How many people would go for this if they could?

[sidhe]

Cannot agree.
.
Absence of evidence is certainly not proof of absence. But it sure is evidence.
.

On the contrary, it is not even evidence. Claiming that lack of evidence is evidence would be similar to claiming that a murder was committed by an individual because there is no evidence that they did not. It is a Glenn Beck trick, demanding the refutation of the claim without providing a positive proof. "I don't believe you ate a kitten, but I'd feel better if you'd deny it, even if there's nothing save a rumor of your kitten- eating." For that matter, evidence of absence does not even mean proof of absence - such as case of the coelocanth.

 

[_JJM]

Even without you telling me I would have guessed that you are a Christian.

If you don't mind telling me, why are you a Christian and not a Muslim?

Hi Dingdong,

I had a distinct advantage because I was born into a Christian home, my parents are Christians, and my Grandparents are Christians. I know of the Muslim faith as I lived on an oil-refinery compound in Saudi Arabia for a time and had routine interaction with Muslims. When leaving or entering the compound, you had to time it right, or you might catch the guard face down on a mat toward Mecca.

I was also born an American, which gives me distinct advantages over people from certain other countries. I have enjoyed peace and comfort in my neighborhood my whole life because of my Nation's strength, where others in certain foreign lands live in fear of having their hands chopped off by crazed militias breaking into their hut in the middle of the night.

The Bible consistently teaches that a man is justified before God by believing in the things of God that are revealed to him in his specific time and place in history. I believe my calling is higher, since I have what has proven to be a highly reliable truth of God in the message of the Cross. That is my burden/freedom to bear/enjoy. Just as America's calling is higher due to nature of its power and presence in the world.

Were I born into another culture, having had no knowledge of the Gospel, what God has revealed to me of Himself, that I must reckon as truth. That is my calling as the creature. What that looks like for them is between them and God.

 

[_JJM]

But why? (For those things are the creation of his own father.)
.

Because "Man" in the flesh is not the finale. He is a vessel of flesh, able to receive the Truth of God in the Spirit, and compare to himself in the flesh. What he decides determines the outcome of his evolution.

 

[durangodawood]

On the contrary, it is not even evidence. Claiming that lack of evidence is evidence would be similar to claiming that a murder was committed by an individual because there is no evidence that they did not.

Oh no. An active search is required before one can claim an absence of evidence. In a murder case, the lack of an alibi is not precisely "evidence", but it IS a legitimate factor to be weighed.
.
I'm pretty sure we've photographed the entire surface of Mars, in high detail, from orbit. We've seen nothing to suggest higher life forms living there. We've also sent probes to a few select spots on the surface. Similar absence of evidence.
.
Are we not justified in using that absence of evidence in making the judgement that there probably are no higher orders of life there?
.

 

[sidhe]

Oh no. An active search is required before one can claim an absence of evidence. In a murder case, the lack of an alibi is not precisely "evidence", but it IS a legitimate factor to be weighed.

Who said that that's required? I did not see that in the definition.

If one performs an active search for evidence of a hypothesis and finds absolutely no evidence, then one cannot make a claim for or against. The scientific default is the negative, but that does not make the lack of evidence magically become evidence, it simply means that the default position is that which makes no positive claims, as a positive claim would require evidence in support of the claim.

.
I'm pretty sure we've photographed the entire surface of Mars, in high detail, from orbit. We've seen nothing to suggest higher life forms living there. We've also sent probes to a few select spots on the surface. Similar absence of evidence.
.
Are we not justified in using that absence of evidence in making the judgement that there probably are no higher orders of life there?
.

Oh, but that's not absence of evidence. That's evidence. That's photographs demonstrating that there is nothing resembling higher orders of life at work.

Absence of evidence would be saying that since we have not seen the surface of Mars, and have not seen Martian life forms visit earth, there are no Martian life forms. For a classic example, look up black swans.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Mu.

LOL! That's a great answer.

dingdong, in case you find that answer puzzling, see Wikipedia.

Mu.

It might still be puzzling, but at least you'll get the reference.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[dingdong]

Were I born into another culture, having had no knowledge of the Gospel, what God has revealed to me of Himself, that I must reckon as truth. That is my calling as the creature. What that looks like for them is between them and God.

Hi, could you explain this last part? had you been born into another culture you would not know about a Christian God, your truth would have been different.

 

[durangodawood]

Who said that that's required? I did not see that in the definition.

Of course a diligent search is required. You cant even claim that evidence is lacking unless you've taken a good look-see. You need a basis for the claim to be reasonable.
.

If one performs an active search for evidence of a hypothesis and finds absolutely no evidence, then one cannot make a claim for or against.

Correct. The lack of evidence alone may not be sufficient to make a definitive judgement. BUT, it is one piece of evidence to condsider alongside any others.
.

That's photographs demonstrating that there is nothing resembling higher orders of life at work.

Seeing nothing relevant after a search = absence of evidence. The quality of your search is the basis by which I can evaluate your claim of lack of evidence.
.

 

[_JJM]

Hi, could you explain this last part? had you been born into another culture you would not know about a Christian God, your truth would have been different.

The truth is not different, just manifest more clearly in Christ.

Acts 17:22-31

22 Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; 23 for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription:

TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.

Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: 24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ 29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. 30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

 

[sidhe]

Of course a diligent search is required. You cant even claim that evidence is lacking unless you've taken a good look-see. You need a basis for the claim to be reasonable.

I think you're missing the point here, rather.

Let's take the Martian example: You set up a hypothesis; There is intelligent life on Mars. Null hypothesis: There is no intelligent life on Mars. What would provide evidence for the hypothesis? The presence of buildings or structures generally associated with higher life-forms, or photographic evidence of a Martian creature. Research is conducted in the form of a photographic survey of Mars. No buildings or structures are found, nor photographic evidence of a Martian creature. Hypothesis unproven, null hypothesis upheld.

However, then one could conjecture that an alien intelligence may not build structures that we would associate with higher life-forms, or they may be subterranean. Thus, this hypothesis - "Higher intelligence on Mars exists in subterranean environments" has no evidence for or against. Thus, the null hypothesis - "Higher intelligence on Mars does not exist" - remains unknown as well. In the absence of evidence, one cannot make a statement either way.

Scientific method - learn it, know it, love it.

Absence of evidence by itself demonstrates nothing. It can certainly point towards a conclusion, but it cannot alone be used to justify a positive claim.

Correct. The lack of evidence alone is not sufficient to make a definitive judgement. BUT, it is one piece of evidence to condsider alongside any others.

But the lack of evidence alone isn't evidence. At the point that a diligent search has been conducted according to accepted scientific principles, a hypothesis should be either proven, or the null hypothesis upheld.

Seeing nothing relevant after a search = absence of evidence.
.

No, seeing nothing relevant after a search = unsupported hypothesis, not absence of evidence.

If we're conducting our research properly, that is.

 

[dingdong]

LOL! That's a great answer.

dingdong, in case you find that answer puzzling, see Wikipedia.

Mu.

It might still be puzzling, but at least you'll get the reference.


eudaimonia,

Mark

And the reason he needed to do that was? is that considered to be cool?
I might be able to answer some questions in Arabic if he wanted, and I have a Welsh dictionary somewhere.

I was just thinking this:
Does anyone know how people manage to fool themselves into believing in a religion? it has really got me puzzled how their brains can let them get away with it, I know for a fact that mine just would not allow it no matter what I did,
(I suppose if we knew the answer to that question governments would have used it as a weapon before now)

 

[Eudaimonist]

Does anyone know how people manage to fool themselves into believing in a religion? it has really got me puzzled how their brains can let them get away with it

Did you grow up being taught to have a religious worldview?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[sidhe]

And the reason he needed to do that was? is that considered to be cool?
I might be able to answer some questions in Arabic if he wanted, and I have a Welsh dictionary somewhere.

No, your question was meaningless. Why would I answer a question that has no answer? If I say "yes," then you attack me for affirming an impossibility, if I say "no," then you ask why have a religion. So, the answer is mu. See what I did there?

I was just thinking this:
Does anyone know how people manage to fool themselves into believing in a religion? it has really got me puzzled how their brains can let them get away with it, I know for a fact that mine just would not allow it no matter what I did,
(I suppose if we knew the answer to that question governments would have used it as a weapon before now)

How do you manage to accept any philosophical perspective? They all require some degree of self-deception at first, until one fully grasps the philosophy and sees where seeming contradictions have deeper explanations.

 

[dingdong]

This is a religious discussion board, so let's discuss religions and their believers foibles.

 

[_JJM]

Ding Dong,

Do you accept the truth of perfect virtue demonstrated at the Cross? History, names, dates, etc. aside.

That were there a man with all perfect virtue and power, giving him all just authority to judge and condemn, should yield, even to death, to allow others who fall short of His standards to find forgiveness and peace through his sacrifice, and also sacrifice their own lives for others, and that this would be salvation for a man.

 

[sidhe]

This is a religious discussion board, so let's discuss religions and their believers foibles.

Very well, I posit that fundamentalist materialism - as described by the late Robert Anton Wilson - is as much a religion as any other. It requires belief in some rather silly ideas (such as segregating whirlwinds), and repetition of the mantra of "It's only a coincidence" to calm nervousness, still the mind, and ultimately stop thought altogether.

 

[durangodawood]

However, then one could conjecture that an alien intelligence may not build structures that we would associate with higher life-forms, or they may be subterranean. Thus, this hypothesis - "Higher intelligence on Mars exists in subterranean environments" has no evidence for or against. Thus, the null hypothesis - "Higher intelligence on Mars does not exist" - remains unknown as well. In the absence of evidence, one cannot make a statement either way.

We are talking about two different things. "In the absence of evidence" as you use it implies that we havent even made a search (subterranean) that can reasonably justify a claim about the quality of evidence available.
.
I'm talking about absence of evidence after a reasonable search, which would include subsurface scans. (And of course, the initial hypothesis would have to be limited to forms of life that we can even comprehend.)
.

 

[dingdong]

Why would I answer a question that has no answer?

So your religion is based on a question you can not answer? that must really take some doing.

How do you manage to accept any philosophical perspective? They all require some degree of self-deception at first, until one fully grasps the philosophy and sees where seeming contradictions have deeper explanations.

To my knowledge I don't believe I have any 'philosophical perspectives' I know I didn't the last time I looked, perhaps I'm just too down to earth for such things, self-deception has never really figured in my life, that maybe one of the reasons I find religions so mind blowingly crazy and destructive, they make the mind leave reality behind, I day dream and I have a vivid imagination and I have tried to fool myself into believing in something I knew wasn't true, but I failed, the guy was a bum and I knew it.

 

[sidhe]

We are talking about two different things. "In the absence of evidence" as you use it implies that we havent even made a search (subterranean) that can reasonably justify a claim about the quality of evidence available.
.
I'm talking about absence of evidence after a reasonable search, which would include subsurface scans. (And of course, the initial hypothesis would have to be limited to forms of life that we can even comprehend.)
.

Which is what the fallacy refers to - using absence of evidence as evidence in a topic which has not/can not be subjected to objective examination. Thus, it is frequently an issue in philosophical/metaphysical discussions where the subject of discussion is purely theoretical and not subject to objective examination.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So your religion is based on a question you can not answer? that must really take some doing.

What is the color of music? Is music blue, or green, or some other color?



eudaimonia,

Mark