Can't we all just admit that there's no way Lynette's going to ask ANY of us to the prom, and leave it at that?

---
It's grime time.

i think you meant to post that in the "Did someone mention Lynette?" thread

---
what if nigger meant kite

Who's Lynette? And why does Tasty say she doesn't exist?

---
ken.kaufman@gmail.com

EXACTLY!

---
What others say about boorite!

Mandingo--

I have no idea why you think the fact that my argument is not scientific means it is not valid. Philosophical arguments work, and science is not the only method of attaining knowledge. For instance, if you would deny philosphical reasoning, you would deny the validity of the scientific method itself...because the scientific method cannot be observed and it makes no falsifiable predictions. The scientific method is justified through philosophy by using a certain epistemological framework.

Now, the only reason my idea isn't "scientific" is because it is addressing a supernatural being. Science doesn't address supernatural beings. Other than that, though, my idea is very scientific and follows the methodology perfectly. A thing that does not exist would predict the absence of evidence, and this nonexistence is falsifiable. Falsification is how we "verify" things in science, because scientific inferences are based on induction, which is hardly certain.

So my idea is only "nonscientific" in a sort of cheap way...if it did not address God, a supernatural being, it would be very scientific. It follows scientific methodology perfectly. And it is just as uncertain as science, so pointing out the uncertainty isn't really relevant. The falsifiability of a "nonexistence" claim is what makes it a good inference.

that's easy. you falsify it. or you adopt the reverse hypothesis and verify it. happens all the time in science. if you test for it and evidence can't be found to either falsify or verify, then you say "data inconclusive." what you don't do is assume it doesn't exist because, again, an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Falsifying nonexistence is not evidence of nonexistence. If nonexistence is falsified, that means it isn't true, and that means there is no evidence in favor of nonexistence. Falsification would prove EXISTENCE, not nonexistence. Adopting the reverse hypothesis and verifying it would only prove EXISTENCE, not nonexistence. So, give me an example of evidence that would prove nonexistence. It can't be done.

Exactly. You see no evidence of a cat. And you infer from the lack of evidence for a cat that there is no cat. You have just proven my point.

We infer nonexistence from a lack of evidence all the time. And please keep in mind that I am only talking about "non-contardictory" concepts. We can know with certainty that, say, a square circle does not exist, simply because it entails a contradiction.

I haven't missed that point. In fact, I have frequently stated that because of this a claim of existence cannot be falsified. And you have changed the wording. You say that it is exactly what we "might" see. Notice how this shaky prediction means it isn't falsifiable. With nonexistence, however, an absence of evidence is EXACTLY what we would see. No "might" or "maybe" about it. Compare with the scientific theory of evolution and the conjecture of Intelligent Design. Similar biological structures, vestigial organs, and an evolutionary progression are EXACTLY what we would see given evolution. Saying that these same things would also be seen under Intelligent Design, while the opposite could also be seen, is part of the problem with the theory of intelligent design--it makes no specific predictions and can't be falsified. And that is the problem I am noting with a claim of existence--it couldn't be falsified.

The inductive reasoning you have listed IS the evidence for possible alien existence. I personally don't find it very convincing, and I have some doubts about your claim that "an overwhelming majority of scientists" believe in aliens, but that doesn't mean they are believing in aliens in the absence of evidence. Their "evidence" is the reasoning you have supplied. It is "indirect" evidence based upon probability and the large size of the universe, basically. It's not exactly the same thing as an existential claim with absolutely NO evidence in support of it.

My quote said that if we used scientific methodology, and I'm talking about the creation of testable hypotheses that make predictions and are capable of being falsified, then we can see why nonexistence is a valid inference. I also go on to show how inductive inferences show that this is a valid inference, and induction is also a large part of scientific inquiry. I am not saying my argument IS scientific, but rather that my reasoning is using a type of scientific methodology...But I have even admitted it is primarily a philosophical argument because I am talking about God in this case.

not at all because what you're doing isn't science. you've already admitted it outright. not sure why you're backpedalling, but let me give you an example to show why your above reasoning is flawed. instead of swan, i'll use bears. i live in woodsey North America. every bear i've ever seen is black or brown. therefore, using your faulty logic, black or brown bears are all that exist. you've ruled out the existence of polar bears a priori. sure you got lucky with the swan example, but you got unlucky with the bear example. science doesn't leave as much to luck as you would

I don't see why you think this example isn't scientific. Inductive inferences ARE science. You make an inductive inference from a limited number of observations, and then try to falsify it. That is science, my friend. With the swan example, it is indeed science. If I observed five thousand white swans, I could infer that all swans are white. Just as a scientist can observe the maximum velocity of a falling object a few thousand times, and infer from these numerous observations that this maximum velocity will always be true. This would be falsified if we tried it one time and it reached a different maximum velocity.

Your bear example merely shows how uncertain science is. ANYTHING in science can potentially be falsified. With your bear example, an observation of a polar bear would falsify it. And then we could be absolutely certain that all bears are not brown or black, when we couldn't be absolutely certain that all bears WERE brown and black, but we inferred this from observations. And, actually, the swan example is false, too. That example is frequently used in the philosophy of science or epistemology to show why inductive inferences (which science uses) are not absolutely certain.

Now listen to my point again, this time understanding that it is a valid instance of scientific reasoning:

If we can observe five thousand white swans and inductively infer that all swans are white, we are in the process assuming that black swans do not exist. The lack of evidence for a black swan that would falsify this theory leads us to conclude there are no black swans. Thus, in inductive inferences, we use the absence of evidence to infer absence. Scientists do the same thing with the maximum velocity of a falling object--they infer that because all observed drops reached a common falling velocity, every drop ever will reach the same falling velocity. This inference could very well be falsified by doing the experiment a few more times and finding a different maximum velocity. It is just like your example with the bears. Does this mean we should abandon it because it could lead to wrong conclusions? Of course not! Science WORKS because it is based on falsifying theories! That's the whole point! The falsification is what justifies our inductive inference---because then, in that case, if it is wrong, at least we can find out.

This is why non-falsifiable theories are denied in science. This is why I am specifically denying a claim of existence given the lack of evidence--because it wouldn't be falsifiable. While a claim of nonexistence COULD be falsified.

So, because science itself operates based upon a principle that infers nonexistence from a lack of evidence, I'd say that we would be justified in doing so with God.

Boorite:

Why must you keep insisting that God cannot be argued about because it is not defined?

Ask Christians who believe in God what they think God is---most of them will tell you that it is a being who created the universe, or some sort of higher power who created the universe.

Given that definition, I can then set out to disprove that definition.

Ask someone else what they mean by God...they say nature. And I can show that nature exists, and thus God exists, but that calling nature "God" seems sort of silly.

The point that you are missing, boorite, is that I am not refuting "God" as an undefined concept, but "God" as a defined concept. The defined concepts of God my argument would be refuting would be those for which there is no evidence--the higher powers, the omnibenevolent, omnipotent beings, the men in the sky with beards. I wouldn't be refuting concepts of God that define it as "My cock" or "nature", because my cock exists and has evidence to prove this (seriously, it does; use a magnifying glass) and nature exists and has evidence to prove this.

"Valid" and "true" are terms used of logical structures like the syllogism. They are nicely defined by the discipline of logic, which I was led to believe you were employing. But if you're unfamiliar with logic, I can give you some basic references, and then we can talk philosophy intelligibly.

"God" are terms used about higher powers and creators of the universe. They are nicely defined by the discipline of theology, which I was led to believe this argument was about.

The point I was making is that your semantics arguments are silly. It doesn't matter if "God" or "valid" or "structure" could be arbitrarily redefined to mean whatever we want them to mean. The point is that, so long as we have an accepted definition, we CAN argue and discourse about the concepts.

The GOD I am discoursing about is the defined versions. Just as the words "valid" and "structure" you used were defined, and not merely meaningless arrangements of words, even though I could go out and redefine valid.

Yes, language is arbitrary and words can be vague. That's why we have to define something before we discuss it. And that's why I have insisted throughout this thread that I am refuted "God" when he is defined as a creator of the universe, or something similar. (But not "God" as defined as my toaster.) Just as you are talking about "valid" as meaning "an argument that works" rather than "A cat that hacks".

Seriously, y'all. You are like those sophists who go about saying induction shouldn't be used because it is uncertain and imperfect. Hume would love all of you. If you deny our ability to say something does not exist by demanding evidence of nonexistence (and there can never be evidence of nonexistence), then you are also denying the validity of inductive inferences. You touch your hot stove a few times and get burned. You then infer that you will always get burned when touching a hot stove from these few observations. But in doing so, you deny the existence of the occurence of touching a hot stove and feeling orgasmic bliss--only because there is no evidence for this that would falsify the "burning" theory. So, be sure to not use inductive inferences if you think absence of evidence cannot prove absence. You are restricted solely to deductive proofs. No universalizing experiences, no using science, none of that "uncertain" stuff.

Agnosticism, the variety that insists we cannot make claims of nonexistence, is laughable. It's pure sophistry. It's like those kids imitating the Matrix saying, "Dude, this could all be an illusion!"

scientific arguments are based on a standard set of givens that the debaters tacitly agree to when entering the debate -- namely the scientific method and objectivity. philosophical arguments tend to be based more in opinion. first of all, i'm a relativist. i'd make you define words like "valid". valid why? not because it's predictive, repeatable, verifiable and falsifiabe obviously. so what, then?

often times, when it's not a question of pure logic, which usually don't need much debate anyway, the answer comes down to internal value systems, personal assumptions about the world, and whatever heuristic you decide to employ. i don't mind having such a debate, but it's needless here. your saying that scientifically, you cannot say whether God exists or not is exactly what i set out to prove. debating it philosophically has no allure to me because of the more relative nature of the stipulations above. i'm fine with showing it's unscientific, since that keeps a biased argument out of the accepted framework, ie the scientific method, which most people consider the prime method of discovering "truth".

yes, other than the fact that it can't be tested, observed, isn't repeatable, and can't be verified, it follows the scientific method perfectly

---
what if nigger meant kite

Yet the "tacit agreement" to the scientific method is also a "tacit agreement" to the validity of philosophical arguments. Why? Because the scientific method is justified philosophically. It certainly isn't justified through observation or falsification!

It doesn't really matter whether you want to call my argument "scientific" or not. It basically follows scientific methodology because it is based on an examination of the principle of induction, and because it is a predictive hypothesis that can be falsified. But again, I don't care what you call it. The point is that it is a valid argument, and not mere opinion. For instance, A=A, or any mathematical or logical argument can be called a philosophical argument...yet no one would say such a thing "tends to be based more on opinion"!

My argument is that one who accepts a scientific framework should also accept that nonexistence can be inferred from a lack of evidence. Whether we want to call this "science" or not because it can address the supernatural really doesn't matter. It follows the scientific method in every other way--it only strays because it mentions God.

Think about it. If we can infer that all swans are white from seeing thousands of white swans, and in the process deny the existence of black swans based merely on the lack of evidence...and if this type of inductive inference operates in scientific practice...then it seems one who follows a scientific methodology could infer nonexistence from the lack of evidence.

Tell me how you can accept the scientific method, which uses induction, and yet deny that we can't infer nonexistence from an absence of evidence? Do you disagree with my claim that while using induction we are assuming something does not exist or does not happen merely because there is no evidence of it? Why can a scientist reason that the maximum velocity of a fall will always be a certain speed from a finite number of observations? Why can this scientist rule out the possibility of a different maximum velocity merely because there is no evidence for it?

It seems fairly obvious to me that anyone who denies this inference would thus be denying induction and the scientific method itself. You can say my argument "isn't scientific" all you want, but I don't see how you can say one who practices and believes the scientific method works could argue that my argument doesn't work.

An inference of nonexistence CAN be tested. With theories like evolution, for instance, we do not need to directly observe it occuring...but we can make sure its predictions are fulfilled and never falsified. We can do the same with an inference of nonexistence: Given nonexistence, we would expect to see absolutely NO evidence. If we DID see evidence, this would falsify the theory. That's the test, the search for falsifying evidence. That's the same test we would use to determine the maximum velocity of falling--we have a specific prediction (it will fall at such a velocity) and we look for evidence that would falsify this prediction. The test can be repeated at will. Simply continue searching for evidence, and be content with the inference when you find none to falsify your claim.

This isn't just a matter of personal preference. If you accept the validity of science and the usefulness of inductive inferences that make falsifiable predictions, it seems almost OBLIGATORY for one to accept that nonexistence can be inferred from a lack of evidence.

Also, I'd say that the supernatural cannot be explained by science only because the supernatural is basically defined as "that which cannot be explained by science".

However, if my argument shows that God's existence could be explained away with a valid inference that is based upon predictive power that could be falsified, then it would render God "not supernatural"--God would then be "explained by science".

So now that I think about it, the fact that an argument that uses scientific methodology mentions God doesn't really make it "unscientific"--it could be that it is rendering God "non-supernatural" by explaining or refuting the concept naturally.

again, you already conceded my point. you stated:

"science is only equipped to deal with natural phenomenon. It does not say whether the supernatural exists or not exists. Keep in mind that I have never argued that science "disproves" God's existence. My own argument for inferring nonexistence is a philosophical one, not a scientific one..."

if you've got a hardon to debate with me, say something else i find silly and be prepared to debate it logically and scientifically and not in the happy feel good way that "basically follows scientific methodology." or if it's that important to you, give me a couple of days and i'll work up the motivation to read and respond to what i consider a rather wordy and superfluous argument

---
what if nigger meant kite

Mandingo-
I haven't conceded the point, which is that we can infer nonexistence from a lack of evidence.

Please respond to my analysis of induction (which is part of the scientific method)--I have shown that this form of reasoning requires one to infer nonexistence from a lack of evidence.

Like I said, I don't care whether you call my argument "scientific" or not because it mentions God. The fact is, though, that it follows scientific methodology perfectly.

If it is acceptable to infer from an observation of five thousand white swans that all swans are white by using induction, then it should also be acceptable to infer nonexistence from a lack of evidence. What I'm showing isn't necessarily that my claim is scientific (if you hold to the rigid view that science can't mention God, then I'll concede that point)--but that my claim can be deduced FROM a scientific worldview, and that one who holds to a scientific worldview, or who just plain uses induction, would have to accept it.

And I'm afraid that you all use induction.

I'd really like to know why I'm wrong. So far all I have seen you say on this front is, "It's not science, so I'm not even going to address the rest."

Why is it so hard to understand that you can infer nonexistence from a lack of evidence?

I say that there is a bear in my closet. You look in my closet and see no evidence of a bear. You conclude there is no bear in my closet.

Lack of evidence for the bear = nonexistence of the bear.

Unless, of course, you think this inference would be invalid. In which case I merely throw tomatoes at you all and hiss.

Schroedinger's bear.

There is a bear and there is no bear, in superimposition, but it seems to be failing to actualise.

---
I wanted my half in the middle and I wound up on the edge.

I misspelt "Schrodinger".

---
I wanted my half in the middle and I wound up on the edge.

They're not saying that you can't infer that God does not exist due to lack of evidence. Inference is opinion based off of the individual's reasoning. What they're saying is that you cannot claim that you have scientifically proven God not to exist because there is no way to do so and still follow the scientific method.

Lack of evidence is proof under certain philosophical mindsets. However, you are making yourself look like an idiot by repeatedly claiming it as scientific proof. Lack of evidence is no proof whatsoever in Science; if you find no evidence for X, all it means is that you find no evidence for X.

For example: Some people believe in Bigfoot. There is no hard evidence towards the existence of Bigfoot. That doesn't stop scientists from searching for the so-called "missing link". Some people believe in ghosts, myself included. There is no hard evidence toward the existence of ghosts, yet there are scientists who devote time to finding proof.

You've inferred through lack of evidence that God does not exist. Perfectly acceptable. That's your opinion, you're entitled to it. Your arguments certainly show your conviction. I respect that. Saying that your philosophical inferences are scientific fact makes you look downright stupid.

Philosophy and science are complete opposites in almost all ways. Science relies on physical evidence, measurable reactions; Philosophy relies on only what one believes about the world around him/her. You present a prettily decorated egg to a scientist, and he could examine it and tell you the weight, surface area, mass, etc. You give it to a philosopher and he might tell you it was a flower (inferring that because flowers are beautiful, the egg is beautiful, ergo the egg is a flower) or he very well might tell you that it doesn't exist because the world he perceives is all within his own mind.

Philosophy and Science are not the same thing. Try and ingest that little tidbit of information before youcontinue with your current line of argument.

---
It was such a waste of everyone’s time and money that even the Tokyo stadium’s rape robots apologized– something they were programmed specifically never to do.

HCRoyall--

Then their arguments don't make sense, because I never said God could be scientifically proven to not exist. Rather, I said a claim of nonexistence, like scientific theories, would be falsifiable, have predictive power, and be justified in much the way the usage of induction is. (Induction is used in science, as well.)

This is not the same as saying my argument is a scientific theory. But really, it's all semantics. Arguably, I think it could be said that my inference IS scientific. However, I have conceded that point. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say it is not scientific. That doesn't mean that my argument is therefore invalid. Just because an argument is not scientific does not mean it can be tossed away as "subjective rubbish". Otherwise, I could toss away the scientific method itself, saying that because it is justified philosophically and not scientifically it is not valid. And that's just silly.

It would probably help if you actually read my argument. I never said it is a scientific proof. I said it operates according to a similar line of reasoning in that an inference of nonexistence would make a falsifiable prediction and be based on induction.

Please show me why this is so. Scientific reasoning uses induction. Induction universalizes a finite number of observations. If a scientist observes only white swans, he will infer that all swans are white. He will assume this because there is no falsification for the theory--because there is no evidence for a black swan. Thus, he takes the lack of evidence for black swans and assumes they do not exist. That's how induction works. It's an essential part of science. Therefore, if the principle of induction entails the inference of nonexistence from a lack of evidence, it seems your claim that "Lack of evidence is no proof whatsoever in science" is unwarranted.

Again, I must ask you to actually read my argument, because it is clear that you did not. It is not merely an "opinion" of mine that we should infer nonexistence from a lack of evidence. It is OBLIGATORY for someone to do this if they accept the principle of induction as valid or scientific methodology as valid.

You couldn't be more wrong. Science is a subset of philosophy. It is a type of epistemological framework, and one that works extremely well. For instance, if science is the complete opposite of philosophy, that would mean the scientific method could be justified without philosophical argument. But can you observe the scientific method? Can you test it? Does it make falsifiable predictions? No! The scientific method, then, is used because it is justified by a certain philosophical mindset. It is a TYPE of philosophy with a set of very specific rules.

This quote shows that you are not very familiar with philosophy if you think that's what it would entail.

Again, I must reiterate that it doesn't matter whether my argument is called 'science' or not. If I tell you there is a cat in my lap, and you see no evidence for a cat, concluding that there is no cat, then this inference is valid. Even though it uses the absence of evidence for a cat to infer the absence of the cat, it is still something we do every day. Furthermore, the principle of induction, which EVERYONE uses, also entails that we infer nonexistence from a lack of falsifying evidence. Science itself works on principles similar to those I have used to justify an inference of nonexistence.

Now, instead of calling me an idiot by selectively reading my argument and applying false claims to me, why don't you address what I really said, particularly the part about inductive inferences and the examples I have given with the bear and the cat in the lap. Show me why they are invalid. If you can't, then this is more than just an "opinion"--it is an idea which you cannot critique. If saying, "But it's not science!" is all you have, then that's a pretty worthless argument.

In short, let's just drop the "it's not science" argument, because it's silly. I long conceded that it isn't, and that it doesn't matter if it isn't or is. Try objecting to my actual argument.

and this is the point you already conceded

"science is only equipped to deal with natural phenomenon. It does not say whether the supernatural exists or not exists. Keep in mind that I have never argued that science "disproves" God's existence. My own argument for inferring nonexistence is a philosophical one, not a scientific one..."

emphasis added in case you had one eye shut

as far as inferring non-existence from lack of evidence, using "absence of evidence as evidence of absence", it's not only not scientific, as you claim it to be, it's also a logical fallacy.

but before i inundate you with supporting quotes that it is, let's assume it isn't for one second. let's suppose that all of science, having gotten hit on the head with some blunt object, or perhaps having had an exploratory lobotomy, has come to agree that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

how much of the universe have you checked exactly?

how much of the universe have you checked exactly?

we're a planet in one of billions and billions and billions of solar systems, in one of billions and billions of galaxies. even assuming we could see god through EVERY scientific sensory tendril we have -- telescopes, satellites, data-gathering spacecraft, everything -- even granting that, we've explored something like .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000001 % of the universe, and that's probably an overestimate.

so that's the horse you're backing. a logical fallacy that even if it wasn't, would be claiming that God doesn't exist because we don't see evidence of him/her/it/Shaft (damn right) in the tiny miniscule nothing little piece of the universe we've heretofor observed.

silly.

supporting quotes that it's a logical fallacy:

[list]
[*]"Third, the interpreter must use strict rules of logic while dealing with evidence. For instance an important principle to remember is that the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Just because something has not been found, that is not to say that it will not be found. The absence of evidence is obviously a problem, particularly in archaeology. But it is only crucial when it can be proven that one has no hope of ever finding what one is lacking. On the other hand, beware of arguments that are intentionally based on a lack of evidence. That is, some people claim that the fact that there is no evidence proves something. This is called an argument from silence. It must be rejected for lack of evidence. There are a number of rules of logic that apply in a simple way to the interpretation of data. The above are a few common examples." ...

[*]"The argument from silence has also famously been used by skeptics against the virgin birth of Christ. Saint Paul, for example, does not mention the virgin birth, and skeptics therefore argue from his silence that he did not know of it. If this argument is used as an attempted proof of Paul's ignorance, it is a logical fallacy, because ignorance is only one possible reason for Paul's silence." ...

[*]"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Carl Sagan

[*]"The argumentum ad ignorantiam [fallacy] is committed whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true." -- Irving Copi

[*]"Absence of evidence for your hypothesis does not mean that the opposite of the hypothesis is true, nor does it mean that the hypothesis must be false. Likewise, absence of evidence against your hypothesis does not mean that the hypothesis is true, or that the opposite of your hypothesis is false. This seems clear enough, but it happens often that people make mistakes this way." ...

[*]"Arguments from ignorance

Eugenie Scott with Glenn Branch and other critics have argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are arguments from ignorance.[61] In the argument from ignorance, one claims that the lack of evidence for one view is evidence for another view (e.g., science cannot explain this, therefore God did it). Particularly, Michael Behe's demands for ever more detailed explanations of the historical evolution of molecular systems seem to assume a dichotomy where either evolution or design is the proper explanation, and any perceived failure of evolution becomes a victory for design. In scientific terms, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...." ... (this is exactly what i said to a friend when i first saw your argument: "hey, he makes the same mistake as the creationists but in reverse")

[*]"David Hume addressed this problem in the 18th century in a particularly influential way, and no analysis since has managed to evade Hume's critique. Hume looked at ways to justify inductive thinking. He pointed out that justifying induction on the grounds that it has worked in the past begs the question. That is, it is using inductive reasoning to justify induction." ...

[*]"The fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative is a type of logical fallacy of the following form:

This exists because there is no proof that it does not exist.

Non-fallacious ways to prove something include the use of logical syllogisms and/or the incorporation of empirical observations. But it is not logical to argue that something exists simply because there is no proof to the contrary; one cannot say, "No one has proven that aliens do not exist. Therefore, based on that alone, they must exist, notwithstanding that I have no evidence that they do exist". Given (as it is above) that it was not proven that aliens do not exist, they might exist, but this alone does not prove them to exist.

Another common example is that, "A supernatural force must exist because there is no proof that it does not exist". However, the converse is also true, according to the Argument from Ignorance: One also cannot say that, "I have not seen proof that something supernatural exists, therefore a supernatural force cannot exist." ...

[*]"The fallacy of negative proof is a type of logical fallacy of the following form:

No one has produced an example of one; therefore it doesn't exist.

While the assertion has some strength as an epistemic directive, logically it has none. Logically one may argue that just because we have not observed a particular phenomenon, that is no reason to exclude its possibility... someone disputing the ancestry of man amongst the lower apes; will invariably point to the lack of demonstrated intermediary stages (the missing link). The often used rejoinder to this and other similar proffered arguments is: 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!'" ...

[*]"Most individuals who subscribe to agnosticism do so because they see no compelling evidence of the existence of any supreme being, but as Carl Sagan (who is also often described as agnostic) once said, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,' so they cannot out rightly discount God’s existence." ...

[/list]

---
what if nigger meant kite

Mandingo, quotes don't refute an argument.

Your example has proven that, hey, the principle of induction, science, and inferring absence from a lack of evidence is NOT ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN!

That's all you have proven. And really, it's not much of a proof. I never said it would be absolutely certain. Science isn't absolutely certain, induction isn't absolutely certain--why? Because the universe is so large, and because what we actually KNOW is only a tiny percentage of the truth, in all likelihood.

This argument applies just as easily to science and induction as it does to my own claims. That is why I am saying that if one accepts the validity of science and induction (in all their uncertainty), then one is also obligated to accept my argument (in all its uncertainty). Thankfully, these things don't have to be certain, because they can be falsified, and because they make specific predictions.

Inferring nonexistence from absence of evidence is just as uncertain as an inductive inference or a scientific theory.

If you really believed what all those quotes said, then you would not be able to say that there is no cat on my lap at this moment, even if you were looking at me and saw no evidence of a cat there. Because, as you know, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But you DO make that inference. That's an example YOU used.

You can give me five hundred more quotes about how "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". But until you can give me an argument that refutes my claim, I see no reason to accept these quotes.

Also, I'd like to point out that most of these quotes are only showing that one cannot use the absence of evidence as evidence of absence if one wishes to show a logical deduction. That's quite true--it does not lead to any deductive certainty at all, and I have never claimed this. For instance, one quote says:

"No one has produced an example of one; therefore it doesn't exist.

While the assertion has some strength as an epistemic directive, logically it has none."

What this is saying is that it has strength in that it leads people to infer nonexistence (but without certainty)...but that it cannot give one any LOGICAL certainty.

These quotes are taken from a context of LOGICAL certainty, for the most part, but I never said it would give us any deductive certainty. As that quote above says, the assertion has some strength as an epistemic directive. Just as induction has strength as an epistemic directive, even though its conclusions are not deductively certain. So they are saying we cannot use the argument to say that something does not exist WITHOUT A DOUBT.

These same websites will also tell you that inductive inferences are a valid way to attain knowledge about the world, and that science uses these inferences. However, my argument runs:

Inductive inferences infer nonexistence from a lack of evidence. One sees only white swans, and infers that all swans are white--inferring that there are no black swans because there is no evidence for a black swan to falsify the white swan theory.

If induction is valid (but uncertain), and if induction uses this type of reasoning, then it seems one SHOULD be able to infer nonexistence from a lack of evidence.

Interact with that argument, please. So far, not one of you has tried to refute it. You have merely pasted quotes of people who disagree with me (though many of them arguably agree with my position, particular the one that said it can be an epistemic directive), but have not refuted my argument.

Refute it! Go on, I double dog dare ya!

you won't take an argument, you're an advocate, and a bad one at that with spurious reasoning and pseudo-science. you refuse to define God, you ignore a rule of logic, a scientific axiom, and then say that quoting said rule and axiom don't prove anything

quote:

---

how much of the universe have you checked exactly?

how much of the universe have you checked exactly?

we're a planet in one of billions and billions and billions of solar systems, in one of billions and billions of galaxies. even assuming we could see god through EVERY scientific sensory tendril we have -- telescopes, satellites, data-gathering spacecraft, everything -- even granting that, we've explored something like .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000001 % of the universe, and that's probably an overestimate.

so that's the horse you're backing. a logical fallacy that even if it wasn't, would be claiming that God doesn't exist because we don't see evidence of him/her/it/Shaft (damn right) in the tiny miniscule nothing little piece of the universe we've heretofor observed.

---

quote:

---

Why must you keep insisting that God cannot be argued about because it is not defined?

---

Boorite:

Yes, I am only refuting those versions of God that are defined as all-powerful creators of the universes, or big-daddies in the sky, or something similar. Even if there is no clear consensus about what God IS, my argument adequately refutes THIS definition of God. I am not tilting at a windmill. I'm knocking the shit out of that windmill, and even a Sancho Panza with an IQ over thirty would be honored to follow me upon my ignoble steed.

Yes, you can change the definition of God. Yes, it doesn't apply to all definitions conceivable for God. That doesn't matter. It applies to the definitions of God that I WANTED to refute.

Mandingo--

And yet, for some reason, you seem unable to counter my argument! You keep insisting that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" without bothering to even refute my argument which shows that this inference IS valid.

I define God as an all-powerful creator of the universe. I also define God as simply a creator of the universe limited in power.

Deductive certainty is required of logic, and hence it is a rule when making a deductive claim--but it is NOT a scientific axiom that only deductive certainty is allowed. Science is not certain and is based on induction. Induction, as my argument has shown, entails that one must infer nonexistence from a lack of evidence. If "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", and that is a supposed "axiom" of science--then the whole of science collapses. Science is based on inductive inferences, and I have shown how these use an absence of evidence to infer nonexistence. When a scientist infers that all swans are white and that there are thus no black swans, he is making an inductive inference that can be falsified...he is assuming there are no black swans given the lack of evidence. Just as YOU inferred there was no cat in one's lap, given the lacking evidence for a cat in one's lap in your own example.

Answer me this: Does science use inductive inferences? Give me a simple yes or no answer. Then we can proceed. If you say yes, then we can discuss whether you feel my argument about induction is correct. If you say no, then I will just have to show you how science works, because I assure you that it does use such inferences.

quote:

---

how much of the universe have you checked exactly?

we're a planet in one of billions and billions and billions of solar systems, in one of billions and billions of galaxies. even assuming we could see god through EVERY scientific sensory tendril we have -- telescopes, satellites, data-gathering spacecraft, everything -- even granting that, we've explored something like .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000001 % of the universe, and that's probably an overestimate.

---

quote:

---

Yes, I am only refuting those versions of God that are defined as all-powerful creators of the universes, or big-daddies in the sky, or something similar.

---