is any possibility of theistic gods, but I don't actually know it. And neither does anyone else.

The reasonable person will look at the utter lack of objective evidence for any gods and the evidence of our knowledge of the working of the universe and conclude that there are no gods.

We know how a lot of the universe operates, and there is no nook or cranny that requires the existence of an intentional entity to make it work. Not one.

I feel no need to even search for a proof of the non-existence of any gods, I expend no energy on searching for that proof, No one has ever presented on that wasn't as full of holes as a screen door.

"I don't believe there is any possibility of theistic gods, but I don't actually know it."

No matter which way it is sliced, these are all opinions, that's yours and it's okay. I am not trying to convince you to agree with me, I am trying to express as clearly as I can, my stance.

My point remains that what I adhere to when I say that I know gods don't exist, is that gods are not plausible and have never been shown to be so. So I know they don't exist in the same way I know there isn't a fairy just over my shoulder always hiding from my line of sight.

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, 06:45 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 10:26 AM)Free Wrote:  If the lack of any and all evidence is to be counted as positive evidence that demonstrates the non existence of the possibility,

It doesn't. You can't logically get from 'lack of evidence' to 'lack of possibility'.

Quote:why then should anyone say that the non existence of the possibility has not be demonstrated?

That bit must have a typo? Consider

Quote:The truth is, the lack of evidence is positive demonstrable evidence that demonstrates the total and complete absence of the possibility.

No, it isn't. You have to provide evidence that something is not possible. Lack of evidence of existence is not evidence of impossibility.

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
24-08-2015, 06:52 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 01:07 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 12:57 PM)cjlr Wrote:  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)."

You have a logical error in there.
"...all we can conclude is that aliens don't exist elsewhere." is erroneous. You can only say that "it is not known if aliens exist." N.B. The 'elsewhere' was redundant.

Your second conclusion is of the correct form; apply that to the first one.

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
24-08-2015, 06:54 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 06:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, it isn't. You have to provide evidence that something is not possible. Lack of evidence of existence is not evidence of impossibility.

(22-08-2015 05:27 AM)Chas Wrote:  The evidence is the absence of any evidence. There is no evidence of godly interaction with our universe, nothing we've ever figured out had god as an explanation, nothing we've ever encountered requires god as an explanation. Due to the lack of evidence, I conclude that there are no gods.

Am I the only one who notices these inconsistencies? Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2015, 06:56 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 06:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 01:07 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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)."

You have a logical error in there.
"...all we can conclude is that aliens don't exist elsewhere." is erroneous. You can only say that "it is not known if aliens exist." N.B. The 'elsewhere' was redundant.

Your second conclusion is of the correct form; apply that to the first one.

No, I mean to say that the only conclusion that can be drawn from a lack of evidence is that they don't exist elsewhere. That does not mean they are implausible and cannot exist.

For instance, if I find a lack of evidence for the relationship between 2 factors and then look for a regression between them and find none, my conclusion would be that based on the lack of evidence for correlation, they are not correlated.

Perhaps with a larger dataset, or the removal of any complicating factors, a correlation would be apparent. But I can't conclude anything based on information I don't have.

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, 06:56 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 06:54 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 06:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, it isn't. You have to provide evidence that something is not possible. Lack of evidence of existence is not evidence of impossibility.

(22-08-2015 05:27 AM)Chas Wrote:  The evidence is the absence of any evidence. There is no evidence of godly interaction with our universe, nothing we've ever figured out had god as an explanation, nothing we've ever encountered requires god as an explanation. Due to the lack of evidence, I conclude that there are no gods.

Am I the only one who notices these inconsistencies? Drinking Beverage

Yes, your comprehension is atrocious.

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, 06:58 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 06:56 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 06:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  You have a logical error in there.
"...all we can conclude is that aliens don't exist elsewhere." is erroneous. You can only say that "it is not known if aliens exist." N.B. The 'elsewhere' was redundant.

Your second conclusion is of the correct form; apply that to the first one.

No, I mean to say that the only conclusion that can be drawn from a lack of evidence is that they don't exist elsewhere. That does not mean they are implausible and cannot exist.

For instance, if I find a lack of evidence for the relationship between 2 factors and then look for a regression between them and find none, my conclusion would be that based on the lack of evidence for correlation, they are not correlated.

Perhaps with a larger dataset, or the removal of any complicating factors, a correlation would be apparent. But I can't conclude anything based on information I don't have.

For instance, when faced with something like this:

[Image: normal_random_noise_plot.gif]

The only conclusion you could draw (based on a lack of evidence for a correlation) is the nonexistence of a correlation.

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, 07:00 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 06:11 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.
The cat in the box claim comes with falsifiable criteria (albeit implied, assuming we aren't talking about a special invisible cat).

(24-08-2015 06:11 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.
Yep, the claimants need to work on better documenting their claim before their conclusion can be assessed. At the moment, we cannot assess their claim so we throw it out.


(24-08-2015 06:11 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "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 of course there is nothing to look into regarding the god claims. Nothing that can be tested or observed because the claim is insufficient for that.

(24-08-2015 06:11 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  But theists either shift the goal posts or rely upon some sort of bullshit unfalsifiable and untestable special pleading.
Yip, which is why we could benefit from them putting their heads on the chopping block by offering documented testable and falsifiable criteria.

When Darwin wrote up his hypothesis on Evolution he made several claims which could have been proven false. in which case the scientific community would have either thrown away the concept of evolution or adjusted it to match the findings.


(24-08-2015 06:11 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I don't argue with theists about the existence of their imaginary friends anymore, it's pointless.
Yes, it is pointless.

It is somewhat of a mind-job though, to try and get your head around how they can come to believe what they believe. Some agree that there is no proof or evidence for their god. They insist that faith and belief is required. But then they can't really explain why they believe in X god rather then Y or T,V and Z gods or no gods at all.
It just seems to be a random choice as to which god to believe but to them that seems to be a reasonable position, as if they are rewarded with eternal life by making a lucky random choice to believe in the "right" one.


(24-08-2015 06:11 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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 disagree, I think the position if ignostocism is the logical position and simply rejecting the claim rather than counter-claiming to have proof of non existence of the gods.

I think it is a strong position, to insist that the claimants haven't even got over hurdle 1 (formulate a proper claim). Once they get over that hurdle then I might bother to do an assessment. Until that point, I'll live my life as if I have never heard their claim.


(24-08-2015 06:11 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I don't have a burden of proof in rejecting a claim
You can always reject a claim.
I reject their claim as well. But you don't have to come back with a counter claim.

Would you consider "Gods do not exist" to be a claim?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: