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!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 9:00 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Can a lack of evidence be considered proof?
#21
RE: Can a lack of evidence be considered proof?
(August 21, 2016 at 5:56 pm)ignoramus Wrote: I think with unfalsifiable topics like god, nobody can give us conclusive proof.
What's left? Anecdotes, subjective evidence?
"God" is not an unfalsifiable topic.  

Quote:Ths is why theists love putting god in any dark gap of science.
Not so much to convince atheists, but because they are more than happy with the lack of proof of his non existence.
This way, no one can touch their delicate beliefs and can sleep comfortably at night.
They like to do that because you let them do it, and they worked hard to prepare that ground for the last few centuries...by calling god an unfalsifiable topic, for example. It's pretty much the only tool left in their box and it's only there insomuch as you allow it to be.

Quote:To atheists, lack of evidence is why most agnostics don't believe.
But for many theists, it's the only reason they do believe.
I'm not one of those.  We have -more- than enough evidence with regards to the various gods proposed to -positively- discard the god hypothesis for what it is.  It's been thoroughly discredited.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#22
RE: Can a lack of evidence be considered proof?
(August 21, 2016 at 1:11 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:
(August 21, 2016 at 4:51 am)robvalue Wrote: Are there things we can't detect? If I had to guess, I'd say it's extremely likely.

My problem is when people claim to have knowledge about these things.

Say you are in the middle of the ocean and you can't see the edge, but concentric waves rings are converging right next to where you are.  What can you deduce? Anything?

I can deduce that there's probably something unusual going on. Something is probably causing the difference between the forces I'd normally expect to see and what I observe.

If you're suggesting this is evidence of something, then we are detecting that thing, indirectly.

In any case, further study is required. Also, am I even in a boat?
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
#23
RE: Can a lack of evidence be considered proof?
Lack of evidence can be considered proof to the contrary if there is compelling reason to believe that the hypothesis being examined, if true, can not but leave evidence that would have been uncovered and recognized in the examinations that have been conducted thus far.
Reply
#24
RE: Can a lack of evidence be considered proof?
There is no fucking evidence at all that anyone ever came back from the dead.  This strongly argues that the fucking jesus stories are mythological.  "Proof?"  No.  In science the word "proof" must be used with caution, if at all.  But the preponderance of the evidence suggests that jesusism is horseshit.

Until it is demonstrated that someone can come back from the dead I would say for now the matter is closed.
Reply
#25
RE: Can a lack of evidence be considered proof?
(August 21, 2016 at 8:36 pm)Minimalist Wrote: There is no fucking evidence at all that anyone ever came back from the dead.  This strongly argues that the fucking jesus stories are mythological.  "Proof?"  No.  In science the word "proof" must be used with caution, if at all.  But the preponderance of the evidence suggests that jesusism is horseshit.

Until it is demonstrated that someone can come back from the dead I would say for now the matter is closed.

My opinion, no! Wallahi, no! Hilarious
Reply
#26
RE: Can a lack of evidence be considered proof?
(May 27, 2016 at 8:40 pm)ignoramus Wrote: Can a lack of evidence be considered proof?

Never.
"Never trust a fox. Looks like a dog, behaves like a cat."
~ Erin Hunter
Reply
#27
RE: Can a lack of evidence be considered proof?
It's an interesting question with no single answer.  It depends what you are trying to prove.  Some common sense comes in handy here.

The rain example you gave is one of the "common sense" things.  Lack of rain is proof it's not raining.  It's absolute, definitive proof.

But I have another example where lack of evidence is not proof.  I used to spend time on UFO forums where one believer in alien manufactured crop circles insisted that lack of evidence of human involvement in specific crop circles was proof that aliens did it.  And what if you find proof of human involvement in one?  Well, you throw that one out, of course.  In this case the claimant is selectively choosing from which pools you will look for evidence and attempting to prove that the samples in that pool are "real" because there is no evidence they are not.  This, of course, is ridiculous.  You throw out any data which doesn't fit your premise.  Humans fessed up to that one?  Well, that one is obviously fake, but look at this one.  And by doing that you get to ignore the multitude of examples which show active human involvement in the making of crop circles in general.  You get to ignore the fact that there is a ton of evidence to show that humans do make crop circles and focus just on the lack of proof in your favored example.  You narrow your data set down until it includes only the "undisprovable".  In this case lack of evidence doesn't mean squat.  You've artificially eliminated all the evidence which disagreed with your belief.

When it comes to God things get a little sticky there too.  The short answer is yes, I believe lack of evidence of the existence of any deity is pretty good evidence that no deity exists.  But it's hard to say that confidently because when you think of "God" there's this huge, dark cloud in your head.  You can't see it clearly.  There is so much description of what God is, yet it is still so poorly defined.  While one person may explain away one describing factor in the Bible another may add a describing factor not in the Bible.  So you have to pick out the universal attributes, those which all agree God has.  Some of the biggest are magic and interest in human lives.  The Bible is filled with magic.  God is unchanging.  So it stands to reason that the passage of time would not make God stop doing magic.  A more reasonable explanation is that magic was never real because the fantastical magical stories are made up (duh).  And we see random events every day which some attribute to God's interest in humanity (mostly smiting) and others see the exact same event as showing that there is no God with an interest in humanity.  The major earthquake in Haiti in 2010 is an example of just such an event.

So, short answer, yes, lack of evidence for is evidence against, BUT, that can be manipulated and misconstrued.  You have to be careful that you're not jumping to a conclusion as well.  For instance, lack of human involvement in crop circles means humans didn't do it, it doesn't mean a specific made-up race of aliens did do it.  When you're talking rain, I can walk outside and check your facts.  There's just the one.  But when it comes to more fantastical claim the facts are often obscured.  The "miracle" at Fatima happened a century ago.  I can't go there.  No science teams were there studying it.  There is no data of the event, only claims.  I can go only by what is still around from it.  And therein lies the trap.  Many believe the miracle happened and they believe that they were convinced by "firsthand accounts", but they really weren't.  They were convinced by a small number of people, sometimes only one person, claiming that the firsthand accounts say this or that.  It has been a hundred years.  There are no witnesses alive.  Very few firsthand accounts actually exist.  So we form our opinion essentially on what other people think and how plausible an alternative explanation given is, never mind that there is no more evidence for this alternative explanation than there is for the primary explanation, that it was magic.  But it's more plausible that a few thousand people looking into the sun fucked up their eyes than it is a 2,000 year old dead chick did some magic.

So it's highly situational, sometimes even subjective.  If the claim is simple and easy to check, absolutely lack of evidence for is evidence against.  When they test drinking water for lead they don't use a test which shows how much lead is not there.  They use a test which shows how much lead is there.  Lack of evidence for lead means there is no lead.  But people often want to make it not so simple, not so straight-forward.  They purposely confuse the issue, discard data which doesn't agree with them and use bad arguments to disguise the lack of evidence.  When that happens I would say lack of evidence for, combined with grasping at straws to prove there is no lack of evidence definitively shows not only a bias most severe, but also that the person is desperate to prove something that they, themselves, are having trouble believing.  In this case I think that's actual evidence against.  If you insist you are right, yet your reasons for believing so are so weak that you feel you must manufacture "evidence", you're trying to convince yourself, not me.  If you don't believe your claim, why should I?  This goes for pretty much every "logical proof" ever written.
Have you ever noticed all the drug commercials on TV lately?  Why is it the side effects never include penile enlargement or super powers?
Side effects may include super powers or enlarged penis which may become permanent with continued use.  Stop taking Killatol immediately and consult your doctor if you experience penis enlargement of more than 3 inches, laser vision, superhuman strength, invulnerability, the ability to explode heads with your mind or time travel.  Killatoll is not for everyone, especially those who already have convertibles or vehicles of ridiculous size to supplement penis size.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Proof of creation no atheist can debunk (100% bulletproof) insider432 277 118475 August 22, 2014 at 1:10 pm
Last Post: pgrimes15



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)