Evidence Of Absence.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-08-2015, 07:36 PM (This post was last modified: 28-08-2015 07:57 PM by Free.)
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(28-08-2015 06:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-08-2015 08:26 AM)Free Wrote:  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

Are you serious? After all this discussion you don't understand that the absence of the evidence of a positive claim of existence is in fact positive evidence of the absence of existence?

"Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist."

"In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of evidence of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."

—Copi, Introduction to Logic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

And that's how you prove a negative.

Quote:
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.

Get serious, you've implied as such numerous times:

Chas Wrote:You can only honestly be 7.0 if you can prove there are no gods.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid719733

Chas Wrote:And that is the point. You cannot make the claim that no gods exist with certainty since it cannot be proved. To claim to be 7.0 is a faith claim.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid719742

Chas Wrote:Since one cannot prove non-existence, one cannot honestly be a 7.0 on the Dawkins scale.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid721817

Each statement above carries the implication that proving a negative- in this case the non existence of "God"- cannot be done.

Now, you have said above that you agree that proving a negative is possible. Now, since there are a limited number of ways to demonstrate how to prove a negative, and these exact same methods can be applied to proving the non existence of God with all of them producing a null result, then perhaps you can tell me why you don't think the non existence of God can be proven, while maintaining that the non existence of anything else can be proven?

When the exact same methods are applied to other things to demonstrate non existence, why would you say that you agree that we can prove a negative, but on the issue of God you disagree?


Quote:
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.

Yep, and that evidence is the positive claim of existence by theists. It is the oral evidence of the existence of God. They claim that God exists, and if that claim were to be true, then that evidence should be there.

Right?

Quote:
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.

See above.

Quote:
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.

See above.

Quote: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.

See above - positive claim of theists that God exists. That evidence should be there.

Quote:
Quote: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?

Yes, where there is no existence, there can be no existence possible.

Quote:
Quote: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.

Evidence of Absence and Proof of Impossibility are both incontrovertible.

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

Oh yes I have, but your expectations of evidence are simply not reasonable. The reason I say that is you have constantly used "you cannot prove non existence" as a means to attempt to invalidate the 7.0 position.

Well Chas, if you believe it "cannot be done," then it is impossible. If it is impossible, it does not exist. Anything that is "impossible" does not have an existence. Therefore, your claim that it "cannot be done" invalidates your own argument, and is meaningless to mine.

After all, if it is impossible because it can't be done, are you seriously expecting the accomplishment of the impossible as the only means to validate the 7.0 position? Think about it.

A square circle is impossible, and therefore doesn't exist. Why? Because it "cannot be done."

These debates with you are turning me into a monster, Chas.

Wink

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
28-08-2015, 08:06 PM (This post was last modified: 29-08-2015 09:41 AM by Full Circle.)
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
The discussion between Free and Chas gave me the inspiration for the following made up exchange:

A: I have proof that there are no faeries in my garden.
B: Let's see it
A: (A takes B out to her garden) Look she says, no faeries as she waves her hand in an arc.
B:It's true that I don't see any faeries but how can you be absolutely sure?
A: People have been coming to my garden for years and no one has ever found one or any trace there has ever been one and that proves to me there aren't any. It is an obvious conclusion.
B: Not so fast. Just because no one has YET found a faerie in your garden you can't conclusively say there aren't any.
A: Seriously? So what will it take to conclusively prove that no faeries live in my garden?
B: Nothing, you have to keep looking...forever.
A: I'll tell you what, you find me a faerie and I'll admit I was wrong, until then I'm certain my garden is faerie free. Care for some tea?

Angel

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Full Circle's post
28-08-2015, 08:24 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(28-08-2015 08:06 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  B: Seriously? So what will it take to conclusively prove that no faeries live in my garden?
A: Nothing, you have to keep looking...forever.

You just won the internet.

Bowing

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
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
28-08-2015, 08:51 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(28-08-2015 08:06 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  The discussion between Free and Chas gave me the inspiration for the following made up exchange:

A: I have proof that there are no faeries in my garden.
B: Let's see it
A: (A takes B out to her garden) Look she says, no faeries as she waves her hand in an arc.
A: It's true that I don't see any faeries but how can you be absolutely sure?
B: People have been coming to my garden for years and no one has ever found one or any trace there has ever been one and that proves to me there aren't any. It is an obvious conclusion.
A: Not so fast. Just because no one has YET found a faerie in your garden you can't conclusively say there aren't any.
B: Seriously? So what will it take to conclusively prove that no faeries live in my garden?
A: Nothing, you have to keep looking...forever.
B: I'll tell you what, you find me a faerie and I'll admit I was wrong, until then I'm certain my garden is faerie free. Care for some tea?

Angel
Would be a great analogy except in that analogy a person assumes that if a fairy exists then you could see the fairy and that the garden is so small that you would expect to find one if it is in this garden.

A more apt analogy would be
A: I have proof that there are no Shambots in the amazon forest.
B: What's a shambot, what are its attributes?
A: I don't know
B: OK, show me your proof.
A: Well I have this wooden bowl, it was carved from a tree which grew in the amazon, and quite clearly we cannot see a Shambot in this bowl therefore Shambots do not exist in the amazon.
B: Why would you expect to see a Shambot in your bowl, if Shambots did exist in the Amazon?
A: That's exactly it, see, it is impossible for Shambots to exist so you couldn't expect to see Shambots in my bowl.
B: That makes no logical sense.
A: Yes it does. It's evidence of absence.
B: No, you are describing absence of evidence.
A: Yeah but because it is impossible for Shambots to exist then absence of evidence is the same as evidence of absence.
B: Um, but you have to assume Shambots don't exist in order to come to your conclusion that Shambots don't exist. Isn't that circular?
A: No, because Shambots don't exist, I've just proven it, see?
B: <scratches head>
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Stevil's post
28-08-2015, 08:58 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(28-08-2015 08:51 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(28-08-2015 08:06 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  The discussion between Free and Chas gave me the inspiration for the following made up exchange:

A: I have proof that there are no faeries in my garden.
B: Let's see it
A: (A takes B out to her garden) Look she says, no faeries as she waves her hand in an arc.
A: It's true that I don't see any faeries but how can you be absolutely sure?
B: People have been coming to my garden for years and no one has ever found one or any trace there has ever been one and that proves to me there aren't any. It is an obvious conclusion.
A: Not so fast. Just because no one has YET found a faerie in your garden you can't conclusively say there aren't any.
B: Seriously? So what will it take to conclusively prove that no faeries live in my garden?
A: Nothing, you have to keep looking...forever.
B: I'll tell you what, you find me a faerie and I'll admit I was wrong, until then I'm certain my garden is faerie free. Care for some tea?

Angel
Would be a great analogy except in that analogy a person assumes that if a fairy exists then you could see the fairy and that the garden is so small that you would expect to find one if it is in this garden.

A more apt analogy would be
A: I have proof that there are no Shambots in the amazon forest.
B: What's a shambot, what are its attributes?
A: I don't know
B: OK, show me your proof.
A: Well I have this wooden bowl, it was carved from a tree which grew in the amazon, and quite clearly we cannot see a Shambot in this bowl therefore Shambots do not exist in the amazon.
B: Why would you expect to see a Shambot in your bowl, if Shambots did exist in the Amazon?
A: That's exactly it, see, it is impossible for Shambots to exist so you couldn't expect to see Shambots in my bowl.
B: That makes no logical sense.
A: Yes it does. It's evidence of absence.
B: No, you are describing absence of evidence.
A: Yeah but because it is impossible for Shambots to exist then absence of evidence is the same as evidence of absence.
B: Um, but you have to assume Shambots don't exist in order to come to your conclusion that Shambots don't exist. Isn't that circular?
A: No, because Shambots don't exist, I've just proven it, see?
B: <scratches head>

I think in your analogy you could have stopped at "I don't know". I purposely left that part out because if you can't attribute detectable qualities to a thing or a being then there isn't any way to prove or disprove its existence.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2015, 09:07 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(28-08-2015 06:35 PM)Free Wrote:  
(28-08-2015 05:48 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  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.

There is no coherent definition of any gods.

Some gods with somewhat well-defined attributes can be proven to not exist, e.g. omni³ ones, since the definition leads to contradiction. But it is not possible to prove the non-existence of the undefined.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
28-08-2015, 09:35 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(28-08-2015 07:36 PM)Free Wrote:  
(28-08-2015 06:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  What "positive evidence" is generated by absence of evidence? Consider

Are you serious? After all this discussion you don't understand that the absence of the evidence of a positive claim of existence is in fact positive evidence of the absence of existence?

"Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist."

"In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of evidence of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."

—Copi, Introduction to Logic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

And that's how you prove a negative.

Sure, but you have not met the necessary criterion of demonstrating that there exists evidence that must be there. You have to demonstrate it for every conceivable god. The god that many (most?) Christians believe in is provably non-existent as it is defined as omni³ or undetectable but it affects the physical world.

But the deist god that creates the universe from someplace 'outside' the universe and then goes off and forgets about it is not disprovable.

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

Get serious, you've implied as such numerous times:

Chas Wrote:You can only honestly be 7.0 if you can prove there are no gods.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid719733

Chas Wrote:And that is the point. You cannot make the claim that no gods exist with certainty since it cannot be proved. To claim to be 7.0 is a faith claim.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid719742

Chas Wrote:Since one cannot prove non-existence, one cannot honestly be a 7.0 on the Dawkins scale.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid721817

Each statement above carries the implication that proving a negative- in this case the non existence of "God"- cannot be done.

No, no, no, and no. Facepalm
I am not saying it can't be done; I am saying you haven't done it.

Quote:Now, you have said above that you agree that proving a negative is possible. Now, since there are a limited number of ways to demonstrate how to prove a negative, and these exact same methods can be applied to proving the non existence of God with all of them producing a null result, then perhaps you can tell me why you don't think the non existence of God can be proven,

It could be if there were evidence that must be there that isn't.
Demonstrate that, and prove it, and you're home free. Rolleyes

Quote:while maintaining that the non existence of anything else can be proven?

I never made that distinction. Please quote me if you think I did.

Quote:When the exact same methods are applied to other things to demonstrate non existence, why would you say that you agree that we can prove a negative, but on the issue of God you disagree?

I have not once said that. Quote me if you think I did.

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

Yep, and that evidence is the positive claim of existence by theists. It is the oral evidence of the existence of God. They claim that God exists, and if that claim were to be true, then that evidence should be there.

Right?

Wrong.
That would only disprove the god they are defining - not every conceivable one.

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

See above.

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

See above.

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

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.

See above - positive claim of theists that God exists. That evidence should be there.

Only their god, not all gods.

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

Yes, where there is no existence, there can be no existence possible.

Circular logic.

Quote:
Quote: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.

Evidence of Absence and Proof of Impossibility are both incontrovertible.

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

Oh yes I have, but your expectations of evidence are simply not reasonable. The reason I say that is you have constantly used "you cannot prove non existence" as a means to attempt to invalidate the 7.0 position.

Well Chas, if you believe it "cannot be done," then it is impossible. If it is impossible, it does not exist. Anything that is "impossible" does not have an existence. Therefore, your claim that it "cannot be done" invalidates your own argument, and is meaningless to mine.

You can only disprove them by their definitions. Each god definition carries its own set of effects that would have to be there if it existed, that if any are not present proves non-existence.

You cannot prove the non-existence of every conceivable god with one proof.

Quote:After all, if it is impossible because it can't be done, are you seriously expecting the accomplishment of the impossible as the only means to validate the 7.0 position? Think about it.

I have thought quite deeply about it. You can take a position of 7.0 on any particular god, but only when you have proved that god's impossibility.

Now, you can disprove whole classes of gods, like all of the gods that are claimed to be omni³.

Quote:A square circle is impossible, and therefore doesn't exist. Why? Because it "cannot be done."

These debates with you are turning me into a monster, Chas.

Wink

I rather hope they are educating you in logic. Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
28-08-2015, 09:47 PM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(28-08-2015 08:06 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  AThe discussion between Free and Chas gave me the inspiration for the following made up exchange:

A: I have proof that there are no faeries in my garden.
B: Let's see it
A: (A takes B out to her garden) Look she says, no faeries as she waves her hand in an arc.
B:It's true that I don't see any faeries but how can you be absolutely sure?
A: People have been coming to my garden for years and no one has ever found one or any trace there has ever been one and that proves to me there aren't any. It is an obvious conclusion.
B: Not so fast. Just because no one has YET found a faerie in your garden you can't conclusively say there aren't any.
A: Seriously? So what will it take to conclusively prove that no faeries live in my garden?
B: Nothing, you have to keep looking...forever.
A: I'll tell you what, you find me a faerie and I'll admit I was wrong, until then I'm certain my garden is faerie free. Care for some tea?

Angel

Nice.

Sadly, I long ago lost track of who is A and who is B.

Huh

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2015, 01:08 AM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(28-08-2015 08:58 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  I think in your analogy you could have stopped at "I don't know". I purposely left that part out because if you can't attribute detectable qualities to a thing or a being then there isn't any way to prove or disprove its existence.
That's right and in particular for us skeptics we are trying to disprove something. In order to do that the claim needs to include falsifiable criteria. If it does then we can address that, if it doesn't then we ought to throw out the claim itself stating that the claim is insufficient for evaluation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
29-08-2015, 06:20 AM
RE: Evidence Of Absence.
(29-08-2015 01:08 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(28-08-2015 08:58 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  I think in your analogy you could have stopped at "I don't know". I purposely left that part out because if you can't attribute detectable qualities to a thing or a being then there isn't any way to prove or disprove its existence.
That's right and in particular for us skeptics we are trying to disprove something. In order to do that the claim needs to include falsifiable criteria. If it does then we can address that, if it doesn't then we ought to throw out the claim itself stating that the claim is insufficient for evaluation.

Not so much disprove as asking for proof from those making the claim.
And before they can show us proof they have to provide us with tangible qualities/criteria that can be falsified as you say.

I'm going to ramble here a bit.

In my faerie story It was implied that both parties knew what a faerie looked like, about 10 cm tall, wings, dressed in white flowing garments, visible to the naked eye, looks like Gwyneth Paltrow.

Had I said that faeries are invisible and undetectable the whole exercise of going out into the garden would be moot.

And so it is with gods except that with the Abrahamic religions they all have in their telling past contact with this being. This being can make itself known at will. The "proof" is scripture documenting a past interaction with said being.

Applying this to my faeries in the garden story, character B will steadfastly hold on to the belief that the faeries exist even though we can't detect them and will one day make themselves known again because written in the Book of Faeriies it says they once came down to Earth and flittered about until the leader was captured and had her wings pulled off or some such thing.

Rational people have the nearly impossible task of dissuading those that hold on to such beliefs that they are not grounded in reality.

(I need to go get coffee Drinking Beverage )

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Full Circle's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: