2) No, there cannot be evidence of what didn't happen. Are you even serious at this point?
I also think it's appropriate to care about what a religious person thinks and why they think that. But you're not religious and I don't care what you think a hypothetical religious person might think.
Yes, I'm serious. I think it's quite straightforward actually. If someone was murdered in a particular location with a hammer it would be extremely difficult to avoid leaving traces of that (bloodstains, hairs, fibres, DNA etc). If those are not to be found that is strong evidence that someone was not in fact murdered with a hammer there - in the terminology I used before that would be evidence of absence as opposed to absence of evidence.
I was brought up by religious parents and attended chapel regularly for many years, so I'm not sure why my opinion about a religious viewpoint should be so worthless. Presumably you believe your own opinions have merit or you would not be pursuing this topic. However, to avoid wasting the time of both of us I won't comment further.
2) No, there cannot be evidence of what didn't happen. Are you even serious at this point?
I also think it's appropriate to care about what a religious person thinks and why they think that. But you're not religious and I don't care what you think a hypothetical religious person might think.
Yes, I'm serious. I think it's quite straightforward actually. If someone was murdered in a particular location with a hammer it would be extremely difficult to avoid leaving traces of that (bloodstains, hairs, fibres, DNA etc). If those are not to be found that is strong evidence that someone was not in fact murdered with a hammer there - in the terminology I used before that would be evidence of absence as opposed to absence of evidence.
I was brought up by religious parents and attended chapel regularly for many years, so I'm not sure why my opinion about a religious viewpoint should be so worthless. Presumably you believe your own opinions have merit or you would not be pursuing this topic. However, to avoid wasting the time of both of us I won't comment further.
It is an absence of evidence which can be used as evidence of absence, which is exactly why I said that adage is not generally applicable. What you are describing is literally an absence of evidence. If evidence isn't found, there is an absence of evidence. What are you disagreeing with here?
Like I said, I care about what you actually think, not what you think some hypothetical person might think. Why would that be worth discussing?
It is an absence of evidence which can be used as evidence of absence, which is exactly why I said that adage is not generally applicable. What you are describing is literally an absence of evidence. If evidence isn't found, there is an absence of evidence. What are you disagreeing with here?
If I may: The core concept in the logical statement that Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence is that the absence of evidence (That is - where no evidence has been found) is not dis-positive. It cannot be. To disprove something (just as to prove something) requires evidence.
In a scenario with a perfect crime, in which no evidence has been left - the investigator cannot logically conclude a murder *didnt* happen. That investigator can only say that the he or she has no evidence of a murder. These two statements are not equivalent.
It is an absence of evidence which can be used as evidence of absence, which is exactly why I said that adage is not generally applicable. What you are describing is literally an absence of evidence. If evidence isn't found, there is an absence of evidence. What are you disagreeing with here?
If I may: The core concept in the logical statement that Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence is that the absence of evidence (That is - where no evidence has been found) is not dis-positive. It cannot be. To disprove something (just as to prove something) requires evidence.
In a scenario with a perfect crime, in which no evidence has been left - the investigator cannot logically conclude a murder *didnt* happen. That investigator can only say that the he or she has no evidence of a murder. These two statements are not equivalent.
Yes, but I'm not making the case they're innocent, I'm making the case they're not guilty.
Yes, but I'm not making the case they're innocent, I'm making the case they're not guilty.
Right. A case which at this point is necessarily subjective, because the axiom above holds. Clearly, one can make an credible case in the face of a lack of evidence. Rational atheism is based upon that. However, it isnt dis-positive, and (in my opinion) it does no good to frame the argument as if it is.
Making the whole matter infinitely more complex (and also interesting), faith can be broadly defined as the will/ability to believe in something despite a lack of evidence. Since religion is couched in the concept that it requires faith - you no longer have only two states: Evidence exists, evidence does not exist. You also add: Evidence doesnt matter.
It is an absence of evidence which can be used as evidence of absence, which is exactly why I said that adage is not generally applicable. What you are describing is literally an absence of evidence. If evidence isn't found, there is an absence of evidence. What are you disagreeing with here?
This statement is claiming that absence of evidence can be used as evidence of absence.
It is an absence of evidence which can be used as evidence of absence, which is exactly why I said that adage is not generally applicable. What you are describing is literally an absence of evidence. If evidence isn't found, there is an absence of evidence. What are you disagreeing with here?
This statement is claiming that absence of evidence can be used as evidence of absence.
Yes, but I don't mean it can be used to disprove a claim or indeed prove the opposing claim.
Absence of evidence for A is evidence for absence of A, if and only if evidence would have been expected given A exists. This is a straightforward application of Bayes' Theorem. To apply it to religion, the adherents would have to agree on an interpretation of their deity, specific enough to make predictions of how the deity would intervene.
I don't think there are many examples of this around, which is probably strongly linked to people not agreeing on what actually pleases their deity eitehr. If you look at Christians as an example there are many very accepting of homesexuality and other who are not. Both justify it with their belief in the Christian god. This demonstrates that you usually do not get far with these kinds of lack of evidence arguments.
Absence of evidence for A is evidence for absence of A, if and only if evidence would have been expected given A exists. This is a straightforward application of Bayes' Theorem. To apply it to religion, the adherents would have to agree on an interpretation of their deity, specific enough to make predictions of how the deity would intervene.
I don't think there are many examples of this around, which is probably strongly linked to people not agreeing on what actually pleases their deity eitehr. If you look at Christians as an example there are many very accepting of homesexuality and other who are not. Both justify it with their belief in the Christian god. This demonstrates that you usually do not get far with these kinds of lack of evidence arguments.
Exactly right! That's precisely why I say the adage is not generally applicable, only sometimes. It can be applied to many religious claim, like intercessory prayer for example. And the further religious people stray from specific claims, the less convincing their conviction gets.
Absence of evidence for A is evidence for absence of A, if and only if evidence would have been expected given A exists. This is a straightforward application of Bayes' Theorem. To apply it to religion, the adherents would have to agree on an interpretation of their deity, specific enough to make predictions of how the deity would intervene.
I don't think there are many examples of this around, which is probably strongly linked to people not agreeing on what actually pleases their deity eitehr. If you look at Christians as an example there are many very accepting of homesexuality and other who are not. Both justify it with their belief in the Christian god. This demonstrates that you usually do not get far with these kinds of lack of evidence arguments.
I fundamentally disagree with the bold part. The entire concept of the logical argument falls apart as soon as you start introducing subjectivity. Who has that expectation? Why is it expected? Since these are not in and of themselves arguments constrained by logic, they arent useful as it relates to the axiom.
Absence of evidence for A is evidence for absence of A, if and only if evidence would have been expected given A exists. This is a straightforward application of Bayes' Theorem. To apply it to religion, the adherents would have to agree on an interpretation of their deity, specific enough to make predictions of how the deity would intervene.
I don't think there are many examples of this around, which is probably strongly linked to people not agreeing on what actually pleases their deity eitehr. If you look at Christians as an example there are many very accepting of homesexuality and other who are not. Both justify it with their belief in the Christian god. This demonstrates that you usually do not get far with these kinds of lack of evidence arguments.
I fundamentally disagree with the bold part. The entire concept of the logical argument falls apart as soon as you start introducing subjectivity. Who has that expectation? Why is it expected? Since these are not in and of themselves arguments constrained by logic, they arent useful as it relates to the axiom.
The "absence of evidence" is an aphorism not an axiom.
Absence of evidence for A is evidence for absence of A, if and only if evidence would have been expected given A exists. This is a straightforward application of Bayes' Theorem. To apply it to religion, the adherents would have to agree on an interpretation of their deity, specific enough to make predictions of how the deity would intervene.
I don't think there are many examples of this around, which is probably strongly linked to people not agreeing on what actually pleases their deity eitehr. If you look at Christians as an example there are many very accepting of homesexuality and other who are not. Both justify it with their belief in the Christian god. This demonstrates that you usually do not get far with these kinds of lack of evidence arguments.
I fundamentally disagree with the bold part. The entire concept of the logical argument falls apart as soon as you start introducing subjectivity. Who has that expectation? Why is it expected? Since these are not in and of themselves arguments constrained by logic, they arent useful as it relates to the axiom.
Then you fundamentally disagree with science. Proofs in the mathematical sense are based on logic. Empirical (including physics) Sciences are based on evidence, not proof. Note that there is no logical reason to expect that a dropped pen will fall to the floor. It having down so for all of recorded history and it being predicted by the Theory of Gravity is no proof that it must continue doing so in the future. However, it not falling would be evidence against the Theory of Gravity. It is important to keep those concepts separate.
Of course, empirical science is somewhat subjective. After all, all human reasoning is based on the assumption that our perception is somehow linked to a true underlying reality.
Then you fundamentally disagree with science. Proofs in the mathematical sense are based on logic. Empirical (including physics) Sciences are based on evidence, not proof. Note that there is no logical reason to expect that a dropped pen will fall to the floor. It having down so for all of recorded history and it being predicted by the Theory of Gravity is no proof that it must continue doing so in the future. However, it not falling would be evidence against the Theory of Gravity. It is important to keep those concepts separate.
Of course, empirical science is somewhat subjective. After all, all human reasoning is based on the assumption that our perception is somehow linked to a true underlying reality.
That must be it. I have fundamentally disagreed with all science.
Or - as you have noted yourself, you're introducing subjectivity of your expectations into the argument. Your pen analogy doesnt necessarily work to your benefit here either. Were I to drop my pen and it did not fall, this lack of falling would not be evidence of the absence of gravity. It might be evidence of something (or against something), but not necessarily against gravity. Herein lies the problem with trying to use subjective human expectation(in this case, your expectations) in hypothetical situations to circumvent logical proofs, paradoxes, fallacies and laws.
With all that said, I'm afraid the conversation is getting rather redundant, and I'm not a big fan of arguments that substitute nuance for hyperbole (Accusing someone of disagreeing "With science") or semantics. I'll leave you all to your own opinions on the matter.
Then you fundamentally disagree with science. Proofs in the mathematical sense are based on logic. Empirical (including physics) Sciences are based on evidence, not proof. Note that there is no logical reason to expect that a dropped pen will fall to the floor. It having down so for all of recorded history and it being predicted by the Theory of Gravity is no proof that it must continue doing so in the future. However, it not falling would be evidence against the Theory of Gravity. It is important to keep those concepts separate.
Of course, empirical science is somewhat subjective. After all, all human reasoning is based on the assumption that our perception is somehow linked to a true underlying reality.
That must be it. I have fundamentally disagreed with all science.
Or - as you have noted yourself, you're introducing subjectivity of your expectations into the argument. Your pen analogy doesnt necessarily work to your benefit here either. Were I to drop my pen and it did not fall, this lack of falling would not be evidence of the absence of gravity. It might be evidence of something (or against something), but not necessarily against gravity. Herein lies the problem with trying to use subjective human expectation(in this case, your expectations) in hypothetical situations to circumvent logical proofs, paradoxes, fallacies and laws.
With all that said, I'm afraid the conversation is getting rather redundant, and I'm not a big fan of arguments that substitute nuance for hyperbole (Accusing someone of disagreeing "With science") or semantics. I'll leave you all to your own opinions on the matter. > > > > > >
If I let go of a pen and it floated in the air, I'd likely find that to be evidence of God (or at least of a spirit-world of some sort).
Then you fundamentally disagree with science. Proofs in the mathematical sense are based on logic. Empirical (including physics) Sciences are based on evidence, not proof. Note that there is no logical reason to expect that a dropped pen will fall to the floor. It having down so for all of recorded history and it being predicted by the Theory of Gravity is no proof that it must continue doing so in the future. However, it not falling would be evidence against the Theory of Gravity. It is important to keep those concepts separate.
Of course, empirical science is somewhat subjective. After all, all human reasoning is based on the assumption that our perception is somehow linked to a true underlying reality.
That must be it. I have fundamentally disagreed with all science.
Or - as you have noted yourself, you're introducing subjectivity of your expectations into the argument. Your pen analogy doesnt necessarily work to your benefit here either. Were I to drop my pen and it did not fall, this lack of falling would not be evidence of the absence of gravity. It might be evidence of something (or against something), but not necessarily against gravity. Herein lies the problem with trying to use subjective human expectation(in this case, your expectations) in hypothetical situations to circumvent logical proofs, paradoxes, fallacies and laws.
With all that said, I'm afraid the conversation is getting rather redundant, and I'm not a big fan of arguments that substitute nuance for hyperbole (Accusing someone of disagreeing "With science") or semantics. I'll leave you all to your own opinions on the matter.
You think axiom vs aphorism is semantics? I think you haven't a clue about maths or logic.
@BallpointMan: Look, in "fundamentally disagree" was not intended as either a superlative or general hyperbole. It certainly does not mean that I said you "disagree with all science".
What I meant is that you have a disagreement with one of the fundamental principles of natural science, and that is how to generate and use empirical evidence in order to evaluate theories. It is not an across the board value judgement. This is analogue to how a mathematical proof being elementary, does not mean that it is easy at all. I do think you are making a mistake here, which I tried to correct, but the term fundamental was used to describe the kind of mistake, not the magnitude of it.
And I disagree that I am "introducing subjectivity" - what I am saying is that the subjectivity is always there and we have to work with it. Even with an objective reality, our perception of it is always subjective. I didn't introduce it.
And I am certainly not trying to circumvent logical proofs, paradoxes and fallacies. I am just keeping them where they belong: in mathematics and theoretical logic. Mathematics are useful to describe reality, but you will never be able to use them to prove (again, in the strictly mathematical sense) anything about reality. Checking our expectations against what we perceive is the best tool we have for that.
Some other quick points:
@Quickblade: an equal and opposite force would need to be part of a valid and useful theory of gravity.
@Balrog99: I would prefer "evidence for" instead of "evidence of", but what you are saying is not incorrect in the sense that this explanation becomes more plausible given this experiment.
The only issue is that the results of the experiment do not give the
power to discriminate between a supernatural explanation or natural laws
having rare random exceptions.
This is also an important point: evidence should affect how credible you think a theory is, but it does need to be enough by itself to convince. All of us have enough theory with gravity, so that after this single experiment result we would still expect an unexpected flaw with the experimental setup to be more likely than a real violation of the theory. It's still evidence against the theory, just not yet enough to convince most people. But if you are willing to quantify how likely you hold the theory to be true, it should be smaller after the experiment than before.
@ThacoBell Oh ok. Below I have compiled every time the bible says homosexuals and women are equal to other members of society: Kinda empty huh?
You missed a few, here, let me help:
Honor your father and mother, and, You shall loveyourneighbor as yourself.” Matthew 19:19
And a second is like it: You shall loveyourneighbor as yourself. Matthew 22:39
The second is this: ‘You shall loveyourneighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” Mark 12:31
For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not
murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other
commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall loveyourneighbor as yourself.” Romans 13:9
My personal favorite:
For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall loveyourneighbor as yourself.” Galatians 5:14
If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall loveyourneighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. James 2:8
For what it's worth, I can't think of any Martin Luther King quotes that speak out for women or homosexuals, either. Same goes for Thomas Jefferson, FDR, or pretty much anyone who dates back more than about 50 years. As for me personally, I've spoken out for women, but I don't recall myself ever speaking out for gays. Same goes for a lot of people in this thread, actually.
If you want to make the claim that the Old Testament doesn't approve of homosexuality, that's easy to establish. But @ThacoBell's only claim was that biblical theology doesn't say "God created gays just to punish them." That's a very specific claim, and in order to disprove that claim, we'd need a biblical verse, or a quote from an accepted biblical authority, that expresses that same sentiment.
If you want to make the claim that the Old Testament doesn't approve of homosexuality, that's easy to establish. But @ThacoBell's only claim was that biblical theology doesn't say "God created gays just to punish them." That's a very specific claim, and in order to disprove that claim, we'd need a biblical verse, or a quote from an accepted biblical authority, that expresses that same sentiment.
Romans 1:26-28
26 "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones."
27 "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."
28 "Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be don."
I'm confused. What does "God gave them over to" mean? That's an odd phrasing, at least in modern English. The third verse in particular is weird, since the first clause of that verse makes it sound like it's saying "they weren't religious, so God made them gay."
I'm confused. What does "God gave them over to" mean? That's an odd phrasing, at least in modern English. The third verse in particular is weird, since the first clause of that verse makes it sound like it's saying "they weren't religious, so God made them gay."
I believe it means that God left them to their wicked ways basically. Keep in mind that there wasn't any knowledge of germs or viruses back then so sexually promiscuous people really did seem like they were being punished by God. Once again, as I often have to point out in the politics thread as well, comparing times of the past to today is like comparing black and white...
I always found the Exodus to be a particularly disturbing part of the Old testament. God isn't just willing to punish innocent people because of guilt by association (the Egyptian people because of the actions of the Pharaoh). It's also stated outright that after a while, God is the one who keeps "hardening Pharaoh's heart" to make sure he doesn't let the Israelites go. As a part of a grander plan to show off God's power if I understood it correctly.
Which to me sounds like God, at least in the Old testament, can create sinners and also punish them for the sins that he made sure they would commit. I also find this part problematic when it comes to free will and redemption. Pharaoh was denied the chance for both.
Then again, Exodus makes a lot more sense to me if you see it as ancient Israelite religions competing with the ancient Egyptian one. God, as we talk about him here, wouldn't really have much of a reason or need to compete with the Pharaoh. Yahweh, as in the national god of Israel and Judah, on the other hand, might.
Probably nobody cares about this, but if you want the name that Jewish people call their God, it's not "Yahweh", it's either Adonai or Hashem (The name), because the word/name symbolized by YHVH is too sacred to be used by human lips. When they pray aloud, YHVH is pronounced Adonai when praying aloud or reading the Torah (Jewish Bible, the "Old" Testament) when speaking of him, they use Hashem.
Comments
I was brought up by religious parents and attended chapel regularly for many years, so I'm not sure why my opinion about a religious viewpoint should be so worthless. Presumably you believe your own opinions have merit or you would not be pursuing this topic. However, to avoid wasting the time of both of us I won't comment further.
In a scenario with a perfect crime, in which no evidence has been left - the investigator cannot logically conclude a murder *didnt* happen. That investigator can only say that the he or she has no evidence of a murder. These two statements are not equivalent.
Making the whole matter infinitely more complex (and also interesting), faith can be broadly defined as the will/ability to believe in something despite a lack of evidence. Since religion is couched in the concept that it requires faith - you no longer have only two states: Evidence exists, evidence does not exist. You also add: Evidence doesnt matter.
what I'm trying to say, specifically (apparently incorrectly. I apologize) is that when the absence of evidence does not disprove something.
This statement is claiming that absence of evidence can be used as evidence of absence.
Kinda empty huh?
Kinda empty huh?
That must be it. I have fundamentally disagreed with all science.
Or - as you have noted yourself, you're introducing subjectivity of your expectations into the argument. Your pen analogy doesnt necessarily work to your benefit here either. Were I to drop my pen and it did not fall, this lack of falling would not be evidence of the absence of gravity. It might be evidence of something (or against something), but not necessarily against gravity. Herein lies the problem with trying to use subjective human expectation(in this case, your expectations) in hypothetical situations to circumvent logical proofs, paradoxes, fallacies and laws.
With all that said, I'm afraid the conversation is getting rather redundant, and I'm not a big fan of arguments that substitute nuance for hyperbole (Accusing someone of disagreeing "With science") or semantics. I'll leave you all to your own opinions on the matter.
Or - as you have noted yourself, you're introducing subjectivity of your expectations into the argument. Your pen analogy doesnt necessarily work to your benefit here either. Were I to drop my pen and it did not fall, this lack of falling would not be evidence of the absence of gravity. It might be evidence of something (or against something), but not necessarily against gravity. Herein lies the problem with trying to use subjective human expectation(in this case, your expectations) in hypothetical situations to circumvent logical proofs, paradoxes, fallacies and laws.
With all that said, I'm afraid the conversation is getting rather redundant, and I'm not a big fan of arguments that substitute nuance for hyperbole (Accusing someone of disagreeing "With science") or semantics. I'll leave you all to your own opinions on the matter.
>
>
>
>
>
>
If I let go of a pen and it floated in the air, I'd likely find that to be evidence of God (or at least of a spirit-world of some sort).
We could even call it...anti-gravity.
BALUS
Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Matthew 19:19
And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Matthew 22:39
For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Romans 13:9
My personal favorite:
For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Galatians 5:14
Which to me sounds like God, at least in the Old testament, can create sinners and also punish them for the sins that he made sure they would commit. I also find this part problematic when it comes to free will and redemption. Pharaoh was denied the chance for both.
Then again, Exodus makes a lot more sense to me if you see it as ancient Israelite religions competing with the ancient Egyptian one. God, as we talk about him here, wouldn't really have much of a reason or need to compete with the Pharaoh. Yahweh, as in the national god of Israel and Judah, on the other hand, might.