T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
But even arguments are evidence. Evidence is just any claim one wishes to present, even when it is spurious and ridiculous. So sometimes there really is no evidence.
-
Features
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (shifting the burden of proof fallacy)
- Thread starter Underseer
- Start date
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
There is no evidence, where there should be evidence. Yes, intellectual integrity means admitting that fact. Revelation is problematic, hard evidence of God's existence, natural theology, is lacking. The various claims about God's nature set up self contradictions and logical problems for the concept of God. So it boils down to "Maybe there is a God". No maybes.
If we want to retain our "intellectual integrity", do we have to believe likewise in fairys, unicorns and leprechauns?
The theist claim is atheism cannot disprove God's existence, but the logic problems that develop when we consider the claims about God's abilities and nature and attributes does in fact do that deed.
And no, the claim God is incomprehensible, inscrutable, outside our ability to understand when it comes to these problems is not an answer, its rank special pleading. Maybe fairys are "incomprehensible, inscrutable, outside our ability to understand".
For example, today's theologians still argue on and on about God's relation to time. Is God inside or outside of time? They are still writing numerous fat books wasting dead trees arguing that. If after all this time, they are still trying to puzzle it out, can we say they really know anything about this? Or are they like a goofy kitten chasing its tail? How long does one have to waste your time before one admits we cannot demonstrate anything about God and time, even in principle? Are fairies outside of time or inside time?
From what I've read around here theist argument still clings to 'science can't explain how it all started', therefore God.
Even if we allow this line of thinking:
To think that a creator put a universe in motion, in which living beings on earth are an infinitesimally small part, and that this creator actually cares about us as individuals in any way, is about as stupid as the people of history who used to think the sun revolved around the earth. It's completely and totally ego-centric.
So unless you think there's a grand, pre-determined plan set out for you, which is unbelievable nonsense, theists are de facto materialists, because the only thing that's actually relevant to them is physical law.
Even if we allow this line of thinking:
- What difference does it make how the universe originated?
- Can this hypothetical creator affect our life in any way?
- Does this have any practical affect on our day to day life?
To think that a creator put a universe in motion, in which living beings on earth are an infinitesimally small part, and that this creator actually cares about us as individuals in any way, is about as stupid as the people of history who used to think the sun revolved around the earth. It's completely and totally ego-centric.
So unless you think there's a grand, pre-determined plan set out for you, which is unbelievable nonsense, theists are de facto materialists, because the only thing that's actually relevant to them is physical law.
Lion IRC
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2016
- Messages
- 5,072
- Basic Beliefs
- Biblical theist
You can say the same about any evidence reported by one witness and repeated then by another as hearsay evidence. It's still evidence even though you find second hand reports less credible than first hand testimony.
But even first hand testimony can be dismissed as unreliable if you have some reason not to believe them.
And I can do the same thing with today's newspaper as is done by bible-sceptics.
I can ask why should I trust that the reporter is correctly reporting what they claim they heard from supposed eye witnesses - eye witnesses who might be lunatics or liars.
But even first hand testimony can be dismissed as unreliable if you have some reason not to believe them.
And I can do the same thing with today's newspaper as is done by bible-sceptics.
I can ask why should I trust that the reporter is correctly reporting what they claim they heard from supposed eye witnesses - eye witnesses who might be lunatics or liars.
Lion IRC
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2016
- Messages
- 5,072
- Basic Beliefs
- Biblical theist
And what of the sceptic who won't even believe their own eyes?
The point is that if a hardened sceptic had a convincing revelation from God, causing them to convert, and they then tried to persuade their sceptical friends of what just happened, they would be greeted with..."THATS NOT EVIDENCE!!!
The point is that if a hardened sceptic had a convincing revelation from God, causing them to convert, and they then tried to persuade their sceptical friends of what just happened, they would be greeted with..."THATS NOT EVIDENCE!!!
you left out extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
and yes being skeptical is just that: being skeptical
if you want to dismiss that which is believable under the pretense that every story is unimaginable go ahead
- - - Updated - - -
and that is the point, what is a convincing revelation?
DBT
Contributor
I'm not arguing otherwise. I said as much in my original remark. My following point being related to complexity, overlap of concepts plus the inability to search the whole world and all history in order to say ''there is no evidence to be found'' instead, just making the assumption that there never was evidence. Which may or may not be true....and of course, ants do not 'talk,' but they do communicate.
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
Tell me how that would go down so I can be prepared.
ronburgundy
Contributor
The ant analogy fails. Humans are only in the presence of ants for a tiny % of the time that ants exist. IF they did talk, there is a good chance we wouldn't have happened to be around to hear them. In contrast, anything worthy of the concept of a God, especially a monotheistic one, is around us constantly, causing everything. If such a God existing, it is extremely improbable that we wouldn't have witnessed clear record-able evidence of it.
Absence of evidence actually is evidence of absence, if the context is such that the presence of the thing would be very likely to have left observable evidence and one has searched extensively for that evidence. This context applies to God, but not to talking ants.
That said, we actually have tons of evidence against talking ants, in the form of evidence of the neurological underpinnings of language and that ants lack such neurology. Coincidentally, this same evidence is also against the existence of a sentient mind in the absence of a physical brain, and thus evidence against God.
So, we have tons of evidence that contradicts the plausibility of God and of talking ants, and the lack of supporting evidence of God is rather damning and additional evidence of his absence.
Absence of evidence actually is evidence of absence, if the context is such that the presence of the thing would be very likely to have left observable evidence and one has searched extensively for that evidence. This context applies to God, but not to talking ants.
That said, we actually have tons of evidence against talking ants, in the form of evidence of the neurological underpinnings of language and that ants lack such neurology. Coincidentally, this same evidence is also against the existence of a sentient mind in the absence of a physical brain, and thus evidence against God.
So, we have tons of evidence that contradicts the plausibility of God and of talking ants, and the lack of supporting evidence of God is rather damning and additional evidence of his absence.
Underseer
Contributor
Hearsay is evidence that someone said something, not evidence that what was said is true.
Those gurus in India have a metric crap ton of hearsay evidence for all manner of miracle claims, but that ideas only evidence of what someone said about a supposed miracle, not evidence of a miracle.
Historians have a list of criteria they use to determine whether or not to take a historical account seriously. Failing one of the criteria is enough to reject a source. The Bible manages to fail every single criteria. Every single one.
I'm sure you want to believe that the Bible is exactly as reliable as any newspaper, but this is another claim. If you can demonstrate that the Bible is as credible as any newspaper, then shows us your sources. Newspapers can make names and tell us exactly where a given claim came from, whereas the authors of the Bible are anonymous.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,388
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Theist's Apologetic Dichotomy (please use as necessary):
A) There is evidence for god, you merely either don't recognize it or haven't witnessed it.
B) Faith is not possible with proof.
blastula
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 9,676
- Gender
- Late for dinner
- Basic Beliefs
- Gnostic atheist
What evidence?
If you can't provide your information for someone else to scrutinise then it isn't evidence.
If a person claims to have witnessed something extraordinary but has no evidence to show to another person, then one cannot reasonably accept their claim as fact. This is true whether the claim is any of the following:
- The person saw a UFO or was abducted by aliens
- The person saw or heard a ghost
- The person received divine revelation
- The person saw Father Christmas flying across the sky
Some theists claim that their own personal Road to Damascus counts as evidence, but all they can offer to others is their earnest account of their perceptions and this does not stand up to critical examination.
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
So what they are talking about is "The problem of being Ernest".
Lion IRC
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2016
- Messages
- 5,072
- Basic Beliefs
- Biblical theist
I don't remember voting for that rule.
Why can't eye witness testimony of past events be taken as evidence in court?
Witness was there. Witness saw the murder. If you exclude their testimony, then the accused murder is acquitted because "there is no evidence" they did it.
The eye witness says..."but I was there, I saw the murder happen, I saw who did it"
Shouty angry defense lawyer bigfield tells the judge and jury...
"THATS #<!!&@ NOT EVIDENCE!!!!
which is essentially what crhistianity is, testimony of a murder
James Brown
Veteran Member
I saw you murder an eight-year-old girl, then cremate her remains.
I guess that makes you guilty.
DBT
Contributor
Verifiable evidence is the rule of logic and reason. Nobody gets a vote. Eye witness testimony is not necessarily evidence that a claimed event actually occurred. The witness may be lying or mistaken. Independent witnesses add strength to the claim, which provides evidence for the proposition that the event happened approximately as described.
fast
Contributor
What makes one guilty of a crime is the commission of a crime. If I see a crime, then a crime was committed, but it's not the seeing of the crime that makes it a crime but rather the fact of it being a crime. So, if you saw him murder an eight year old girl, then he is guilty; moreover, he is guilty anyway, as it's not the witnessing of the crime but the actual commission of the crime that makes it so.
If you say (verbally or by written deposition) that he did not kill the girl, then it's still the case that he's guilty if he committed the crime; likewise, if you SAY that he did kill the girl, he's guilty--neither because you said it nor because you saw it ... but because he did it.
So, he's pretty much guilty whether you saw it or not and whether you make the claim or not ... if ... he killed her.