Evidence Of Absence.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-08-2015, 04:50 PM (This post was last modified: 27-08-2015 08:28 PM by Free.)
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(27-08-2015 04:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 04:19 PM)Free Wrote:  I have used demonstrable evidence as a means of countering your assertion that we must somehow prove a negative.

I have never asserted we must prove a negative.

Besides, "You can't prove a negative" is fallacious.

But you have in the past most certainly implied it:

Chas Wrote:You are the one making the claim: you claim no gods exist. You have not proved it.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid724789

It's very clear that your stance against mine hinges on you expecting me to prove that no gods exist. This is identical to a theist who says, "You cannot prove God doesn't exist."

You: "You have not proven that no gods exist." <--- This is asking me to prove that there are no gods in existence. Firstly, you are certainly implying that I need to prove the non existence of gods. Secondly, I do not have to prove the non existence of any gods as the burden of proof is not mine. Thirdly, since you assert that I must prove the non existence of gods, then you must first demonstrate the gods exist to be disproved. If you cannot do that, then there is a negative apparent, and you are therefore expecting me to prove that negative.

Now compare ...

Theist: "You have not proven that God cannot exist." <--- This is asking me to prove that God is not in existence. Firstly, it is certainly implying that I need to prove the non existence of God. Secondly, I do not have to prove the non existence of God as the burden of proof is not mine. Thirdly, since it asserts that I must prove the non existence of God, the theist must first demonstrate God exists to be disproved. If the theist cannot do that, then there is a negative apparent, and the theist is therefore expecting me to prove that negative.

And that is an expectation of proving a negative on every level.

Now, if it was not your intention to convey that understanding, then we will simply let it go and move forward. However, if it was your intention, then I see no difference between your position and that of a theist.

Quote:
Quote:Not only is your position fallacious, but it also has demonstrable evidence against it.

There is no evidence against it; it is logically sound.

The Evidence of Absence is demonstrable evidence used to support the evidence against the claim of yours that I cannot prove gods do not exist.

So yes, there is evidence against it.

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
27-08-2015, 07:27 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
Thought this video might be useful. Even though I criticized Dawkin's scale earlier, I really don't disagree with anything he says in this video, except that's it's my preference to leave out the word "improbable", and just call it a guess or hypothesis.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2015, 03:54 AM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(27-08-2015 04:50 PM)Free Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 04:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  I have never asserted we must prove a negative.

Besides, "You can't prove a negative" is fallacious.

But you have in the past most certainly implied it:

Chas Wrote:You are the one making the claim: you claim no gods exist. You have not proved it.

It was (and is) an observation that your claim that absence of evidence proves non-existence is incorrect.

Quote:http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid724789

It's very clear that your stance against mine hinges on you expecting me to prove that no gods exist. This is identical to a theist who says, "You cannot prove God doesn't exist."

No, it is not even close.
I am not asking you to prove that no gods exist, I am stating that you haven't.

Quote:You: "You have not proven that no gods exist." <--- This is asking me to prove that there are no gods in existence. Firstly, you are certainly implying that I need to prove the non existence of gods. Secondly, I do not have to prove the non existence of any gods as the burden of proof is not mine. Thirdly, since you assert that I must prove the non existence of gods, then you must first demonstrate the gods exist to be disproved. If you cannot do that, then there is a negative apparent, and you are therefore expecting me to prove that negative.

I am not asking you to prove that no gods exist, I am stating that while absence of evidence is persuasive, it is not proof.

Quote:Now compare ...

Theist: "You have not proven that God cannot exist." <--- This is asking me to prove that God is not in existence. Firstly, it is certainly implying that I need to prove the non existence of God. Secondly, I do not have to prove the non existence of God as the burden of proof is not mine. Thirdly, since it asserts that I must prove the non existence of God, the theist must first demonstrate God exists to be disproved. If the theist cannot do that, then there is a negative apparent, and the theist is therefore expecting me to prove that negative.

And that is an expectation of proving a negative on every level.

Now, if it was not your intention to convey that understanding, then we will simply let it go and move forward. However, if it was your intention, then I see no difference between your position and that of a theist.

You misunderstand my position. I don't see how to make it clearer.

Quote:
Quote:There is no evidence against it; it is logically sound.

The Evidence of Absence is demonstrable evidence used to support the evidence against the claim of yours that I cannot prove gods do not exist.

So yes, there is evidence against it.

You are missing, or ignoring, the difference between proof and evidence.

I am not saying one can't prove no gods exist, just that no one has.

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
28-08-2015, 08:26 AM (This post was last modified: 28-08-2015 02:05 PM by Free.)
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(28-08-2015 03:54 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 04:50 PM)Free Wrote:  But you have in the past most certainly implied it:

It was (and is) an observation that your claim that absence of evidence proves non-existence is incorrect.

And that is where you continue to not understand. It's the Evidence of Absence, not the "absence of evidence." It is "positive evidence."

And my statement regarding it is also quite simple to understand; it provides "evidence" against your assertion that proving a negative cannot be done.

There are two ways:

The Evidence of Absence demonstrates that there is an absence of evidence that should be there as per any positive claim. This evidence demonstrates two things:

1. It demonstrates positive evidence that the object being sought does not exist. This is incontrovertible, and therefore conclusive.
2. It demonstrates positive evidence of the Proof of Impossibility, because the evidence of absence demonstrates non-existence of any possible chance of the existence of God. This is also incontrovertible, and therefore conclusive.

Hence, the Evidence of Absence demonstrates that the non existence of God has been proven. The Proof of Impossibility demonstrates that the possible existence of God is rendered as being impossible.

Quote:
Quote:http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid724789

It's very clear that your stance against mine hinges on you expecting me to prove that no gods exist. This is identical to a theist who says, "You cannot prove God doesn't exist."

No, it is not even close.
I am not asking you to prove that no gods exist, I am stating that you haven't.

Which implies that it is something I must do to satisfy you, otherwise you wouldn't be saying that I somehow failed to prove gods don't exist.

You are in fact implying that I must somehow prove a negative. That's crystal clear. (Not that proving a negative is actually impossible, it isn't.)

Quote:
Quote:You: "You have not proven that no gods exist." <--- This is asking me to prove that there are no gods in existence. Firstly, you are certainly implying that I need to prove the non existence of gods. Secondly, I do not have to prove the non existence of any gods as the burden of proof is not mine. Thirdly, since you assert that I must prove the non existence of gods, then you must first demonstrate the gods exist to be disproved. If you cannot do that, then there is a negative apparent, and you are therefore expecting me to prove that negative.

I am not asking you to prove that no gods exist, I am stating that while absence of evidence is persuasive, it is not proof.

You mean it is evidence, but it doesn't prove it? That's a nice concession, considering it is the only evidence available, aside from Proof of Impossibility.

Now perhaps you can explain to me what other evidence you would expect? Please provide any counter evidence available.

Quote:
Quote:Now compare ...

Theist: "You have not proven that God cannot exist." <--- This is asking me to prove that God is not in existence. Firstly, it is certainly implying that I need to prove the non existence of God. Secondly, I do not have to prove the non existence of God as the burden of proof is not mine. Thirdly, since it asserts that I must prove the non existence of God, the theist must first demonstrate God exists to be disproved. If the theist cannot do that, then there is a negative apparent, and the theist is therefore expecting me to prove that negative.

And that is an expectation of proving a negative on every level.

Now, if it was not your intention to convey that understanding, then we will simply let it go and move forward. However, if it was your intention, then I see no difference between your position and that of a theist.

You misunderstand my position. I don't see how to make it clearer.

I didn't misunderstand anything at all. It's obvious what you implied.

Quote:
Quote:The Evidence of Absence is demonstrable evidence used to support the evidence against the claim of yours that I cannot prove gods do not exist.

So yes, there is evidence against it.

You are missing, or ignoring, the difference between proof and evidence.

I am not saying one can't prove no gods exist, just that no one has.

Perhaps it's a matter of understanding words here.

Proof is evidence. It doesn't necessarily mean "proven."

Proof:
noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof

If we can be 100% certain to make the positive claim that there are not 100 million garage dragons living in our anus based upon the Evidence of Absence and Proof of Impossibility, then perhaps someone would like to explain to me why and how the existence of this God(s) gets a free pass?

If you can be 7.0 against the 100 million garage dragons, then you can be 7.0 against God.

Why? Because that's the power of reason and intellectual honesty.

God does not exist.

7.0.


Bowing

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
28-08-2015, 02:54 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(27-08-2015 04:17 PM)Free Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 04:05 PM)morondog Wrote:  As far as you know... Fuck, dude, just accept your shitty 6.9 Angry

That implies that there is possibly something we don't know.

As far as we ALL know, and that is the current state of our knowledge. Since when are we obligated to base our assessment of something we don't know, when the reality is that there is no evidence that there is something we don't know?

I am a solid 7.0 because it's the intellectually honest position to hold. I don't base my position on the unproven possibility that there just might be something we don't know, when you don't even have any evidence to support such a possibility.

There is massive amounts of things we don't know. That is something we are constantly aware of. That's also a critically helpful basis of being skeptical and engaging in scientific studying.

There isn't an obligation but it is more sensible based on what you know to acknowledge our assessments should consider the known unknowns. Even the Unknown Unknowns. There is no reason here to start using "obligation" or needs in any case. Plus there is constant evidence of things we don't know in ranges of all fields.

It's just as silly as an astronomer making certainty proclamations in the 16th century. There was a few more centuries before people were understanding the concept that light could be effected via gravity then more time before evidence showed up. It isn't sensibly some position that one is "intellectually honest" about to proclaim certainty in the face of potentially being eventually shown wrong. Though I suppose to me this isn't a matter of merely the God topic but a matter of all these potential positions you could hold for the case.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
28-08-2015, 03:58 PM (This post was last modified: 28-08-2015 05:06 PM by Free.)
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(28-08-2015 02:54 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 04:17 PM)Free Wrote:  That implies that there is possibly something we don't know.

As far as we ALL know, and that is the current state of our knowledge. Since when are we obligated to base our assessment of something we don't know, when the reality is that there is no evidence that there is something we don't know?

I am a solid 7.0 because it's the intellectually honest position to hold. I don't base my position on the unproven possibility that there just might be something we don't know, when you don't even have any evidence to support such a possibility.

There is massive amounts of things we don't know. That is something we are constantly aware of. That's also a critically helpful basis of being skeptical and engaging in scientific studying.

Sure there are massive amounts of things we don't know, the list is endless. Yet for all the things we don't know, we can at least create a hypothesis to justify our lack of knowledge in relation for the simple reason that anything that is in existence can generate new discoveries.

Yet, when it comes to the supposed entity of a god/gods, with the understanding of it/them being supernatural in their existence, we must ask the question of "what do we have for precedence to qualify the possibility that there might be something we don't know?"

We don't have anything in history ever being discovered as being supernatural in its own reality, or ours. We have no justification to make any claims of knowledge in regards to this specific entity, let alone attempt to justify that there might be something we don't know.

We can make the claim of "we don't know" in our reality, with the observable existence we detect in the natural universe because of precedence. But we cannot honestly make that same claim in regards to some supposed supernatural entity that supposedly "possibly' exists outside the natural universe, ungoverned by universal laws.

Science has proven itself over and over again with the natural universe. But not once has science ever detected a single clue of anything beyond the natural universe existing in a supernatural state in its own reality.

When we speak of a supernatural entity such as God, we are not speaking of something that could supposedly exist within the natural universe. We are speaking about something that is supposedly greater than the natural universe, and since it is supposedly supernatural it therefore cannot exist as anything natural.

If it isn't natural, it cannot exist in our reality, and our reality is dictated by the natural universe.

And that is precisely why God does not exist, and cannot exist. A proposed "hypothetical" supernatural entity is simply incapable of existing within our natural reality.

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
28-08-2015, 05:48 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(28-08-2015 03:58 PM)Free Wrote:  
(28-08-2015 02:54 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  There is massive amounts of things we don't know. That is something we are constantly aware of. That's also a critically helpful basis of being skeptical and engaging in scientific studying.

Sure there are massive amounts of things we don't know, the list is endless. Yet for all the things we don't know, we can at least create a hypothesis to justify our lack of knowledge in relation for the simple reason that anything that is in existence can generate new discoveries.

Yet, when it comes to the supposed entity of a god/gods, with the understanding of it/them being supernatural in their existence, we must ask the question of "what do we have for precedence to qualify the possibility that there might be something we don't know?"

We don't have anything in history ever being discovered as being supernatural in its own reality, or ours. We have no justification to make any claims of knowledge in regards to this specific entity, let alone attempt to justify that there might be something we don't know.

We can make the claim of "we don't know" in our reality, with the observable existence we detect in the natural universe because of precedence. But we cannot honestly make that same claim in regards to some supposed supernatural entity that supposedly "possibly' exists outside the natural universe, ungoverned by universal laws.

Science has proven itself over and over again with the natural universe. But not once has science ever detected a single clue of anything beyond the natural universe existing in a supernatural state in its own reality.

When we speak of a supernatural entity such as God, we are not speaking of something that could supposedly exist within the natural universe. We are speaking about something that is supposedly greater than the natural universe, and since it is supposedly supernatural it therefore cannot exist as anything natural.

If it isn't natural, it cannot exist in our reality, and our reality is dictated by the natural universe.

And that is precisely why God does not exist, and cannot exist. A proposed "hypothetical" supernatural entity is simply incapable of existing within our natural reality.

You're working on some limited definition. I don't have a working definition of God but not every claim is "supernatural" in defined manner. I as well would dismiss "supernatural" because it doesn't mean anything and once supernatural things have been discovered, they're discovered as natural.

I think you make too many certain types of claims to talk about things in such ways. This also came up in some other thread like this where you were talking with someone, maybe Stevil again in the topic on this ideas. The idea of God isn't merely this supernatural claim that is dismissed 100% because it's using supernatural. It's not merely an idea of something supernatural nor a "supernatural consciousness" which was part of the thread before. it's not limited to just those ideas, partly because it is so loosely defined by millions of people. Those types of things can't exist by essence of their definition, but that's not only what is meant by the term of God/deities. You're focused far too much on a limited focused element of the discussion with this point.

"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
28-08-2015, 06:30 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(28-08-2015 08:26 AM)Free Wrote:  
(28-08-2015 03:54 AM)Chas Wrote:  It was (and is) an observation that your claim that absence of evidence proves non-existence is incorrect.

And that is where you continue to not understand. It's the Evidence of Absence, not the "absence of evidence." It is "positive evidence."

What "positive evidence" is generated by absence of evidence? Consider

Quote:And my statement regarding it is also quite simple to understand; it provides "evidence" against your assertion that proving a negative cannot be done.

I never asserted that proving a negative cannot be done - quite the opposite, in fact.

Quote:There are two ways:

The Evidence of Absence demonstrates that there is an absence of evidence that should be there as per any positive claim.

You have to prove that there is, in fact, evidence that should be there.

Quote:This evidence demonstrates two things:

1. It demonstrates positive evidence that the object being sought does not exist. This is incontrovertible, and therefore conclusive.

No, it is not unless your prove that there is evidence that should be there.

Quote:2. It demonstrates positive evidence of the Proof of Impossibility, because the evidence of absence demonstrates non-existence of any possible chance of the existence of God. This is also incontrovertible, and therefore conclusive.

No, it is not unless your prove that there is evidence that should be there.

That Wikipedia article does not support your argument until you provide the proof of impossibility.

Quote:Hence, the Evidence of Absence demonstrates that the non existence of God has been proven. The Proof of Impossibility demonstrates that the possible existence of God is rendered as being impossible.

It would had you provided it, but your argument is fatally flawed because you have not provided positive evidence because you have not proven impossibility because you have not proven the absence of evidence that should be there.

Quote:
Quote:No, it is not even close.
I am not asking you to prove that no gods exist, I am stating that you haven't.

Which implies that it is something I must do to satisfy you, otherwise you wouldn't be saying that I somehow failed to prove gods don't exist.

Aren't you claiming that the lack of evidence proves the impossibility of any gods?

Quote:You are in fact implying that I must somehow prove a negative. That's crystal clear.

Nope. I have done no such thing.

Quote: (Not that proving a negative is actually impossible, it isn't.)

Didn't say it was.

Quote:
Quote:I am not asking you to prove that no gods exist, I am stating that while absence of evidence is persuasive, it is not proof.

You mean it is evidence, but it doesn't prove it? That's a nice concession, considering it is the only evidence available, aside from Proof of Impossibility.

Evidence is not proof - it is just evidence. Are you using a loose definition of proof, such as "prove beyond a reasonable doubt"?
Because I am not. Proof must be rigorous and incontrovertible, not just a strong argument.

Quote:Now perhaps you can explain to me what other evidence you would expect? Please provide any counter evidence available.

Quote:You misunderstand my position. I don't see how to make it clearer.

I didn't misunderstand anything at all. It's obvious what you implied.

Quote:You are missing, or ignoring, the difference between proof and evidence.

I am not saying one can't prove no gods exist, just that no one has.

Perhaps it's a matter of understanding words here.

Proof is evidence. It doesn't necessarily mean "proven."

What does that mean? If one has proof, then it is proven.
A strong argument is not proof, it is only an argument.
A proof is incontrovertible evidence, but simple evidence is not proof.

Quote:Proof:
noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof

If we can be 100% certain to make the positive claim that there are not 100 million garage dragons living in our anus based upon the Evidence of Absence and Proof of Impossibility, then perhaps someone would like to explain to me why and how the existence of this God(s) gets a free pass?

But we can't actually be 100% certain that there aren't because we have no evidence either way - they are undetectable. We can dismiss the claim of existence based on unfalsifiability, but that is not a proof of non-existence, it is just a strong, even convincing, argument.

Quote:If you can be 7.0 against the 100 million garage dragons, then you can be 7.0 against God.

But I'm not a 7.0 on garage dragons; I simply dismiss the existence claim exactly as I dismiss the god claim.

Quote:Why? Because that's the power of reason and intellectual honesty.

God does not exist.

7.0.

Bowing

You may be convinced, but you haven't proven non-existence.

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
28-08-2015, 06:35 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(28-08-2015 05:48 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(28-08-2015 03:58 PM)Free Wrote:  Sure there are massive amounts of things we don't know, the list is endless. Yet for all the things we don't know, we can at least create a hypothesis to justify our lack of knowledge in relation for the simple reason that anything that is in existence can generate new discoveries.

Yet, when it comes to the supposed entity of a god/gods, with the understanding of it/them being supernatural in their existence, we must ask the question of "what do we have for precedence to qualify the possibility that there might be something we don't know?"

We don't have anything in history ever being discovered as being supernatural in its own reality, or ours. We have no justification to make any claims of knowledge in regards to this specific entity, let alone attempt to justify that there might be something we don't know.

We can make the claim of "we don't know" in our reality, with the observable existence we detect in the natural universe because of precedence. But we cannot honestly make that same claim in regards to some supposed supernatural entity that supposedly "possibly' exists outside the natural universe, ungoverned by universal laws.

Science has proven itself over and over again with the natural universe. But not once has science ever detected a single clue of anything beyond the natural universe existing in a supernatural state in its own reality.

When we speak of a supernatural entity such as God, we are not speaking of something that could supposedly exist within the natural universe. We are speaking about something that is supposedly greater than the natural universe, and since it is supposedly supernatural it therefore cannot exist as anything natural.

If it isn't natural, it cannot exist in our reality, and our reality is dictated by the natural universe.

And that is precisely why God does not exist, and cannot exist. A proposed "hypothetical" supernatural entity is simply incapable of existing within our natural reality.

You're working on some limited definition. I don't have a working definition of God but not every claim is "supernatural" in defined manner. I as well would dismiss "supernatural" because it doesn't mean anything and once supernatural things have been discovered, they're discovered as natural.

I think you make too many certain types of claims to talk about things in such ways. This also came up in some other thread like this where you were talking with someone, maybe Stevil again in the topic on this ideas. The idea of God isn't merely this supernatural claim that is dismissed 100% because it's using supernatural. It's not merely an idea of something supernatural nor a "supernatural consciousness" which was part of the thread before. it's not limited to just those ideas, partly because it is so loosely defined by millions of people. Those types of things can't exist by essence of their definition, but that's not only what is meant by the term of God/deities. You're focused far too much on a limited focused element of the discussion with this point.

If it isn't a supernatural claim, then the only other option is natural. If it is natural, then it must exist under natural laws. If it does, it cannot have any supernatural attributes.

Therefore, it is not a god either.

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
28-08-2015, 07:23 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
Good video here.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: