07 Dec 06
Originally posted by rwingettAn adage regarding this fallacy from the philosophy of science is that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence": Not having evidence for something is not proof that something is not or cannot be true.
Being an atheist and proving there is no god are not the same thing. One does not need any proof that theistic claims are wrong to be an atheist. So absence of evidence is a perfectly good reason to be an atheist. But absence of evidence, in and of itself, proves absolutely nothing. Contrary to the initial poster's claim, absence of evidence is NOT evidence ...[text shortened]... dominant one at the present time, I daresay the GAFE is a highly relevant and effective tool.
Who's talking about proof? Evidence, not proof. The fallacy is in claiming it's proof, something I never did.
The guy that wrote that in Wikipedia clearly doesn't understand what he's talking about if he muddles proof with evidence.
07 Dec 06
Originally posted by PalynkaYou are the one who started assuming that I'm an idiot.
If you don't want to debate, don't. But if you think you're playing me as an idiot, you're barking up the wrong tree, buddy. I'm just sorry you abandon a discussion so quickly.
I don't want to abandon the discussion. My first question was do you have a scintefical explaination of your existance. And your answer was "my parents" , yes I think I'm trying to play you as an idiot.
Any way even if you can prove evolution (Actually I don't know if there is a prove or not, it is out of my interest and I don't think I should know it) it doens't answer the question.
07 Dec 06
Originally posted by ahosyneyYes, I do think you are an idiot. Sorry if it shocks you that I admit it, but it's the truth.
You are the one who started assuming that I'm an idiot.
I don't want to abandon the discussion. My first question was do you have a scintefical explaination of your existance. And your answer was "my parents" , yes I think I'm trying to play you as an idiot.
Any way even if you can prove evolution (Actually I don't know if there is a prove or not, it ...[text shortened]... s out of my interest and I don't think I should know it) it doens't answer the question.
I answered your question. My 'creators' are my parents. My existence is evidence of the existence of God as much as its non-existence.
07 Dec 06
2 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaThank you, it is good to see how others see you.
Yes, I do think you are an idiot. Sorry if it shocks you that I admit it, but it's the truth.
I answered your question. My 'creators' are my parents. My existence is evidence of the existence of God as much as its non-existence.
I'm sorry for wasting your time.
But I don't think you don't understand what creator mean. do any couples say we created our child. Or may be I'm the one who don't understand.
Any way it doesn't make a difference.
07 Dec 06
Originally posted by PalynkaAbsence of evidence is just that, an absence of evidence, in this case for theistic claims. It is not evidence FOR anything, i.e. the claim that there is no god. All the absence of evidence can do is demonstrate that the theistic claims are unworthy of belief. It does nothing at all to prove them false, nor does it act as "evidence" in that direction, except in the very weakest sense.
[b]An adage regarding this fallacy from the philosophy of science is that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence": Not having evidence for something is not proof that something is not or cannot be true.
Who's talking about proof? Evidence, not proof. The fallacy is in claiming it's proof, something I never did.
The guy that wrote that in ...[text shortened]... edia clearly doesn't understand what he's talking about if he muddles proof with evidence.[/b]
Since this thread is titled "evidence that there is no god", twhitehead is using 'absence of evidence' as evidence for the claim that there is no god. And he is presumably declaring it to be sufficient to the task. It is not, nor will it ever be. In and of itself, absence of evidence is not evidence of anything. It may be of minor service when used in conjunction with the GAFE, or other attacks on theism, but on its own it is of very little value. It certainly ranks very low on the scale of possible attacks one could make on theism.
07 Dec 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis is a false statement.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
If I do a small drug experiment and find no evidence of harm in the treated population, that does not mean that the drug does no harm. All it means is that I have failed to detect any harm.
08 Dec 06
Originally posted by spruce112358Go back and read the original post. I specifically stated that there are cases where it is true and cases where it isn't. Examples that demonstrate a statement to be false in one case does not prove the statement to be false for all cases.
This is a false statement.
If I do a small drug experiment and find no evidence of harm in the treated population, that does not mean that the drug does no harm. All it means is that I have failed to detect any harm.
08 Dec 06
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettI notice you have not capitalized the word "God". You do know the difference I hope.
Absence of evidence is just that, an absence of evidence, in this case for theistic claims. It is not evidence FOR anything, i.e. the claim that there is no god. All the absence of evidence can do is demonstrate that the theistic claims are unworthy of belief. It does nothing at all to prove them false, nor does it act as "evidence" in that direction, excep ue. It certainly ranks very low on the scale of possible attacks one could make on theism.
If you have evidence that there are no dogs in the room then it is evidence that a dog does not exist in the room. If I have evidence that God has not communicated with me then it is evidence that a God who communicates with every living person does not exist.
I take your argument as using a strawman. I never said that no possible god can exist. I said that a God with specific attributes can exist. You also cant claim that because one supernatural being might exist then all possible supernatural beings might exist.
08 Dec 06
Although a number of people have implied that I stated that my absence of evidence claim is my only piece of evidence, that is not the case. I clearly stated in the first post "I will start with".
My next piece is: Age of the earth.
Although this is not evidence for the non-existence of the God that the majority of theists believe in, it is evidence that the God that creationists (a fairly large proportion of theists) believe in.
There is a significant amount of evidence that the earth (and the universe) is extremely old, lets just say over 4 billion years. This leads me to the conclusion that the earth is old and the creationist God cannot exist.