Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Negative evidence is just one more of the misused and misunderstood and misrepresented fallacies that theists find handy.
What has to be understood is the parameters of what has no evidence. If Theism has any doubt about this, let's take a simple example. You look in a drawer for a banana. There is no sign of a banana. This is very good evidence that a banana is not there.
Let's take archeology and a claim by a theist historian that because there is no trace of a people mentioned in the Bible (at a particular date) does not mean they were never there. In fact, archeology would show whether the occupation layer had been removed and, if it had not, that is proof they were never there. Since the parameters required are known, negative evidence is compelling.
It is the same with Eusebius' Temple on Opel. There is NO evidence that the 2nd temple was ever there. Now the same argument was made that the occupation level was removed. But this is not true. The occupation level is there and there is no temple. That is compelling evidence that the 2nd temple was never on Ophel.
Exactly old horse. Scrivens' Negative Evidence Principle.
A person is justified in believing that ‘A’ is false if: (1) All the available evidence used to support the view that ‘A’ is true is shown to be inadequate. (2) ‘A’ is the sort of claim such that if ‘A’ were true, there should be available evidence that would be adequate to support the view that ‘A’ is true. (3) The area where evidence would appear if there were any, has been comprehensively examined.
(Scriven, 1966)
Exactly old horse. Scrivens' Negative Evidence Principle.
A person is justified in believing that ‘A’ is false if: (1) All the available evidence used to support the view that ‘A’ is true is shown to be inadequate. (2) ‘A’ is the sort of claim such that if ‘A’ were true, there should be available evidence that would be adequate to support the view that ‘A’ is true. (3) The area where evidence would appear if there were any, has been comprehensively examined.
(Scriven, 1966)
Then all human history older than 2000 years must be false.
Rather, you are applying a standard/ double standard which is never practical.
Then all human history older than 2000 years must be false.
Rather, you are applying a standard/ double standard which is never practical.
But for many civilizations we do have evidence so why should we discount that? For some of them we have written documentation that can be verified with its remains.
There are two kinds of people I can never hope to understand: People who had happy childhoods and loving families, and people who don't believe in SOMETHING.
Just because a person doesn't believe in a god or gods (something for which there has never been a single shred of any kind of evidence, much less evidence that one specific god is real and all others are false) doesn't mean they "don't believe in SOMETHING." That's ridiculous.
Quote:
I can never hope to understand why someone would not have some kind of something to worship.
Seems to me you can have things you believe in without necessarily slavishly worshiping them. To some people, I imagine the idea of an external deity that demands worship is just unnecessary. The idea of "god-worship" brings to my mind some ancient tribe somewhere frantically searching for a virgin to sacrifice to the Volcano God or something.
Quote:
I just don't get not having ANYTHING to worship.
I guess for me, the thing I come closest to worshiping (aside from my wonderful wife, whom I do very deeply love and respect and admire) is nature itself. I look at the complexity and diversity and beauty of life on this planet, not to mention the wonders and mysteries of the greater universe and even existence and "reality" themselves and am awestruck. I "worship" in that sense, a beautiful sunrise, a gorgeous spot such as a beach or mountaintop, the stars at night.
I feel as though people have forever mistaken physical laws and nature for gods. "Why did the crops fail? Why did the sun grow dark and then get light again? "Why did the flood wash our homes away? Why did my children fall ill? Why did that earthquake happen?"
Throughout much of human history, there were no rational, scientific explanations for such things, so they were attributed to gods and all manner of other supernatural beings.
Quote:
I am fine with atheists as long as they aren't the perpetually annoying ones who think theists are all the same, and I frankly could care less what you believe. Still, I sure as hell can't understand it. Life without a God to worship would just seem pretty dull to me.
Well, it's nice that you realize not all atheists are the same. Clearly not all believers are the same either. Unfortunately, too often people in both those camps do paint with a very broad brush and over-generalize.
I have not had a god to worship most of my life, and it's been far from dull! In fact, I would have a problem feeling compelled to worship and bow and scrap to an entity that I don't have any rational reason to believe in the existence of.
Don't get me wrong, though, I DO understand the belief in god(s). I do not default to the belief in them (again, no evidence anywhere, of any kind) but I acknowledge I could be wrong. There could very well be A god, or 47,983 of them for that matter. Whether a god or gods exist is simply more than any human knows, and that's a fact. They maybe do, they maybe don't. The universe of living matter and energy may have been pooped out of the behind of an enormous purple unicorn, but there's no reason to believe that is so. We know most god-stories and legends are mythical. Most believers believe in one particular god and consider the thousands of other gods ever imagined by humans to be "fake" and "just made up...make-believe." See--one god away from atheism!
But because of the wonders of life and nature, etc. I previously mentioned, I honestly can and do understand why a person would think to themselves "There must be some kind of intelligent, creative force behind all of this. This can't all just be 'an accident' or have no 'reason' behind it."
I feel as though my life has plenty of "meaning" and "purpose." That, to me, is sharing, experiencing and spreading joy and light. Learning. Taking care of my loved ones. Thinking on my memories. Being out in nature and having it wash over me with its beauty and majesty. Interacting with and helping others. Being creative. Being curious about life and what is "out there."
Just because I don't strictly believe in god(s) doesn't mean I don't love life, have a great time, overcome obstacles, have fellowship with people I care for or feel empty. It also doesn't mean that there's nothing I "believe in" or that I only believe in what I can see, hear, touch or feel for myself. I am more than willing to acknowledge much about existence is unknown and mysterious, and likely always will be. That's exciting!
It is funny indeed, or it would be if it were not so irritating. Because, old mate,it wouldn't be necessary to be meticulous about the distinctions or semantics if it was not that theist apologetics try to make it some kind of argument against the logical rationale of atheism. Namely a disbelief in the god -claim (that is any god) is twisted to look like a knowledge claim that there is no god.
Not surprisingly you got confused about what the Semantic wrangle is. Any atheist would say he or she does not believe in God and the same person would say they also have a disbelief in God and that they are the same thing. Of if they don't believe that a god exists it is the same as a disbelief that a god exists. And that it is the same thing.
If you find it funny, we do too, but not for the same reason It is even funnier to hear you rehearse the illogical (if not ignorant) fallacies abut where the burden of proof lies and the position of agnosticism as the basis of atheism. But, in fact old son, we have all come to realize that you generally do not know what you are talking about and, sadly, you would prefer not to.
Now, I believe, (or perhaps I should say, I do not disbelieve) what you have in mind is the difference between not having a belief in a god and having a disbelief in a god.
It is (we know) a subtle point and (as I said) it really wouldn't matter were it not that theist apologists try to force us into a denial position that is irrational. "You are saying that No gods exist - well, how do you know? Have you looked everywhere in the universe? Do you claim to know everything?"
We have all heard it before. So not having a god -belief is a bit more passive and just waiting for some persuasive evidence. A disbelieve is a bit more proactive in that it is really considering specific god -claims and finding reasons to reject them.
And of course when it comes to personal gods, then we can say "There is no God" just as reasonably as we say "there is no Santa Claus". And the logic of the claim is equally valid.
My God. You make a huge deal about semantic fiddling and when it turns out not to suit you, you just wave it away. Browsers take note if they didn't already know, that our pal Eusebius is the dictionary definition of intellectual dishonesty and is now worth two divisions and a Panzer regiment to us.
Do you realize you actually proved my point? How ignorant can you be? In trying to make me look stupid, you succeeded in making yourself look stupid.
A person who has a disbelief in God is the same as saying they don't believe God exists. Please don't play games with me. You can't say a person who has a disbelief in God thinks He could exist. You and I both know atheists don't believe God exists. They have a disbelief in God. Having a disbelief in God is a cute way of saying they have no faith that God exists.
An Agnostic, my one friend is an elderly Agnostic and was a science teacher in school, said he is Agnostic because he does not know if God exists or not. The 'A' in "Agnostic" is the negative or "no" or "not" and "gnostic" comes from the Greek word for "knowledge." Together it is "no knowledge." They do not know or have no knowledge if God exists. The 'A' in "Atheist" also represents "no" or "not" and the "theist" is the Greek word for God "Theos" but due to krasis dropped the "os" and joined it with "ist." And so it represents "no God." They believe there is no God. We have had this discussion before. These are the original roots of the meanings of Agnostic and Atheist. I realize you waffled and wiffled that those are no longer the meaning of those words but if they are not, you have to re-design Greek grammar. Another possible reason you Atheists and Agnostics want to wiffle and waffle on the root meanings of Atheist and Agnostic is because your root ideas are a cause of too much embarrassment and you realize it and don't like to be pigeonholed into what the two truly mean.
You have no idea how seriously many Irish, to this day, believe in leprechauns and trolls. You'd have to be there and know them to understand.
And people, usually only children, believe in Santa Claus. If people, grown-ups truly do believe in leprechauns and trolls, maybe they have a reason for that belief. Maybe they have seen them, talked with them?
No, sunshine. You have got it back to front as usual. The argument from ignorance is NOT that we do not know whether there is a god or not, so atheists know nothing and can be ignored.
It means the we do not know a lot of things, so "God" is popped in as the explanation and then presented as evidence that there is a god. It is a fallacy and illogic.
Negative evidence is just one more of the misused and misunderstood and misrepresented fallacies that theists find handy.
What has to be understood is the parameters of what has no evidence. If Theism has any doubt about this, let's take a simple example. You look in a drawer for a banana. There is no sign of a banana. This is very good evidence that a banana is not there.
Let's take archeology and a claim by a theist historian that because there is no trace of a people mentioned in the Bible (at a particular date) does not mean they were never there. In fact, archeology would show whether the occupation layer had been removed and, if it had not, that is proof they were never there. Since the parameters required are known, negative evidence is compelling.
It is the same with Eusebius' Temple on Opel. There is NO evidence that the 2nd temple was ever there. Now the same argument was made that the occupation level was removed. But this is not true. The occupation level is there and there is no temple. That is compelling evidence that the 2nd temple was never on Ophel.
The same negative evidence applies (less strongly) to the Jews in Egypt and the Exodus. But in all cases, the rule is - if there is no evidence, you don't believe it until there is. True, the Claim of Exodus and indeed resurrection and God are made and exist, in the Bible and there has to be good reason to doubt them.
I at least accept that burden of proof and that has been adequately discharged: on Historical, textual and scientific grounds, the Bible is not reliable.
Therefore the burden of proof is back on the Bible believers to validate the claims made therein.
So what and where is absence of evidence Not evidence of absence? Why, where we do not know the parameters. This applies for example to the cosmos and alien life. We know so little about it that to say a lack of evidence of alien life is evidence that there is none is absurd. And Sagan said so and the remark was picked up by theists and used to counter the atheist disbelief. Which of course it doesn't. because even though negative evidence does not disprove aliens, it certainly does not do a single darn thing to prove them.
Nether does the lack of any decent evidence for a god disprove it (apart from where the parameters are known, such as Biblegod) but it does not a single damn' thing to make a case for a god of any kind.
Furthermore, (and Abiogenesis is crying out to be heard ) there is (or are) indirect or circumstantial parameters. If for example we had archaeology of a tribe moving into Roman land and then -nothing. We look at the archaeology and find a particular area was cleared for a reservoir or gladiator barracks or a medieval monastery so the evidence, could have been removed. But if Roman records make no mention of the tribe, it suggests that they never arrived.
So indirect evidence suggests that life had to start somewhere as indeed the cosmos did. There is no direct evidence. But the indirect evidence suggests that natural processes were engaged in the formation of the universe and in the evolution of Life. And it also suggests an absence of the 'Design' we should expect from Goddunnit.
This is good reason, therefore,to propose (if we can) mechanisms that do not need a divine miracle. and even if we can't, we should prefer topstulate some natural cause.
That should clarrfy the natter and hopefully head off any such semantic cheating as saying that "miracles are Natural, after all"
I am sorry for the length, but one of the Arq axioms is: "It takes less words to say: 'There are fairies at the bottom of my garden.' than to explain why there probably aren't"
In many ways I fully agree TRANS.
If what they are "popping in as the explanation" is some Religious Deity type "God", then "presented as evidence"...we have a similar view.
I said...it is legit to be Atheist, if it is qualified to be limited to just Religious Deities. But not "G-O-D". "GOD" exists...and is objectively self-evident.
..."G-O-D", which can be proved to objectively exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffis
Go for it. Objective proof. Lay it out for us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
...it is legit to be Atheist, if it is qualified to be limited to just Religious Deities. But not "G-O-D". "GOD" exists...and is objectively self-evident.
I am sincerely trying to understand or ask for your "objective proof" of the existence of "G-O-D."
But I think it would be good if you sort of gave me your definition of G-O-D because maybe I fail to see the distinction. Do you just mean a GOD that encompasses and/or surpasses the gods of all religions?
The "reality" of GOD divorced from human imaginings, writings, legends, etc.?
I am not being snide; I am honestly curious. I'm also not trying to put words in your mouth...I just want to understand your meaning.
Of course, you aren't obliged to indulge me and you don't owe me or anyone else an explanation. I'm just curious.
It strikes me as similar to the ultimate "Godhead" of Hinduism, where there may be thousands of gods for all kinds of things in the pantheon, but they are more like reflections of the overarching "real truth" of the "godhead" which surpasses description and understanding.
Again, not meaning to tell you what your belief is or put words in your mouth.
But even if what you are saying is something similar to this, what possible "objective proof" would there be?
I am sincerely trying to understand or ask for your "objective proof" of the existence of "G-O-D."
But I think it would be good if you sort of gave me your definition of G-O-D because maybe I fail to see the distinction. Do you just mean a GOD that encompasses and/or surpasses the gods of all religions?
The "reality" of GOD divorced from human imaginings, writings, legends, etc.?
I am not being snide; I am honestly curious. I'm also not trying to put words in your mouth...I just want to understand your meaning.
Of course, you aren't obliged to indulge me and you don't owe me or anyone else an explanation. I'm just curious.
It strikes me as similar to the ultimate "Godhead" of Hinduism, where there may be thousands of gods for all kinds of things in the pantheon, but they are more like reflections of the overarching "real truth" of the "godhead" which surpasses description and understanding.
Again, not meaning to tell you what your belief is or put words in your mouth.
But even if what you are saying is something similar to this, what possible "objective proof" would there be?
What a wonderful person.
I don't know what you believe but there has to be some good in there somewhere by just the way you treat others, sometimes I forget myself.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is even funnier to hear you rehearse the illogical (if not ignorant) fallacies abut where the burden of proof lies and the position of agnosticism as the basis of atheism. But, in fact old son, we have all come to realize that you generally do not know what you are talking about and, sadly, you would prefer not to.
So not having a god -belief is a bit more passive and just waiting for some persuasive evidence. A disbelieve is a bit more proactive in that it is really considering specific god -claims and finding reasons to reject them. 
