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

[Elixir]

The analogy is that absence of evidence can often be evidence of ones own stupidity.

It can also be evidence of absence, as I have explained (and you ignored). Given that in all the history of mankind, NOBODY has found any presentable evidence, you must be the only "smart" human ever born. Or alternately, maybe you're one among millions who have deluded themselves with gullibility about old myths.

(Looking for God in a telescope/microscope...duh)

Funny then, how early Christian leaders refused to "look through the glass", fearing that they'd lose their faith (such as it was).

And you probably don't get the analogy because you (foolishly) think nobody ELSE has ever found evidence for God.

If you have something to show, show it. Believing that evidence exists because someone or someones said so, is flat out stupid.

,,,that something nonetheless continues to exist.

Evidence, please. Your belief is not evidence. Your convictions are not evidence. Your naked assertions that it exists, are not evidence.
Fail better, Lion.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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

No, you really suck at getting the point..

No. I got your point, it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

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?

Now, now, now, the statement you were replying to was to look where something SHOULD be found. You edited that out and pretend you scored a point by having us look at all the places in the universe where you're not.

The analogy is that absence of evidence can often be evidence of ones own stupidity.

Lion, that's not an analogy.
That's the actual idea you were trying to express by your use of an analogy.
This might be why you suck at analogies, if you don't know when you are or are not using one...

(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.

No, no. Again, I GOT your point, but it doesn't actually impact on the original statement that you were replying to.

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.

But that would require that I actually said you don't exist after looking someplace you should NOT be found. I haven't done that. So your analogy is a strawman, isn't it?

I have not searched in Saturn's shadow for any gods, no. But then, no one's told me that their god can be found there.
Many people HAVE insisted that God is found in my heart.
Some insist that I already HAVE found God in my heart, but i'm in denial.
And many, many will insist that if i pray a particular prayer, god will reveal himself to me, often ending with 'this prayer has not been known to fail.'

Well, it's failed.
I do not have any gods in my heart.
I am not denying something i know to be true.

I've been told that god's hand is clear in the existence of the universe, of life on Earth, of my consciousness. But i've yet to be presented with evidence that a god is necessary to explain such things.
Or anything.


The Faithful are CONSTANTLY telling me where they found gods, where I will find gods, or blaming me for the fact that I don't see the evidence for gods. But none of their claims seem to stand up to scrutiny.

So for a better approach to your analogy, it would be better to say that i searched the night sky for the star someone discovered, at the coordinates he told me the star was at, and no matter how many telescopes or what manner of detection device i use, i do not detect the star they insist they see. Even replicating their research fails.

 

[blastula]

...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

You can personally see god?

 

[Lion IRC]

Ask Keith&Co
That's his empiricism not mine.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Ask Keith&Co
That's his empiricism not mine.

No, it's not.
You're either fond of putting words in my mouth or not paying attention to whose post it is...

 

[blastula]

Ask Keith&Co
That's his empiricism not mine.

You said.

) And you probably don't get the analogy because you (foolishly) think nobody ELSE has ever found evidence for God.

What's this evidence? If you only mean that some people believe that a god exists, then you are just equivocating. To be evidence, it must be data that can be shown supports a claim. And in our context, it must be conclusive evidence as considered with the totality of all evidence available on the matter. If it's only something that raises speculative possibilities, then you're again you're equivocating.

 

[Lion IRC]

Evidence.
*I saw something happen which others (the jury) didn't. So I am called to give evidence.
*A bullet casing on the ground next to the murder victim is evidence.
*DNA belonging to the suspect is found at the crime scene. That's evidence.

There's no equivocation going on here.
All that evidence can be doubted and disputed by skeptics.
The suspect can claim the DNA was planted at the crime scene. The bullet casing might have come from a gun which the suspect never touched. The eye witness might be mistaken about the identity of the suspect.
All that evidence doesn't prove the suspect is guilty and the atheist can say the same about evidence for God.

 

[blastula]

Yep, you are equivocating.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

If God is defined as good, perfectly good, the source of all goodness in this Universe, but does things not good, not for example merciful, just, compassionate or fair, God is not as proclaimed, good, If God is defined as good, that God is disproven decisively.

The Bible and Quran claim God is, by definition good. And likewise claims God does things that are not merciful, compassionate, or fair. Choosing for example to make some people elct, and not others, not dependent on their works, decided long before they are even born.

One can of course, drop books like the Bible or Quran and others supposed revelations, and opt for another definition of God, Process theology for example, But these other Gods have problems also. But the Christian God is a failed concept, a failed hypothesis.

 

[Keith&Co.]

All that evidence doesn't prove the suspect is guilty and the atheist can say the same about evidence for God.

But until you offer evidence that we can dispute, you're equivocating.

You're offering excuses for not providing evidence for your god.

 

[DBT]

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!

You prove your existence by the fact of being a member of this forum while responding to other members (unless you are a bot). That is where the evidence for your existence lies in relation to me...your family, friends and associates, the people who know you personally, have their own form evidence.

 

[atrib]

And the claim that God doesn't exist is either a belief or a certainty.

If it's a belief, then such atheists can rightly be called 'believers' in the truest sense of the word.

And if it's a certainty rather than a belief insofar as God's existence or otherwise, then the strong atheist who is a #7 on Dawkins' theism scale presumably can offer evidence rather than opinion.

Needless to say, we would expect that God-denial by this type of atheist is based on strict, rigorous empirical evidence. (Because it would be hypocritical for such an atheist not to live up to the same standard of proof they expect of their opponent.)

I don't believe that god exists for exactly the same reasons you don't believe that Bantu, the Supreme Cosmic Toad that allegedly created the universe from its flatulence, doesn't exist. There is exactly zero evidence for either claim. I know its hard because you have turned your powers of critical thinking off for so long, but do try and think about it for a minute, and the absurdity of your position will be revealed.

 

[atrib]

If the number of claimants makes a claim true, then you must decide that Islam and Hinduism are true.

But the Bible claims to represent the one and only true religion, so if the number of claimants makes something true, them that means that the Bible is definitely false.

but amazingly it seems other religious followers other than Christian more or less acknowledge Jesus and his teachings. Just borrowed examples from below
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2014/who-is-jesus-according-to-other-religions/

Jews believe Jesus was Mary’s son, was a teacher (Rabbi), had many disciples, was respected, performed miracles, claimed to be the Messiah and was crucified on the cross. They also acknowledge His followers reported Jesus was raised from the dead.

Muslims believe Jesus was born of a virgin, is to be revered and respected, was a prophet, a wise teacher who worked miracles, ascended to heaven, and will come again.

Ahmadiyya Muslims believe Jesus may have been born of a virgin, was a prophet and wise teacher, worked miracles, and was crucified on a cross.

Bahá’í believe Jesus came from God, was a wise teacher who had a divine and human nature, worked miracles, and was crucified and resurrected as an atonement for humanity. Bahá’u’lláh described Jesus as a divinely wise teacher whose words contained the deep wisdom from God Himself:

Hindus believe Jesus was a holy man, a wise teacher, and is a ‘god’.

Buddhists believe Jesus was an enlightened man and a wise teacher.

New Age believers maintain Jesus was a wise moral teacher.

Bible doesn't seem to be false.

Other than the parts that are blatantly untrue, you mean. Like a corpse rising up from the dead and floating off into space under its own power, to name just one part.

And no, people of other faiths do not routinely consider Jesus to be a god or a son of a god. You are making up shit here.

 

[atrib]

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!

So stop beating around the bush and show us the evidence for god already. Why is it so fucking hard to produce this damn invisible friend you claim to have? Come on now, tick tock, tick tock. How long are you going to keep us waiting?

 

[abaddon]

Evidence.
*I saw something happen which others (the jury) didn't. So I am called to give evidence.
*A bullet casing on the ground next to the murder victim is evidence.
*DNA belonging to the suspect is found at the crime scene. That's evidence.

There's no equivocation going on here.
All that evidence can be doubted and disputed by skeptics.
The suspect can claim the DNA was planted at the crime scene. The bullet casing might have come from a gun which the suspect never touched. The eye witness might be mistaken about the identity of the suspect.
All that evidence doesn't prove the suspect is guilty and the atheist can say the same about evidence for God.

These courtroom analogies don’t work. Before anything goes to court, you need a case. Not just a witness with some claims and nothing else. Your analogy is loaded because you insert things into the analogy that have no comparable items in theism.

The right analogy would be reporting anything to the police. Like walking in and saying “A guy named Bob has committed a crime!” To which the police respond “Who’s Bob and what crime?” It’s then that you present your testimony. If it turns out Bob’s a character in a novel, then your testimony about Bob is not evidence of a crime that needs to be investigated. There's no case and it doesn't go from having a witness... and just a witness and that's all... to a courtroom.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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!

Then I take it you've "looked over" the other 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe and there's no evidence for you.

If not, then your argument has the same flaw you accuse theirs of having.

Now show us evidence of the magic spaceman in your .000000000000000000000000000001% or anywhere else.

 

[Learner]

Other than the parts that are blatantly untrue, you mean. Like a corpse rising up from the dead and floating off into space under its own power, to name just one part.

And no, people of other faiths do not routinely consider Jesus to be a god or a son of a god. You are making up shit here.

"Do not routinely" .... by your choice of words means you then must be aware it does happen for some at least ,acknowledging his existence. I used the example from a link. It is not just I that think it - or as you put it; making stuff up.

 

[Lion IRC]

...So stop beating around the bush and show us the evidence for god already.

Jesus of Nazareth is evidence for God.
You can read the historical evidence in this regard here.

 

[sdelsolray]

...So stop beating around the bush and show us the evidence for god already.

Jesus of Nazareth is evidence for God.
You can read the historical evidence in this regard here.

Bibliolatry is your friend.

 

[Lion IRC]

That's not bibliolatry.