Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(March 10, 2017 at 3:32 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: How does the answer change the question?
The answer does not change the question. But if you have the same data set for both questions, and get two different answers, then you are necessarily asking two different questions.
"Did someone go streaking through Shanghai at noon today?" is not equivalent to "Did RoadRunner79 go streaking through Shanghai at noon today?". Even when the answer to the first is "yes", the answer to the second can still be "no", because they are different questions.
(March 10, 2017 at 3:32 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Perhaps you should lay your argument out again if I am mis-understanding.
It's very simple. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, when the absence is present where the evidence would have to be.
If someone claims that there is an elephant in my living room, and we go into the living room and find no elephant, we have proven that there is no elephant in my living room. In the same way, if someone claims that a god exists that flooded the world for forty days, and we establish that the world was never flooded for forty days, we have proven that the hypothetical god does not exist. Even if another deity is later shown to exist, our conclusion that the proposed god does not would still be valid.
Think of it this way. We know that Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter is a work of fiction. We know that there was never a president that fought vampires during the Civil War. We know that the fictional main character of this book never existed. The fact that he was based on a real historical figure does not change that.
(March 10, 2017 at 3:32 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Also, if I'm not mistaken, you reasons for your conclusion, not asking a question.
This does not parse.
I'm sorry, but at best you have demonstrated that the world wasn't flooded. It doesn't follow that the hypothetical god in the claim does not exist.
To Test this.
If I claim that a Nonpareil exists that flooded the world in forty days, and we establish that the world was never flooded for forty days. I have just proven that you do not exist.
Do you agree with the conclusion, that you do not exist?
