Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence

Started by stromboli, December 11, 2014, 07:43:51 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

SNP1

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on December 30, 2014, 11:20:22 PM
we have looked very hard and have found all the proposed "evidences" wanting, but it is useful to keep in mind why the absence of evidence for God is quite compelling.

I think that something to keep in mind is that if the only argument that you have is the absence of evidence that the argument is weak.

I tend to stay away from this argument myself, but I do understand that it is a common argument among atheists.
"My only agenda, if one can call it that, is the pursuit of truth" ~AoSS

dtq123

Possibly a bigger question is does it matter if we have proof?

Truth doesn't always result in a person taking action. (Smokers know smoking is bad)

For most things it takes a fair amount of time for a good decision to be made in a tough situation, and this is far from the exception.

It feels ridiculous to try to use this in an attempt to disprove God.

Say I have a person who I lied with and told him my first name was my last and vice versa. He is so poor that he can't look up my name. Does that mean that my last name is a first name? Other people might try to tell him otherwise, but he needs proof to show him it's true. So to him I am 123 dtq (Just go with it). We would need a bit more than just Absence of Evidence to disprove, something exists. God could be hiding the clues on purpose, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist, nor does it mean any religion right now is the "right" one
A dark cloud looms over.
Festive cheer does not help much.
What is this, "Justice?"

Hakurei Reimu

Quote from: SNP1 on December 30, 2014, 11:31:14 PM
I think that something to keep in mind is that if the only argument that you have is the absence of evidence that the argument is weak.
Which is why, in practice, theists only resort to the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" line when the evidences they do forward to support their God claims are thoroughly trounced. They know the argument is weak â€" that's why claiming it's their last resort. The core of the absence of evidence argument is that the world looks a whole lot like one that that no God has exited to interfere with, and not like one that a God has interfered with materially. That requires a familiarity of the scientific knowledge that has accumulated so far. "Absence of evidence" is the full stop at the end of a protracted discussion that reduces God from the necessity for existence to the unevidenced sky pixie he is.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

SGOS

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on December 30, 2014, 11:20:22 PM

The problem is that as evidences go, absence of evidence is not in itself a very strong piece of evidence â€" for instance, you may lack evidence because you never bothered to gather it, and as such the lack of evidence would also easily be explained by your lack of effort rather than there being genuinely no evidence to find.
LOL  I loved that.

Berati

"Absence Of Evidence Is Evidence Of Absence"
I agree with this but as with most evidence, it is not by itself conclusive evidence. In fact it's so very little evidence that it is regularly dismissed by scientists and theologians alike since the point of it is to dismiss all other evidence as non existing.

Look at the definition of evidence from wikipedia:;
QuoteEvidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

The fact that a thorough investigation yields no other facts... is a fact and therefore evidence.  And yet it is also an admission that no other facts are forthcoming. (without ruling out that other facts may be brought forth at a later time)

So in the end I agree in principle with people like Carl Sagan who (I think?) originated the phrase "Absence Of Evidence Is not Evidence Of Absence" as sufficient.

There is a common mistake that an answer to a question has to be either true or false.
It can be true, it can be false, it can be unknown, or it can even be unknowable.



Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

aitm

According to the babble, (OT) god showed himself to the jews and they were not very impressed as they kept sinning as soon as he went back into the clouds. So sometimes, evidence don't mean jack shit.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

knowitall

Absence of evidence is only evidence of absence if taken in the absolute sense. If absence of evidence is universal in both abstract and concrete, then absence is considered to be "proven." But absence of evidence according to our senses may be anecdotal. Melting ice is not evidence of global warming, for example. So what is "evidence of absence?" It must be something that states according to truth and logic that a subject is absent, so mere absence of evidence is never evidence of anything.

Baruch

#22
Quote from: knowitall on January 09, 2016, 04:32:05 PM
Absence of evidence is only evidence of absence if taken in the absolute sense. If absence of evidence is universal in both abstract and concrete, then absence is considered to be "proven." But absence of evidence according to our senses may be anecdotal. Melting ice is not evidence of global warming, for example. So what is "evidence of absence?" It must be something that states according to truth and logic that a subject is absent, so mere absence of evidence is never evidence of anything.

In a discourse involving both reason and substantial evidence ... say deducing a crime ... the reason and substantial evidence are in a dialectical relationship.  But modus tollens and modus ponens still work.

If you have a valid deduction says that ... a conclusion must be true, given some premise, and if that premise is validated by the substantial evidence, then the jury must conclude that the conclusion must be substantially true.

Similarly if we know that the negation of some valid deduction leads to the invalidation of some premise given that the conclusion is false, and substantial evidence validates the denial of the conclusion, then the jury must conclude the premise must be substantially false.

This goes back to Sherlock Holmes and the dog who didn't bark.  The fact that the dog should have barked, but didn't (our second syllogism) was enough to disprove some premise ... which led to solving the case.  Ultimately as Sherlock Holmes would say ... if all but one substantial conclusion have been invalidated, then that last substantial conclusion must be true (given the crime has actually happened).

But as any trial lawyer could tell you, the goal of legal counsel is to make sure that some substantial evidence is included, some substantial evidence is excluded, and that the reasoning regarding given the included substantial evidence, leads to the conclusion the Prosecutor vs Defending Attorney desires.  Not including all substantial evidence, and not pursuing every reasonable deduction is the primary task.  The greatest lie is not in what is said, but what is not said.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.