Absence of evidence = Evidence of absence?

[Bozo Erectus]

I believe that in the lack of substantial evidence for a claim of something's existance the best thing to do is deny its existance.

I have also seen a lack substantial evidence for the claim of God's existance.

This is why I deny the existance of God.

Not picking on you Perf, you just happened to capsulize something Ive been mulling over for awhile.

Is it logical to unequivically state that something does not exist, merely because theres no physical evidence of it? Wouldnt the more logical conclusion be that the absence of physical evidence is indicative only of an absence of physical evidence?

How about of there was a form of radiation which we were unable to detect by any known means. Would it be 'scientific' to therefore conclude that this type of radiation doesnt exist? Doesnt seem like it to me.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

It is not logical to state IF it is to be expected that evidence is difficult to obtain. So, we have studied Loch Ness enough to say that if Nessie lived there, we would have found him by now. But we don't know enough about the universe or the nature of God to say that since we haven't detected Him yet, He CANNOT exist.

HOWEVER, in the absence of evidence it is perfectly reasonable to act as though the thing in question doesn't exist, even if we are later shown to be wrong.

 

[Tycoon101]

Think about String Theory:
There are many people who believe that it is true, yet there is no possible way for that theorem to be tested.
Is String Theory a PHILOSOPHY or a SCIENTIFIC THEORY?

God is along the same lines. We cannot detect God, yet we do not have the means to find the Lord. If it was possible to detect the Being then I'm sure that a huge portion of the Atheistic community would change.

I do not believe that the absence of evidence denies something's existance.


Another example: If I hid from all other humans, and I was the only person who knew that I existed, and I left no evidence that I exist, would I exist or not exist? Would the lack of evidence disprove my existance?

 

[warpus]

How about of there was a form of radiation which we were unable to detect by any known means. Would it be 'scientific' to therefore conclude that this type of radiation doesnt exist? Doesnt seem like it to me.

We would have no reason to believe that this particle existed unless it came out of an equation from an existing theory... or unless we had some sort of evidence.. but since we're assuming that such evidence does not exist (yet) - the only way for us to even consider that this particle exists would be if it came out of some equation in some theory.

So something like the gravitron - we haven't detected one yet.. but it isn't simply something made up out of thin air - it comes out of already existing theories.. So we can say "This particle might exist, but it might not, we don't know yet unless we have equipment sensitive enough to detect it (or not)"

But something like the bortron - a particle I just made up - we have no reason to believe that it might exist - even though we can't detect it. So in that case, it would be reasonable to say that the absence of evidence combined with the fact that I just made it up out of thin air (ie. no other theories support this particle) is enough for us to conclude that this particle likely does not exist.

The lack of evidence for the existence of God is similar - this idea does not arise out of any existing theory & this together with the lack of evidence would be enough for some to dismiss the idea of God altogether.

 

[Che Guava]

Is it logical to unequivically state that something does not exist, merely because theres no physical evidence of it? Wouldnt the more logical conclusion be that the absence of physical evidence is indicative only of an absence of physical evidence?

True, that's why the scientific method is based around the idea of a null hypothesis: you can't make proof out of things you didn't observe. Y

 

[Mise]

HOWEVER, in the absence of evidence it is perfectly reasonable to act as though the thing in question doesn't exist, even if we are later shown to be wrong.

That's pretty much my line of thinking on these issues. I think that it is consistent.

 

[Perfection]

Not picking on you Perf, you just happened to capsulize something Ive been mulling over for awhile.

Is it logical to unequivically state that something does not exist, merely because theres no physical evidence of it? Wouldnt the more logical conclusion be that the absence of physical evidence is indicative only of an absence of physical evidence?

How about of there was a form of radiation which we were unable to detect by any known means. Would it be 'scientific' to therefore conclude that this type of radiation doesnt exist? Doesnt seem like it to me.

Well, as I see it if something is undetectable and has no measueable impact on things, then it is completely pointless to believe in. It would not be scientific to propose radiation that has no impact on reality (I suppose you might be alluding to nuetrinos which were purported by some to be undetectable after emission, but certainly they had an obervable physical effect which is evidence enough for existance). There is no testibility in such a form of radiation. And when testibility goes so does science. Whenever I hear claims that do not have scientific merit I simply dismiss them as rubbish.

 

[Perfection]

It is not logical to state IF it is to be expected that evidence is difficult to obtain. So, we have studied Loch Ness enough to say that if Nessie lived there, we would have found him by now. But we don't know enough about the universe or the nature of God to say that since we haven't detected Him yet, He CANNOT exist.

HOWEVER, in the absence of evidence it is perfectly reasonable to act as though the thing in question doesn't exist, even if we are later shown to be wrong.

I'm not into philosophical hair splitting. The Loch Ness monster has no credible evidence and contradicts what is known about the lake. I dismiss it as rubbish and move on.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I'm not into philosophical hair splitting. The Loch Ness monster has no credible evidence and contradicts what is known about the lake. I dismiss it as rubbish and move on.

I agree, regarding Nessie. Not only is there no evidence, but we know what Nessie should be like and where he should be. But he makes a useful analogy.

With God it is a little different. Lots of people claim to have evidence, and although most of it either doesn't stand up to scrutiny or is really something else, not all of it has to be. And we don't know where or what God is supposed to be. Certainly if you have no evidence you don't have to believe in Him, but I feel that I must believe in order to be true to my conscience, as I have what i feel is evidence.

 

[El_Machinae]

Think about String Theory:
There are many people who believe that it is true, yet there is no possible way for that theorem to be tested.
Is String Theory a PHILOSOPHY or a SCIENTIFIC THEORY?

It has testable predictions, but we do not have the technology to run the tests yet.

Similarily, MANY people posit a God that intervenes due to prayer. This is a case where the absence of evidence works against the theory, because evidence is predicted from the theory. This is similar to String Theory.

However, many also posit a God that is more subtle. This, of course, cannot be tested. So, this is more of a Flying Spaghetti Monster philosophical issue.

edit: x-post

And we don't know where or what God is supposed to be.

But some people do have claims. Some of these claims can be shown to be false.

 

[Perfection]

Eran, I just don't see how emotions can dictate reality.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Eran, I just don't see how emotions can dictate reality.

I know you don't. But I don't perceive my spiritual experiences as emotions (which come from the mind) because they seem very different from any other emotions I have. It may be difficult to understand for someone who doesn't recognize or hasn't experienced it, but it definitely struck me as something coming from outside of me; like senses but not quite.

Like I said, since you seem not to have had similar experiences, it is perfectly reasonable for you to conclude that God doesn't exist.

 

[Urederra]

I would differenciate two different cases.

First: Things we don't have evidence but they are not impossible to exist. E.g. Is there live in Alpha Centauri. We don't have evidence, but it might be life in alpha Centauri, why not?

Second: Things that came out of people's imagination. Does discworld exist? Did unicorns ever trot over the Earth? We don't have evidence. They don't exist.

The main question is: Does God belong to the first or the second case?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I would differenciate two different cases.

First: Things we don't have evidence but they are not impossible to exist. E.g. Is there live in Alpha Centauri. We don't have evidence, but it might be life in alpha Centauri, why not?

Second: Things that came out of people's imagination. Does discworld exist? Did unicorns ever trot over the Earth? We don't have evidence. They don't exist.

The main question is: Does God belong to the first or the second case?

In my opinion that is impossible to determine. In either case we can safely act as though neither unicorns nor life on Alpha Centauri exist and do just fine, but I can't say that God comes merely from the imagination.

 

[Perfection]

Think about String Theory:
There are many people who believe that it is true, yet there is no possible way for that theorem to be tested.
Is String Theory a PHILOSOPHY or a SCIENTIFIC THEORY?

String theory has some testibiity, but it's really nasty and expensive. And on the chance that it is false, it may take some extraordinary technological leaps to produce experiments demonstrating it.

That's why it's not considered of the best sceintific merit, but still within the realm of science.

 

[Urederra]

which God?

Your God? The Jewish God? Allah? Manitou?

 

[Mise]

First: Things we don't have evidence but they are not impossible to exist. E.g. Is there live in Alpha Centauri. We don't have evidence, but it might be life in alpha Centauri, why not?

I don't mind being "open to the possibility" that God exists, in this sense, but religions assert this to be the absolute truth. At the end of the day, when it comes to God, we're all just guessing. To believe that a wild guess has some kind of universal truth is just silly, IMO.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

which God?

Your God? The Jewish God? Allah? Manitou?

That is indeed harder to determine. My belief in God as I understand Him is related to my belief in God at all. But although we can't say for certain that God doesn't exist, neither can we say for certain what attributes He/She/It/They must have.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, certainly many theories of God are possibly true.

In my opinion that is impossible to determine. In either case we can safely act as though neither unicorns nor life on Alpha Centauri exist and do just fine

You say that now, but when the ETs invade, you'll ask the unicorns for help, and they'll be pissed we killed all the fairies.

ETs, to me, can be handled with Pascal's wager.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

I look at creation, and see god. However, I cannot offer any physical evidence that god exists. Does this mean god doesnt exist? Or that you cant see what I can?