RE: The Case for Atheism
May 30, 2013 at 9:29 am
(This post was last modified: May 30, 2013 at 9:31 am by The Reality Salesman01.)
In my opinion, absence of evidence can certainly be evidence of absence! In certain cases. To be fair, just having evidence for something, doesn't necessarily confirm it or falsify it either though. A tiny sign in support of a claim is technically evidence, even if only a smidgen, but it would require more legs to support it before it can stand on its own.
This is my opinion, but absence of evidence is evidence of absence if that which we can expect to see if something did exist, and all properties of similar demonstrable falsifiable claims of existance are ALL absent, then it would be evidence that such a thing did not exist. It doesn't prove for certain that it does not exist, but its definitely indicative that if it does exist, it is not the same thing or same kind of existance we would associate with existance. So it is evidence that the type of existance in question, is not of the kind we understand as existing. If it is not what we would call existing, then it is indescernable from non-existance. There is no reason to believe it. Here's an example of when absence of evidence is evidence of absence...
A planet between earth and mars orbiting the same sun.
1) No evidence
2) The properties consistant with planet-like objects orbiting the sun are not present between earth and mars.
This claim can be rejected due to the lack of evidence, because it is a falsifiable claim and is therein equally vulnerable to being falsified as it is to being confirmed.
An unfalsifiable claim is not vulnerable to such a process of elimination because it cannot be confirmed either. It indiscernible from non-existance, and because it shares the same properties of non-existance, why should it not be conidered as non-existance? It is possible, and at first, it is subject to the same process of elimination, but let's see where it crosses the line...
The planet exists, and it is invisible.
1) No evidence
2) No properties consistant with existance of any kind
3) Indescernible from non-existance
This does not fit the description of existance, but because it is unfalsifiable, it cannot be proven to be in fact false. To me, there's just better reason to continue thinking that earth and mars are not separated by an invisible planet, invisible pony, celestial tea-pot or any other ficticious object, just as you did before hearing the claim.
The properties of a God claim are not comparable with anything, as there are no other God-made universes to compare ours to in order to attribute its creation to a God, not to mention that there are no verifiable Gods to base a knowledge of what one could expect a God capable of doing in the first place because is no evidence of any Gods at all (or invisible ponies, planets or tea-pots).
A God claim is indescernible from non-existance, and because it shares the same properties of non-existance, I think it perfectly reasonable to be a defacto atheist about any such claim. It lacks evidence, and is indescernable from non-existance. That's evidence of absence, but again, evidence doesn't necessarily confirm or falsify somethng, it merely supports a claim, if my claim is that: There is no reason to believe in Gods, it is supported by the absence of evidence, which in this special case, is evidence of absence. This is my opinion.
This is my opinion, but absence of evidence is evidence of absence if that which we can expect to see if something did exist, and all properties of similar demonstrable falsifiable claims of existance are ALL absent, then it would be evidence that such a thing did not exist. It doesn't prove for certain that it does not exist, but its definitely indicative that if it does exist, it is not the same thing or same kind of existance we would associate with existance. So it is evidence that the type of existance in question, is not of the kind we understand as existing. If it is not what we would call existing, then it is indescernable from non-existance. There is no reason to believe it. Here's an example of when absence of evidence is evidence of absence...
A planet between earth and mars orbiting the same sun.
1) No evidence
2) The properties consistant with planet-like objects orbiting the sun are not present between earth and mars.
This claim can be rejected due to the lack of evidence, because it is a falsifiable claim and is therein equally vulnerable to being falsified as it is to being confirmed.
An unfalsifiable claim is not vulnerable to such a process of elimination because it cannot be confirmed either. It indiscernible from non-existance, and because it shares the same properties of non-existance, why should it not be conidered as non-existance? It is possible, and at first, it is subject to the same process of elimination, but let's see where it crosses the line...
The planet exists, and it is invisible.
1) No evidence
2) No properties consistant with existance of any kind
3) Indescernible from non-existance
This does not fit the description of existance, but because it is unfalsifiable, it cannot be proven to be in fact false. To me, there's just better reason to continue thinking that earth and mars are not separated by an invisible planet, invisible pony, celestial tea-pot or any other ficticious object, just as you did before hearing the claim.
The properties of a God claim are not comparable with anything, as there are no other God-made universes to compare ours to in order to attribute its creation to a God, not to mention that there are no verifiable Gods to base a knowledge of what one could expect a God capable of doing in the first place because is no evidence of any Gods at all (or invisible ponies, planets or tea-pots).
A God claim is indescernible from non-existance, and because it shares the same properties of non-existance, I think it perfectly reasonable to be a defacto atheist about any such claim. It lacks evidence, and is indescernable from non-existance. That's evidence of absence, but again, evidence doesn't necessarily confirm or falsify somethng, it merely supports a claim, if my claim is that: There is no reason to believe in Gods, it is supported by the absence of evidence, which in this special case, is evidence of absence. This is my opinion.
