I am not dismissing anything, Gustav. Why are you saying I am?
I am suggesting that a lack of evidence of “x” is NOT evidence that “x” does not exist.
I gave an example.
I am not asking for “rock solid 100% proof” of anything.
What “evidence” do you have that gods do not exist?
Not what I am saying, and not what I said.
For the last time-it is my position that if you put forth as possibilities entities that defy the laws of science and logic it is not worth my time to even consider the possibility of their existence until it can be established that the laws of science and logic CAN be defied in the first place!
Please give a description of the entity you wish us to give evidence against.
Yes. It is.
Exactly. For example, if someone claims that God is everywhere, and we can’t find him, that is evidence that this particular aspect of God might be wrong. We don’t have to look everywhere in the (highly speculative) multiverse to see where he is-we only have to point out where he isn’t.
Okay…fine with me.
Well…for a start: Give evidence that you are not god…and have constructed this world as an illusion so that you can play a game of “solve the puzzle”…and spend time feeling that you are not the only thing that exists.
No, it is not.
Seriously? A lack of evidence about something is in fact evidence that it does not exist?? And this on a purported scientificly oriented message board?!? I have to wonder…do you feel the same across the board, or is your assertion narrowly focused solely on the question of God or the gods? If the former then sadly your grasp of science is deeply flawed…off the top of my head I can think of several scientific principals and theories for which there is nothing but the math, yet scientists continue to search for them never the less…and will do so for years to come. If the latter, then at best you are being inconsistent.
-XT
Very carefully put, Czarcasm.
But that still doesn’t show that “lack of evidence of “x” is evidence that “x” doesn’t exist.
In fact…the opposite is inherent in what you wrote.
That is not evidence that it does not exist…but that it MAY not exist. If it MIGHT be wrong, it MIGHT be right.
C’mon. You guys know I am right on this. You can say it. It won’t hurt you.
You mean besides the fact that if I were a god you would agree with me just because I wanted you to?
Considering what you just put forth as an example of “logic”, my question is:
Can you give evidence that you are not just here to jerk our chains?
“For example, if someone claims that God is everywhere, and we can’t find him, that is evidence that this particular aspect of God might be wrong.”
‘God is everywhere’ is a theist claim.
Agnostics dont claim to know whether god is everywhere or not and how that might occur if so, so that claim to empirical evidence on the issue is meaningless.
Agnostics might say there is ample evidence for many other phenomena that werent currently detectable but positted and were subsequently found, and that there are probably many things we cant see but are present around us and may never be able to detect with the technology we can develop. To think otherwise is simply egotism about the limitless nature of our technology to progress in its detection capabilities. We dont know what we dont know and for some things never will.
Not being able to detect something is not evidence that it doesnt exist, unless a clear theoretical mechanism has been developed to predict that phenomenon and how it might be detected and the theory isnt supported by the predicted evidence. Empirical predictions only work well within empirical settings.
No such specific theory exists for god because everywhere hasnt been defined in any testable sense. Again, it is not a concept that lends itself well to empirical enquiry, which is a key issue agnostics and atheists seem to differ on.
Otara
“Nothing but the math”? That’s not nothing, that’s something. Hell, it’s the best kind of something.
Now that I think back, I should have realized this before now. Does posting on the SDMB count as worship?
To make explicit my riff on the point Czarcasm is making: we don’t even need to put it as a hypothetical. Frank, must I, or should you, by your own argumetns, be agnostic as to whether Czarcasm is a God? What if someone (for the purposes of argument, I’ll be happy to do so) suggests he is?
After all, there is no evidence he isn’t–and certainly an all-powerful God might choose not to exercise those powers–and so, by your standpoints, we can’t know he doesn’t have any.
Are you of the opinion that they can’t be wrong? That because the math says it MIGHT be possible that it necessarily HAS to be? What if they never find a Higgs Boson? A neutrino? What if the math is wrong? How is that better?
I’m sorry, but the absence of evidence does not PROVE anything, except perhaps on a probability curve. To me, it’s highly unscientific to make a categorical statement that something for which you have no evidence does not exist. A more scientific view, IMHO, is that without evidence one can’t make a reasonable judgment, but that the very lack of evidence strongly points to the probability that something doesn’t exist. I put the existence of a god or gods about the same probability as IPU’s…which is only slightly higher than zero.
-XT
I’m pretty sure this is what I’ve been saying all along. It doesn’t PROVE anything, but it IS evidence.
Not if I were god also! Ya know…that non-dualistic thing.
And for sure you realize by now that I use “gods” rather than “god” for a reason.
Nope. I cannot.
I am not…most definitely not. If I had known this was primarily an atheistic site, I probably would have declined coming to it. Most site dominated by atheists are much, much more frustrating (and dogmatic) than even theistic sites.
I AM here,however, even if just by mistake…some interesting topics are being discussed…the snow is preventing me from playing golf…and I’ve decided to stick around for a while.
But either you take my word for it that I am not here to just “jerk your chain”…or consider me a liar.
Your choice.
Read my response to Czarcasm…and if that doesn’t answer your question, come back at me.
Would you agree that if this premise is not true that your entire argument falls apart?
But according to you, lack of evidence for a tail side is not evidence that there is no tail side. You can only state, “I don’t know.” You’ve moved your default position from “I don’t know” to “guess it does not exist.”
Can you give me an example of something you know? Based on this response, it would seem that there isn’t anything in your world that can possibly be said to be known.
Lemme try this again…in English:
It…is…NOT…EVIDENCE…that…“x”…DOES NOT…exist.