Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (shifting the burden of proof fallacy)

[DBT]

Lion, you can no more disprove any of the other thousands of gods from all the other religions than I can disprove your god....

I don't have to disprove any other gods. If any other gods exist I'm only partly wrong.
You, one the other hand, are entirely wrong if any of those gods are real.

God still exists even if...

View attachment 9020

Brahma, as described by believers, is not the god of Israel, as described by believers. Now, you could argue that one is describing the 'tail' while the other describes the torso, but that doesn't work in terms of the respective characteristics, attributes, values, etc, between Brahma and Yahweh. The contradiction only widens when compared to Zeus, who is said to live on Mt Olympus, and so on. These descriptions do not apply to a single entity like the legs, tail, trunk of an Elephant....

 

[Underseer]

Lion, you can no more disprove any of the other thousands of gods from all the other religions than I can disprove your god....

I don't have to disprove any other gods. If any other gods exist I'm only partly wrong.
You, one the other hand, are entirely wrong if any of those gods are real.

God still exists even if...

View attachment 9020

You can't disprove any of the other gods with 100% certainty, therefore you cannot say that Christianity is true because the Bible claims to represent the one and only true god. So if any of the other religions are even partly correct, then Christianity is completely wrong.

I'm just throwing your own arguments back in your face.

Because you cannot disprove any of the other gods with 100% certainty, you cannot even suggest that they are not real. It is your burden to disprove them.

 

[Underseer]

You cannot claim that the Bible is even a little bit true until you 100% disprove all of the other gods of all of the other religions. There are thousands of gods in Hinduism alone, so you have a lot of work to do. You'd better get cracking.

There Bibles claims top represent the one and only true god, so by your own arguments, you have to completely disprove all other gods before you can say the Bible is even a little bit true.

It's your burden to disprove all over the other gods, at least by your own arguments. If any of the other gods is even partly real, then the Bible is 100% wrong when it claims to represent there one and only true god.

So now you have a choice: admit that you're wrong about how the burden of proof works and accept the burden of proving that your god is real, or stick to your guns and accept the burden of disproving all of the other gods, because until you do, the Bible is definitely false, as per your own arguments about how the burden of proof works.

 

[Underseer]

You can decide to follow the rules of burden of proof to prove your god, or you can accept the burden of disproving everyone else's god.

Personally, I would prefer you do the former as that follows the rules of burden of proof as they have been for thousands of years. However, if you don't want to come across as a giant hypocrite, you are going to have to choose one of the other. Either I'm right about the burden of proof and you have the burden of proving your god, or in wrong about the burden of proof, in which case you have the burden of disproving all the other gods of all the other religions.

You're previous attempt to wiggle out of this ignore the fact that the Bible claims to represent the one and only true god of the one and only true religion. If you still want to go the special pleading route and have it both ways, you're going to have to declare the Bible false.

 

[Lion IRC]

I would be interested to see a Christian trying to convince the Norse, Roman or Ancient Egyptian gods that he was more right about them than the atheists.

Well in AvT fora like this I think Christian Particularism is a little bit redundant or at least premature.

The first order issue is, should I think there is some sort of Higher Being. (Theism)
Next comes the question of what type of theism. (Polytheism, Pantheism, Deism, Monotheism)
Next comes monotheism.
Next comes Abrahamic monotheism.
Next comes biblical theism.
Then comes Christian theism.
And finally Christian orthodoxy.

The atheist who wants to quibble with the Christian about Zeus versus Jehovah is being somewhat precious.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

An old claim about God, from people like Duns Scotus and William of Okham and others, is that God is so incomprehensible to us mere mortals that all we can know of God is from revelation, the Bible. That is, one cannot reason our way to understanding, much less proving God's existence. Natural theology, proving God's existence, despite being claimed possible by others, for example Aquinas and Anslem has proven to be rather a bust to date.

So where is the proof that there is a "Higher Being"? I can see a material Universe, in no way in need of a God to exist, that is self otganizing, examples, evolution, cosmology, with no sign of design, teleology, or need of any intelligent to exist.

So where is that proof of "Higher Being" of which you write?

 

[Underseer]

I would be interested to see a Christian trying to convince the Norse, Roman or Ancient Egyptian gods that he was more right about them than the atheists.

Well in AvT fora like this I think Christian Particularism is a little bit redundant or at least premature.

The first order issue is, should I think there is some sort of Higher Being. (Theism)
Next comes the question of what type of theism. (Polytheism, Pantheism, Deism, Monotheism)
Next comes monotheism.
Next comes Abrahamic monotheism.
Next comes biblical theism.
Then comes Christian theism.
And finally Christian orthodoxy.

The atheist who wants to quibble with the Christian about Zeus versus Jehovah is being somewhat precious.

Again, you cannot disprove Vishnu nor Krishna with 100% certainty, therefore there Bible is 100% false when it claims to represent the one and only true god of the one and only true religion. So if your arguments about the burden of proof are correct, the Bible is definitely false.

Just to reiterate: you can accept the burden of proving your god as per my position, or you can continue to cling to the logic of your counterarguments, in which case you have to accept the burden of disproving all of the other gods.

Frankly, the latter leads to all kinds of absurdities, but the choice is yours.

Any attempt to create a third option is just another tiresome special pleading fallacy. The logic of an argument does not become valid or invalid depending on which conclusion you apply it to.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

An old claim about God, from people like Duns Scotus and William of Okham and others, is that God is so incomprehensible to us mere mortals that all we can know of God is from revelation, the Bible. That is, one cannot reason our way to understanding, much less proving God's existence. Natural theology, proving God's existence, despite being claimed possible by others, for example Aquinas and Anslem has proven to be rather a bust to date.

So where is the proof that there is a "Higher Being"? I can see a material Universe, in no way in need of a God to exist, that is self otganizing, examples, evolution, cosmology, with no sign of design, teleology, or need of any intelligent to exist.

So where is that proof of "Higher Being" of which you write?

It's a lot like talking to a person who believes in dowsing. You can run them through a double blind experiment where their ability to locate water is tested, and do this multiple times. They'll admit that they fail the test, that their location of water is no better than anyone else's who just guesses, but you will not shake their resolve in their argument that they can locate water with sticks or wires. They'll come up with reason after reason as to why they failed, but why they still can dowse for water. And the more you explain the more they defend their unsupportable argument.

And that's what gods and things like dowsing really are, arguments, not beliefs. More specifically they're arguments for perceived identities more than anything else. If someone wants to argue that they're in contact with forces from the land of woo, whether they can offer any legitimacy for their claim is hardly of primary concern for them.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

An old claim about God, from people like Duns Scotus and William of Okham and others, is that God is so incomprehensible to us mere mortals that all we can know of God is from revelation, the Bible. That is, one cannot reason our way to understanding, much less proving God's existence. Natural theology, proving God's existence, despite being claimed possible by others, for example Aquinas and Anslem has proven to be rather a bust to date.

So where is the proof that there is a "Higher Being"? I can see a material Universe, in no way in need of a God to exist, that is self otganizing, examples, evolution, cosmology, with no sign of design, teleology, or need of any intelligent to exist.

So where is that proof of "Higher Being" of which you write?

It's a lot like talking to a person who believes in dowsing. You can run them through a double blind experiment where their ability to locate water is tested, and do this multiple times. They'll admit that they fail the test, that their location of water is no better than anyone else's who just guesses, but you will not shake their resolve in their argument that they can locate water with sticks or wires. They'll come up with reason after reason as to why they failed, but why they still can dowse for water. And the more you explain the more they defend their unsupportable argument.

And that's what gods and things like dowsing really are, arguments, not beliefs. More specifically they're arguments for perceived identities more than anything else. If someone wants to argue that they're in contact with forces from the land of woo, whether they can offer any legitimacy for their claim is hardly of primary concern for them.

One of the biggest problems I have with these sorts of arguments is shifting definitions we get for God, are we arguing the orthodox Christian God, the God of the philosophers, some vague liberal Christian God, the Open Theology God or what?

So the definition of God can shift around as needed, and if the going gets really tough, abandonment of logic all together, "How can a finite mind comprehend an Infinite God?", and such formulations. Plus little diversions of allegorization of various verses of Quran or Bible as needed.

The question "What do you mean by God?" is to be answered by, "What God do you believe in and want to prove exists?".

 

[Sarpedon]

Well in AvT fora like this I think Christian Particularism is a little bit redundant or at least premature.

The first order issue is, should I think there is some sort of Higher Being. (Theism)
Next comes the question of what type of theism. (Polytheism, Pantheism, Deism, Monotheism)
Next comes monotheism.
Next comes Abrahamic monotheism.
Next comes biblical theism.
Then comes Christian theism.
And finally Christian orthodoxy.

Well said! I presume you have evidence for each level of the argument you identified?

I would make another addition, to the top of the list, if I may be so bold:

The question of the existence of Supernatural forces/matter/energy or whatever you care to call it.

It would seem to me to be a prerequisite for the existence of a Supernatural Deity. You seem to go directly to 'higher being' without first establishing there is another realm of existence to begin with.

A minor quibble, but I think a telling one, in that you take your argument exactly where you want it to go, rather than allowing the conclusion that it might go a different way: in that there may be a supernatural realm, but not a 'higher being.' Just as there might be a god, but not necessarily your god.

Also, by NOT mentioning the existence of the supernatural as a separate line item, you can dispense with one of our more potent arguments: i.e. That every supernatural claim that CAN be tested has failed, thus it is reasonable to be suspicious of such claims.

Also, don't you repeat the 'monotheism' issue twice?

Of course, you could skip all these levels of proof and argument if you would simply show us your god.

 

[bilby]

I would be interested to see a Christian trying to convince the Norse, Roman or Ancient Egyptian gods that he was more right about them than the atheists.

Well in AvT fora like this I think Christian Particularism is a little bit redundant or at least premature.

The first order issue is, should I think there is some sort of Higher Being. (Theism)
Next comes the question of what type of theism. (Polytheism, Pantheism, Deism, Monotheism)
Next comes monotheism.
Next comes Abrahamic monotheism.
Next comes biblical theism.
Then comes Christian theism.
And finally Christian orthodoxy.

The atheist who wants to quibble with the Christian about Zeus versus Jehovah is being somewhat precious.

But an atheist who attempts to point out to the Christian that he skipped five or six steps in that analysis is merely offering to help.

Should you think there is some sort of Higher Being? Well, even that question is premature - what do you mean by 'Higher', and for that matter, 'Being'? You may think it's obvious, but it isn't to me.

IMO, the minimum possible qualification for a 'Higher Being' must be an ability to influence the universe in some way that differs from the mere operation of physical law.

Given that definition, which is extremely broad, theists are still incapable of providing a shred of real evidence for such an entity. All they have is feelings and anecdotes.

Show me the evidence.

 

[Elixir]

Absence of evidence is in fact evidence of absence in many cases. If I postulate that there is a Giant Purple Unicorn in my garage, and the GPU inspectors go into my garage and can find no evidence of it, my postulate can be reliably discarded.
"Oh, but" I hear the theists say, "your garage does not reside in the realm of the invisible and un-detectable, like God does!"
To which I respond that sans any detectable effect, there is no difference between your god and any of the ten thousand gods you reject.
When I have offered that, the usual response is "I have felt the effect of MY God but not that of Vishnu or Thor". Then the conversation tends to die on the vine, because I have to point out that they have no evidence that the "effect" they subjectively feel is caused by their God, or any other external influence, rather than being an emergent property of the living organism that we are - god or no god. I point out that their description of their reverie bears an uncanny resemblance to the descriptions of the awe and wonder that many atheist scientists have described just in the course of doing their work.

I have to conclude that for many people, personifying those feelings makes it easier for them to get in touch with them. For many others, disciplines like meditation or yoga may serve the same purpose. Still others are perfectly fine just experiencing what they can in response to existing stimuli, with no enhancements needed or desired.

For gods that conform to the Abrahamic religions' dogma, absence of evidence is sufficient to provisionally discard them. Should even the minimal criteria offered by Bilby be met somehow, that conclusion must be re-visited. Until then, those who depend on such a god should keep it to themselves and be grateful for a tool that lets them share in the love and wonder that others experience, with or without such aids.

 

[DBT]

Absence of evidence is evidence of the absence of something where evidence for its presence should be found.

 

[Lion IRC]

Absence of evidence is evidence of the absence of something where evidence for its presence should be found.

You could look all over 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%
of the known universe and NOT find evidence that I exist.

What would your absence of evidence be worth now? I exist!

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

Again, you cannot disprove Vishnu nor Krishna with 100% certainty, therefore there Bible is 100% false when it claims to represent the one and only true god of the one and only true religion. So if your arguments about the burden of proof are correct, the Bible is definitely false.

Likewise, the very first tenet of Islam is "there is no god but Allah". If any one of the many thousands of other "gods" turned out to be true, Islam would be instantly disproved.

And so with any religion which claims exclusivity for its "god". They all reject belief in the existence of any other deity. Atheists just go one "god" further.

 

[ronburgundy]

Absence of evidence is evidence of the absence of something where evidence for its presence should be found.

You could look all over 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%
of the known universe and NOT find evidence that I exist.

What would your absence of evidence be worth now? I exist!

It would accurately tell us that you are a small and completely insignificant person with almost zero impact on the world.
IOW, it would tell us that if you do exist, you are not in any way "a god", just like the absence of evidence for a god tells us that whatever does exist that we haven't observed cannot be any kind of god that matters for anything.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Absence of evidence is evidence of the absence of something where evidence for its presence should be found.

You could look all over 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the known universe and NOT find evidence that I exist.

But should you be found on Pluto?
Should you be found orbiting Alpha Centauri?
Should you be found in the Antarctic on Operation Deep Freeze?
Heck, should you be found in my front hall, hanging my Newtonmas Wreath?

If we look where you should NOT be and don't find you, that's to be expected.
It's not like Lion IRC has a reputation for being omnipresent.

So, really, not finding any sign of you in 99.99 percetera of the universe isn't much of a comparison to not finding gods in the places where we're told they can be found.

You really suck at analogies, don't you?

 

[abaddon]

I would be interested to see a Christian trying to convince the Norse, Roman or Ancient Egyptian gods that he was more right about them than the atheists.

Well in AvT fora like this I think Christian Particularism is a little bit redundant or at least premature.

The first order issue is, should I think there is some sort of Higher Being. (Theism)
Next comes [more theistic presumptions]...

The first order issue is to just observe with no conclusions in mind.

From there build up to explanations for the observations.

If a god seems like an explanation with some descriptive power for what’s observed, then testing that becomes potentially fruitful.

There’s no good reason for the “Is there a higher being?’ question to even come up before then.

The only reason anyone still thinks God has any descriptive or explanatory power is there’s a history of gods in human cultures as the reasons behind things; and the Christians figure they're the ones that got it right. The evidence of gods in the past was lightning, storms, earthquakes, et al. They were being sorta-kinda empirical about it, not having better explanations than to project human-like yet "higher" beings as “makers” and “causers”.

But now Christians brought up with the idea "God" implanted in their heads cannot exorcise the idea from their heads and therefore start their alleged ‘inquiry’ with their conclusion. It's past the time when anyone had an excuse to project contents of human consciousness out onto nature as ancients did. If they strip it down to “some sort of higher being” and proceed in quasi-rational steps in the word-wringing way of Christian theology, they want to make a display of "reason" but really just display how they must abstract further and further away from observed nature to hold tight to the plausibility of their God.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

nm

 

[Lion IRC]

...You really suck at analogies, don't you?

No, you really suck at getting the point..

You've looked at 99.99999% of the places where you decided to look and you haven't found 'it' therefore it doesn't exist?

The analogy is that absence of evidence can often be evidence of ones own stupidity. (Looking for God in a telescope/microscope...duh) And you probably don't get the analogy because you (foolishly) think nobody ELSE has ever found evidence for God.

So after proudly declaring that something must not 'exist' because you personally can't see it where you expect to see it, that something nonetheless continues to exist.

When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail.
- Abraham Maslow