The Absence of Proof Is Not Proof of Absence!
One of the great and most widely read English poets of the 18th century, William Cowper, wrote: "The absence of proof is not proof of absence." This caveat alone should humble the scientist who seeks to prove that God does not exist by suggesting that there is no proof that God does exist! There were those who sought to prove that our planet was flat with similar argumentation. Today, we look upon them as primitive in their thinking, if not foolish.
Furthermore, good science is equally humble in distinguishing between what it can and cannot achieve. Good science aims to prove null-hypotheses, meaning it can disprove theories that explain phenomena insufficiently, but, it can only hypothesize and theorize, based upon data currently extant and available, to explain phenomena. As such, by the standards that science itself employs, the burden of disproof of the theory of the existence of God is placed squarely upon my opposition in this debate.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
The statement, "Good science aims to prove null-hypotheses ...." is semantically incorrect. Inferential statistics are used to test whether the null hypothesis should be accepted or rejected, and this decision to either accept it or reject it is based on the statistical probability that the hypothesis is correct or not. Since we are testing probabilities, there is always room for doubt (well, almost always).
You made some first rate factors there. I looked on the web for the problem and located most individuals will associate with with your website. New Haven Car Rental pucker Lansing Car Rental quenchless Enterprise rental car wilmington nc studentship Mobile Car Rental obex
"There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something does exist does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist." -on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction Rumsfeld
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." Rumsfeld
And we all know how the WMDs turned out...Of course by logic that makes sense, but when it pans out it, eh...not so much
In America you start with the premise that you're innocent until proven guilty. Innocent is the absence of proof, and taken as the default position, meaning with an absence of proof is taken as proof of absence. Its up to the prosecution to prove otherwise, and demonstrate that the defendant is guilty. And even then, the arguments of the prosecution can be counter argued against by the defense.
If the phrase "absence of proof is not proof of absence" was used in the judicial system, anyone could accuse you of a crime and, if people didn't like you, you would have to spend more time proving your innocence than living your life, lest you go to jail for crimes you didn't commit. A completely rational human being taught in the ways of science or logic cannot accept god merely because there is no proof against him. He must merely ignore him, or search for real proof if he is a believer. The lack of finding such proof on a personal convincing level would most likely turn them an atheist .
Your point being? You are making a claim an illogical god exists without any evidence to support your claim. It's called burden of proof--you can't simply claim there is a god and follow up with "You can't prove me wrong! So I must be right!"
By the way, I only vote "no" because there is very likely not one. Few atheists really believe there is no god, we simply don't believe there is one. There's a difference.
No side will ever be able to prove themselves. It is simply impossible. Though an interesting question to ponder, no side should claim that their belief is the true one, nor should we waste our time arguing about it. Believe what you want.
Millions of people over a period of thousands of years have looked for evidence of the existence of a god . Nobody has ever found one object which could be shown to anyone else to demonstrate that such a god exists. In this case, the overwhelming absence of evidence is proof enough to any reasonable person that there are no gods.
I cannot prove conclusively that God exists in a laboratory. However, the key to the Super Natural is "Faith". However, there is some evidence. I can pass on to you that the Bible has survived for centuries and the most widely read text. The world uses the current Calendar based on Christ's death (A.D. - After Death). We refer to B.C.(Before Christ), as well. Now why must it be Faith in order to "see" proof? When Christ walked the Earth he performed various miracles and people saw and people hated him. There were those, I'm sure that thought it was fake. I have experienced many things that I knew God sent to me. God does most of His works through people and events for His Children. Just as God feeds the animals He takes care of His own that "believe" in Him. God does not want robots to love Him and God gave man the ability to chose, either good or bad. So you wonder why there is so much despair, hate, murder and abuse in the world. Why? because God gave man a choice. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their crimes against each other. We as Humans are so quick to dismiss God because we think "I can't be happy". Then there are those that just don't believe at all. I also find people can get angry if someone talks about God or Jesus. It is if they are about to catch on fire or something. I think they believe that they cannot be happy. Actually it is evil which whispers in their ear. Even I from time to time am tempted. I leave with you this poem as given to me from God. It had taken me a week to write it. I wrote the first half and when I tried to finish I felt very ill. But nonetheless I did finish. I am merely the writer and not the Author.
BLIND
Oh the pursuits of the flesh
This shell that covers self
The fix of desire until the next crave
So shallow this fix, never to last
Brief satisfaction; my cup now empty
This flesh aches between each thirst
Day after day the endless search; cup in hand
What elixir will fill this cup and empty not
The sweet savor that quenches my desire
Light begins to dim on this ragged shell
This flesh shriveled from the tick of time
Cup after cup filled up; folly for the fool
The spirit lay bleached to bone white
Picked clean from neglect
Left to rot in the hot desert wind of life
The spirit left alone, forgotten and unwanted
Never watered or nurtured; void of light
Cast to the shadows to wither on the vine
Oh what a wasteland that I made of this spirit
For it is I, the spirit, that was starved until death
A lifetime to quicken my spirit has cost me the prize
Whether it is the Judeo-Christian or any other god, these entities were created thousands of years ago to help primitive man understand the world around him. It surprises me that there are hundreds of different religions throughout the world, and yet all believe that they are the only one that is right. I know this isn't a discussion of religion, but there is no real way to debate if there is a God or not.
Each must search this answer on their own. That is the nature of faith, and the evidence of the truth that is given to seekers. I wish with all my heart that I could give you my faith- but each must find that on their own. Many can testify of the existence of God. But I understand your questions about the variety of belief systems and the confusion over whether or not God can be known. I have to say that personally (I believed at one time that there was truth in all religions), I never knew God until I got saved and met Jesus Christ. I knew He existed- I just didn't know Him. In your search, you might find it helpful to ask those of the various religions you know about their relationship with God, and ask them to describe how well they know God. I believe you will find that your Christian friends have deep and personal interactions with their creator, while others follow human leaders and a bunch of rules in the hopes of someday coming close to God. God bless you
Absence of proof, true, is not proof of absence, however, the absence of proof to support one's extraordinary claims is proof that one hasn't done one's factual homework nor does one appear to be interested in consistently logical reasoning.
As I've said many times before in debates such as this, one need not disprove any so-called "god" or "goddess" or other claimed related entity. One cannot prove a negative, i.e. non-existence, because one cannot possess all there is to know everywhere and for all of time. What one can do and must do is check the facts and logic of those claiming the existence of such assumed entities. If their facts are incorrect, incomplete or inconsistent and if their logic is poor, one can in the least show the claimants arguments do not support their claims. One can show that the claimant has only very poor to no reason to believe what they do. One need only prove that the claimant has proven nothing at all.
Absence of proof is proof the claimant's arguments - from beginning to their conclusions - are wrong. It makes no statement about the unknown or unknowable.
Christians are not burdened to prove what they know. You feel no burden to seek answers with an open mind, and that is your choice. That lack of interest or belief on your part should not be used as an argument that God doesn't exist. Those who believed in a trade route around a round world didn't make it true by proving it. Our world was round despite the proof or lack of. It wasn't flat till proven round. It was simply believed to be round by those who refused to accept the possibility that there was evidence in the stars that we rotated, leading some to accurately come to the conclusion that the earth is round. I would suggest that your unwillingness to examine the mysteries that would be explained by a Creator God, may indicate an error in the scientific method. You are willing to accept that some things defy science, or can't be explained by science, but you are unwilling to rationalize that ANY explanation that fully explains the mystery could be true. Like the flat earthers, you require proof, when the very universe testifies of God.
It just isn't the case that you can't prove a negative. Impossibility proofs are common in mathematics. There are lots of them in Euclid. A particular concept of God could indeed be proven self-contradictory and therefore impossible if only anybody were willing to adequately define a God concept. Formerly, philosophers and theologians were able to specify what the hell they were talking about; but god talk is now merely emotional blather and theologies can't even properly be said to be wrong. I make an exception for the God concept of sects like Jehovah's Witness that represent God as a big, powerful animal in the sky, That's goofy science fiction; but at least it makes sense; and the argument against negative arguments does hold in its favor. Maybe a giant bearded tyrant will turn up one of these days.
The absence of proof is not proof of absence, but I must admit at the end of the day, I have no reason to believe that god exists. So as Richard Dawkins points out in his book, The God Delusion, we should be as skeptical of God's existence as we are of the existence of a teapot that orbits the earth and can't be be observed by any of our human senses. So, we can't say with certainty that God or the teapot doesn't exist but there is still a lack of evidence as a whole for God's existence.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
-- Carl Sagan
Adam Lane, vice president, Ohio University Skeptic's Society
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=logo #/group.php?gid=64100880412
I have been told that there is a bull elephant in this phone booth, and though I have searched high and low, I haven't found him yet. That doesn't mean I won't though...
The absence of proof does not prove absence. The absence of proof does not prove presence, either. The absence of proof does not provide reason to consider God even possible. After 10,000 years of belief. there is not even a decent collection of evidence, let alone proof, one must conclude that such an entity is misconceived. The pervasive Judeo-Christian-islamic God should have been clearly proven long ago.
Is there something "bigger" than us, something which is everywhere at the same time, something which contains all the knowledge there is? Nature, which we do perceive, certainly qualifies. Conceiving of God as a conscious being is a wrong way of conceiving of answers to the questions above. That's why there's such a long-standing absence of proof.
So, we can validly say, There is no such thing as God, as described by those who claim to think so.
pbeaird, indeed. That is no argument from ignoracne but one acknowledging all the failed arguments for God in line with the auto-epistemic rule.
The presumption of naturalism reflects that not only are natural causes and explanations efficient but also necessary, primary and sufficient. They, contrary to Gottfried Wilhem Leibniz, are the sufficient reason. This neither sanbags theist nor begs the question but demands evidence as Einstein so did to overcome Newton.
Science explains the how and the why. The why is not according to a pre-arranged plan [ the atelic challenge] but according to natural forces, including those random ones. So those are indeed primary causes; one cannot then declare God the primary cause and them the secondary ones. As our naturalist arguments are defeasible, then there is probably no God.
Contrary to the attempts of the religious to make an epistemological equivalence between naturalism and supernaturalism as equally arguable hypotheses to explain nature, there is no such thing as a presumption of naturalism.
You are a human being. You have a definite nature, possessing specific characteristics and capabilities, including a human means of gaining knowledge of the world in which you exist. This includes seeing by means of looking with one's eyes...and so on for all the senses we possess...and a rational capacity to identify things by their fundamental characteristics and to form concepts in order to hold our knowledge indefinitely.
We are not anything but human beings and, thus, have no other means of gaininging knowledge of the world than our human means.
So, if you open your eyes and see nature, that's where your knowledge begins. There is no mental blank until you first choose your starting assumptions. There are no assumptions that nature, which you see, is nature and that you, somehow, choose to see it onlly in a natural way.
Nope. No presumptions whatsoever. You open your eyes, you see what's there and you begin to mentally organize the evidence provided by your senses into groupings accourding to similarities and differences.
You don't start building your knowledge with nature because you chose that as your presumption. You start building your knowledge with nature, because that is what is there.
To go the bizarre and cogintively misguided direction of attributing things that are there to supernatural, meaning unobservable, causes, is what requires an extra action of choosing an assumption, one which veers away from what you observe. Notice that all arguments for the existence of God or for any version of the supernatural require a very abstract organization of concepts and, upon examination, it turns out that there are NO observations which bear out that presumption, nor do the abstract arguments hold to the tests of logic.
So, naturalism is nothing more than human beings gaining knowledge of nature by human means, without a naturalist presumption. It is supernaturalism which requires the contruction of a presumption in order to selectively bring observables to the task of proving what is not a valid idea nor an observable reality.
Notice that this argument against the "presumption of naturalism" argument required nothing more than the fact that you exist with a specific nature as a human being, including a specific capacity for gaining knowledge. If you wish to quarrel with my argument, you must deny those facts about your existence.
Thanks pbeaird for affirming this tested presumption. Antony Garrard Newton Flew calls it the presumption of agnosticism [before his dotage]. It is a procdedure, a heuristic device.Those non-observations affirm the ignostic-Ockham challenges that either God is fatuous or unartfully redundant,contrary to Alister McGrath. Yes, that extra action means resorting to convoluted ad hoc assumptions, greater than what one was to explain!
Yes, there can be no presumption of supernaturalism- Alvin Platinga's warrant for God as a basic belief. That presumption is the pareidolia- like seeing Yeshua in a tortilla- of seeing a caring,Super Mind behind Existence. That pareidolia is then a mere feeling without substance.
Presumption is what one starts with, so one perforce has to start with the naturalist one! One has to employ those observations, accept other minds and the external world and trust in ones mind from trial and error, contrary to C.Lewis and Alvin Platinga argument from reason [ a teleological argument] as basic.
pbeaird, again thanks. Please come over to Amazon religious discussions!
"the burden of disproof of the theory of the existence of God is placed squarely upon my opposition in this debate."
Absolutely ridiculous. How about some more quotes? "Every claim requires evidence, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
Science does not busy itself with disproving *anything*. There's no point in disproving what does not exist. Rather, the burden is on Christian's to provide evidence for their extraordinary claims. Science is simple, and you seem to have the whole process backwards.The burden of proof is on those who make the claim, not on those who remain skeptical of outrageous claims.
The null position is atheism. We are ALL atheists when we are born. We are then taught a religion. The null position is atheism and any deviance from null requires evidence, oh which you have none.
"Science does not busy itself with disproving *anything*."
Well, since God, by nature, would be and certainly is outside of the laws of physics, he would be difficult to disprove. But to your point, your non-interest in attempting to disprove God, is no evidence He doesn't exist. I would rather point out that your inability to prove the origin of life, the origin or very nature of the universe, the irrational behavior of forces in the universe that lead us to flip-flop on our publicly held opinions regarding "the beginning"- these at least leave a door open to the possibility that someone else is in charge. For those of us who have personal proof- that is enough for us. For those of you who are unable to come up with other rational answers, I recommend you at least open up your mind to the possibility that man's foolishness is the wisdom of God.
"I would rather point out that your inability to prove the origin of life, the origin or very nature of the universe,"
A hundred years ago we couldn't prove what lightning was. We couldn't prove what the sun was. We couldn't prove what stars were. We couldn't prove anything regarding atoms, molecular theory, or most of the modern principles of biology and physics.
And people, religious people, simply claimed they were God acting in his way. Further back, when it was offered that the world was round and the sun was the center of our galaxy, not the earth, the
church killed people over those views.
Further back, the Egyptians attributed the sun, the moon and their harvest to religion. Happy gods brought good harvests. Angry gods brought plagues. No science, and religion filled the holes.
Religion has always said "Science can't prove it, therefore it must be god". And, given enough time, science has always found evidence.
Actually, God described a round earth in the Old Testiment, but man later put upon religion (not truth), that the earth was flat. Why would you assume that a simple understanding of some of the forces of nature disproves God's existance? We still don't know much. We discover new vitamins each year, we argue global warming (now safely named "climate change" because of the cooler past 10 years), we struggle over dark matter theories and time/space challenges... what makes us think we can rule out God when we don't understand. You claim that science has always found evidence. I politely disagree. I believe there is much more we don't know than what we assume we know. The latest theory of the universe is that our section of universe exists in a time-space bubble, different from the rest of all that exists. This would explain the behavior of forces we can't understand, as though we are seeing through a "glass, dimly". Apparently, the scientists biggest problem with this otherwise plauable explaination is that it would mean that the earth, and our portion of the universe are truly special, unique. I guess that this scientific theory would come close to saying that it may be as God said after all. (not that any understanding of the universe is contrary to an understanding of God). But I call that biased science. You don't really think we know it all, do you?
"But I call that biased science. You don't really think we know it all, do you?"
Of course not. I believe we know very, very, little. I believe our pathetic mammalian brains give us the power to think we're special, the power to create little gods for us to worship, but fail to give us any semblance of the ability to fathom the truths of this universe.
"Why would you assume that a simple understanding of some of the forces of nature disproves God's existance? "
Again, you are looking at it all wrong. I don't want to disprove your sky wizard. We've created thousands of your yahwehs. Thors. Odins. Amen-Rah's and Imoteps. Literally thousands.
Keep your little dude in the sky. In fifty years they'll be fifty more of them.
I don't have the time or desire to disprove every single god that every single culture decided to make.
Instead, I realize quite easily that we're all born atheist, and we're taught religion by our family/society. I realize there is no proof for religion. I realize that religion exists outside of the realm of proof. It cannot be proved or disproved.
I realize it is a statistical possibility for a god, whether it be your precious Judeo-Christian god, or Odin, to exist. But I realize that in the case of your god, if he would send me to hell simply because I do not 'believe' in him, than I would never want to worship so petty and vain a creature.
It appears that you see God as a punisher rather than a redeemer. I see Him as the source of all that is good in this world and beyond. Here, we struggle in our lives to live with limitations which keep us from viewing the truth without the shadows of the flesh. God sent His only Son to enter into our humanity, so that we could enter into His Spirit- and live. He is transforming us from being mere creatures, into children with life breathed into them, and preparing us for true union. God made the rocks, trees and all that exists here- but people are different. Yes, people create lots of God, and somehow struggle against the only true God who asks that we be willing to give up all others. He is looking for hearts that seek Him, because He knows the better end in store. Free will allows us to choose the pastures that satisfy us with earthly things. But while here, we get glimmers of the better things of the Spirit.
I actually do understand your outlook. I know it will insult you if I tell you that I will pray for you, so let me just wish you well in your search or avoidance. It is your choice to believe that this is all there is or not. The key to transforming love, which is what God desires, is that it is reciprocal. But He allows us to make our own choices. He has already expressed the greatest love through Jesus Christ. That is not vain or petty. That is sacrifice that invites us all to free, unrestrained and eternal truth. There is no coercion.
God bless
"I know it will insult you if I tell you that I will pray for you"
Of course it does not. Many of my Christian friends pray for me. And I hope beyond hope that they will shed their mental shackles and one day breathe the air of freedom and truth. To each our own :)
You sound like a standard evangelical Christian, and you just say how much God loves us and how he is wonderful and amazing and all that jazz. I mean, you ignore the fact that your bible is almost completely rewritten by corrupt Catholics in the dark ages, and that every scroll found of the traditional bible is highly contradictory, and none even mentioning the resurrection. (Yes, nothing pre-Catholic mentions your 'savior').
But you've completely ignored the fact that people create gods.
If you can understand why you so easily dismiss those 1,000 other gods, perhaps you can understand why I dismiss the 1001.
God is not a prerequisite for love. God does not love. At best, he is indifferent. I think it's very righteous of you to think he loves you. Do you presume that he loves the millions of children that starve to death? Does he love the millions that die of cancer, and other diseases that 'he' created? No 'loving' god would create literally thousands of horrific painful deaths.
He obviously hand created cancer. Himself. Every part of it. Science believes cancer is a flaw in our evolution, just how we are. But god is flawless, therefore we should be 'flawless' as his creation. So, you believe that every horrific disease and death is an example of how wonderful and loving this 'god' is?
Honestly that's kind of sick. If there's a 'he', he can't love us. You would never do what he 'does' to those you love. Earthquakes and volcanoes and the flu. This world sucks, honestly.
This world is not the perfection that awaits us. This world was tarnished by the fall of mankind. No, God doesn't strike people with cancer. And I would never claim myself to have all the answers. But He is certainly a loving God.
To go back to another statement about all the thousands of other gods man invents... If you want a crazy thought (definitely just a theory, not important to my faith, and what I know to be true), here goes: I think all the false gods of the past were the offspring of the fallen angels and man, "the giants", "mighty men" of old. I am certainly not sure of this, but I think there is enough evidence to believe it was possible. There are so many things that we cannot know, and God gives us some mysteries to ponder that don't have any real importance, just because they are curious.
Though I don't know God's will, I try to learn and follow His will for my life as best I can. I think that is all we can do, to grow closer to Him when we find Him.
"The absence of proof is not proof of absence."
While fun and flowery, rhetorical devices are no substitute for logic. If the burden of proof is on proving that something does not exist we would be forced to admit the possibility that our every action is indeed guided by a Flying Spaghetti Monster.
"The absence of proof is not proof of absence."
This is not simply a rhetorical device, it is a perfectly reasonable and logical statement. And yes, we do have to admit, in a purely logical sense, that the flying spaghetti monster is possible, as remote as it may seem to us. Possibility is not dependent on feasibility or believability.
Even "possibility" must have supportable reason for claiming it. I must ask you this: is there anything in human discovery and understanding that would even remotely support the possibility of a flying plate of spaghetti with superpowers? We ought not fling "possibility" about so carelessly.
For a thing to be possible, it must follow from what nature is capable of like anything else.
Even possibility needs proof. When we attempt to treat what we can only imagine as equal to what we know to be true, we spit in the face of fact and logic and, rather than increasing our awareness, we return to childish sleeping.
I think the problem here is in the terminology. Possibility does not require proof. Literally anything is possible until proven impossible. That is the nature of the term, it's not a matter of a point of view. With that in mind, when we make claims about the natural world, it is fairly simple to prove the impossibility of a wide range of things. It is simple to say that strictly in a natural sense, a flying spaghetti monster or a god cannot possibly exist within the framework of our knowledge of the natural world. We need to respect that this argument isn't about the natural world.
Your claim, "For a thing to be possible, it must follow from what nature is capable of like anything else," is only true when discussing notions limited to the natural world. Any claim about god is a claim about something beyond the natural world. Personally, as a weak atheist (look it up), I believe that either claim (god exists or god does not exist) is baseless and unfounded. I think that none of us has any real knowledge to say anything about an issue with NO compelling evidence on either side. You can believe in a flying spaghetti monster, but you shouldn't be surprised if some people don't buy it, even though you think it exists.
What I will say about it is this, having some unfounded beliefs can be OK. For some people religious belief is comforting and a source of good in the world. For other people, believing that there is no god can be positive as well. On both sides there are those that treat their beliefs improperly by degrading or discriminating against others based on their views of religious belief.
The moral of my story is that possibility is not equal to things that are proven, but the possibility of the supernatural exists, and you would be a fool to claim otherwise. Possibility does not need proof, which makes the claim that something is possible fairly weak, but a true claim until proven otherwise. Just because something is possible does not mean anyone should believe it, and it doesn't mean they shouldn't. Even claims with no support are still possible despite their weakness; your argument that possibility requires proof is quite simply false, in a purely logical sense.