(November 6, 2022 at 12:49 pm)polymath257 Wrote: My point is that the argument from design is incapable of proving its conclusion. You are, in essence, arguing the contrapositive[quote pid='2124156' dateline='1667753370']
Quote:And your definition is plainly ridiculous. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. That something is undetectable just means we can't detect it, and that empirical observation isn't enough to justify the assertion that it exists.
But there are times when absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence. For example, if I fail to detect an adult african elephant in my room, I can conclude that there is no adult african elephant in my room. Why? Because if such an elephant existed in my room, I would be guaranteed to detect it. So, in that case, absence of evidence *is* indeed evidence of absence.
But going deeper, if the detection is impossible even in principle, what does it even mean to say that something exists? I could then equally well argue that undetectable unicorns exist in my room. Who is to say otherwise?
if it is silly to say that there are undetectable unicorns in my room, then it is equally silly to say that anything else that it truly undetectable can be said to exist.
[/quote]
