Evidence Of Absence.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-08-2015, 07:01 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 06:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(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'.

Of course you can. It requires minimal understanding to know what "possibility" actually means.

Possible:

adjective

1. that may or can be, exist, happen, be done, be used, etc.:

2. able to be done; within the power or capacity of someone or something.


Therefore, for something to be possible, it must exist and be capable of being done.

If no evidence has been found to qualify the possibility as being in existence, then the possibility itself does not exist, and is therefore incapable of being done.

And if you say anything to the effect of "You cannot prove the possibility doesn't exist," it is absolutely no different than a theist who says, "You cannot prove God doesn't exist."

Proof of non existence is impossible, therefore to withhold validation of a 7.0 position on account that proof of the non existence of the possibility has not been demonstrated is logically fallacious on every level.

You are withholding validation of the 7.0 position all because it is impossible to prove a negative?

You already know how much that stance defies reason.


Quote:
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.

Dude, I am not saying that a lack of evidence of existence is evidence of impossibility. I am saying that the lack of evidence of the existence of the possibility is demonstrable positive evidence of the non existence of the possibility.

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, 07:01 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 07:00 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(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?

"Would you consider "Gods do not exist" to be a claim?"

No, because it is a statement that is contingent upon god claims. (the way you have phrased it makes it appear like a claim. But it is the context that matters. Just like there are rhetorical questions that aren't actually questions)

Otherwise, we are on the same page.

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, 07:03 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

It is not inconsistent. Read the actual fucking words.
My conclusion is not a claim of proof or knowledge. It is my assessment based on the evidence (and lack of evidence).

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, 07:05 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 07:01 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 07:00 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The cat in the box claim comes with falsifiable criteria (albeit implied, assuming we aren't talking about a special invisible cat).

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.


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.

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.


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.


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.


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?

"Would you consider "Gods do not exist" to be a claim?"

No, because it is a statement that is contingent upon god claims. (the way you have phrased it makes it appear like a claim. But it is the context that matters. Just like there are rhetorical questions that aren't actually questions)

Otherwise, we are on the same page.

I think it was FullCircle in one of these threads that made a good analogy to make this point.


"Until yesterday I didn’t know I didn’t believe in Zot, Creator of the Creator of the Multiverse. I now have to call myself an a-Zotheist because most of the people around me are Zotheists and this is how I distinguish my non-belief from their belief.

Mind you no evidence has been given for Zot’s existence by the Zotheists but they are an overbearing, intrusive, bunch of zealots that want me to live my life based on the life and teachings of Zot as ridiculous as they might be.

So go ahead and call me an a-Zotheist, I believe such a being does not exist and cannot exist. However, since I am a pragmatist, I concede that if empirical evidence of Zot were to come to light I would acknowledge such.

Until then I remain completely unconvinced of Zotheist’s imaginings.

Living my life as though there was any possibility of Zot existing is completely ridiculous.

Put me down for a 7."

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, 07:06 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.

And I am saying that is not a valid conclusion.

Quote: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.

Yes, your conclusion might be that they are not correlated because the evidence is strong (but not conclusive).
But that is not really on a par with an existence claim.

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, 07:07 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 06:58 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 06:56 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.

It would seem to demonstrate that a correlation is not plausible.

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, 07:09 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 07:06 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 06:56 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.

And I am saying that is not a valid conclusion.

Quote: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.

Yes, your conclusion might be that they are not correlated because the evidence is strong (but not conclusive).
But that is not really on a par with an existence claim.

"And I am saying that is not a valid conclusion."

Yeah, I will remain in disagreement. I have drawn a conclusion from my observation. This is not actually a debatable point.

"Yes, your conclusion might be that they are not correlated because the evidence is strong (but not conclusive).
But that is not really on a par with an existence claim."


For a claim that can have no evidence (something that doesn't exist, not existing), I can expect no evidence. So when I see no evidence everywhere and no demonstration of plausibility, I can conclude no god exists.

Take notice that I am not using the word "know" so as to say that I "know" no gods exist, I think that is a pointless phrase in the end. I know no god claim has ever been demonstrated plausible. This all I need to conclude that god cannot exist.

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, 07:10 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 07:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 06:58 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.

It would seem to demonstrate that a correlation is not plausible.

Unless there are multiple complex variables feeding into the system to create the appearance of a random ordering.

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, 07:13 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 07:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 06:58 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.

It would seem to demonstrate that a correlation is not plausible.

There have been several times when I have collected data expecting correlation only to find none. I expected correlation because it was a plausible hypothesis, and thanks to my data I could only conclude that there was no correlation.

It is still plausible for the correlation to exist, and it might be masked by other complicating factors, but I can't conclude the correlation is there based on the assumption it is there without the evidence. I'd need to somehow eliminate or account for these other complicating factors.

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, 07:14 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(24-08-2015 07:03 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-08-2015 06:54 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Am I the only one who notices these inconsistencies? Drinking Beverage

It is not inconsistent. Read the actual fucking words.
My conclusion is not a claim of proof or knowledge. It is my assessment based on the evidence (and lack of evidence).

I know.... you later modified it to 'tentative' conclusion. It's just that usually we don't conclude something until we know it. So it sounds weird to say "I don't know whether or not god exists, but I conclude that god doesn't exist." Wouldn't you agree?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: