Freedomain Radio

I encoutnered this in a conversation I am having on another site.

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You seem to think otherwise. Just because we do not have evidence of something does not mean it does not exist. It just means we have no evidence. We do not 'believe the opposite' because we can't prove it.

So no one is denying anything that exists. I do not 'deny the existence of God' anymore than I 'deny the existence of leprechauns'. I just do not have evidence of them."

What do you think of this?

Ask him what truth is, and how you know when you have it.  He will respond with something like a test of correpondence with the physical world, which is to say the world external to our minds.

Then ask him where the ideas of god and leprechauns come from.  The external world, or somewhere else?

To cut to the chase, it isn't just that there is no evidence for gods or leprechauns.  It's that there cannot be, because those ideas originate in fantasies.  Even if we found some kind of creature that resembled our notion of a leprechaun, it would not be a leprechaun.  It would be something which coincidentally matches our fantasy, which is by definition nonexistent.

What exactly would be so bad about accepting that leprechauns don't exist? Like, do you burst into flames if you're wrong or something?

I guess it is not that, I just want to try to come as close to truth as I can. And I agree that truth is acordance with reality, but where I am having trouble is that it is does not seem possible to experience all of reality, therefore I am having a hard time completely rejecting the existence of...leperchauns. While the technical definition is logically contradictory, how am I to be sure that it is not based on an experience from reality. Is this what is meant when it is sadi that it would not in fact be a leperchaun?

I say this, because I really want to except the epistemology supported here, but I also do not want to just except it without destroying all of the objections I have to it. Sorry if this is annoying.

The form of the argument, not the contents. The form of the argument, not the contents.

Is the statement "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' objectively true? Put another way, is the statement "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" evidentiary? If he says 'yes', then his argument self-detonates (because it's evidentiary, by his own argument the absence of evidence countering it does not mean there isn't any, and thus the truth value of his statement can be disregarded), OR if he says 'no', then he's saying he's wrong.

Does that make sense?

Why would anything that exists fail to leave behind evidence of some kind? If there is no evidence for god (or whatever), then belief in it is admittedly baseless. This person is playing a game with you and trying to shove the burden of proof on to you.

For instance, if you tell me there is no evidence for puff the magic dragon, and I say, "Oh yeah? Well absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," I would be trying to say to you that you've failed to disprove the existence of puff with your "there's no evidence" argument. But, in reality, your pointing out there's no reason to believe in puff is not an attempt at a disproof of puff's actual existence. It's just meant to point out that I have failed to prove the existence of puff.

Dave Bockman:

The form of the argument, not the contents. The form of the argument, not the contents.

Is the statement "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' objectively true? Put another way, is the statement "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" evidentiary? If he says 'yes', then his argument self-detonates (because it's evidentiary, by his own argument the absence of evidence countering it does not mean there isn't any, and thus the truth value of his statement can be disregarded), OR if he says 'no', then he's saying he's wrong.

Does that make sense?

eulercircles:

Why would anything that exists fail to leave behind evidence of some kind? If there is no evidence for god (or whatever), then belief in it is admittedly baseless. This person is playing a game with you and trying to shove the burden of proof on to you.

For instance, if you tell me there is no evidence for puff the magic dragon, and I say, "Oh yeah? Well absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," I would be trying to say to you that you've failed to disprove the existence of puff with your "there's no evidence" argument. But, in reality, your pointing out there's no reason to believe in puff is not an attempt at a disproof of puff's actual existence. It's just meant to point out that I have failed to prove the existence of puff.

I would say that just because there isn't any evidence now, it does not mean that there was not, at one time, evidence, which the original claim was based on.

I will predict a reply: Why would I believe this, since there is no evidence for this claim?

Leprechaun populations dwindled when governments abandoned the Gold Standard.  It's been downhill for them ever since.

No, but seriously I think the statement is objectively false.  Change it to "absence of evidence = evidence of absence" and it's true. Otherwise that argument allows for an infinite creation of imaginary entitites each of which must be given the same creedence to whomever hears the idea.  You sit there can make up things off the top of your head and everyone must repsect them.

So you could point at a blank wall and say, "Look, there's a giant spider!"  And when we use all our senses and spider detectors and come up with jack squat on the spider front, then that's "evidence of absence" on the claim that there's a giant spider on the wall.  There's no damn spider.  This gets even more ridiculous when you consider that religious claims are largely untestable in the first place.  Why bother?  See Carl Sagan's "Invisible Dragon" story in  the book The Demon Haunted World for a more thorough example.  I admit it just feels weird because the 'evidence' = nothing.  It's nicer when evidence means something more tangible than nothing.

nathanm:

Leprechaun populations dwindled when governments abandoned the Gold Standard.  It's been downhill for them ever since.

No, but seriously I think the statement is objectively false.  Change it to "absence of evidence = evidence of absence" and it's true. Otherwise that argument allows for an infinite creation of imaginary entitites each of which must be given the same creedence to whomever hears the idea.  You sit there can make up things off the top of your head and everyone must repsect them.

So you could point at a blank wall and say, "Look, there's a giant spider!"  And when we use all our senses and spider detectors and come up with jack squat on the spider front, then that's "evidence of absence" on the claim that there's a giant spider on the wall.  There's no damn spider.  This gets even more ridiculous when you consider that religious claims are largely untestable in the first place.  Why bother?  See Carl Sagan's "Invisible Dragon" story in  the book The Demon Haunted World for a more thorough example.  I admit it just feels weird because the 'evidence' = nothing.  It's nicer when evidence means something more tangible than nothing.

I do not see why the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence, because there could be evidence for something (not specific to god, but anything) that someone has experienced, but has no means to recreate or prove their experience. Just because there is not current evidence doesn't seem to prove absence to me.

Again, I am not trying to disprove anything you are saying, but asking for help clearing it up for my understanding.

No, we can't prove our internal thoughts or experiences to other people, but only external phenomenon or beings which have the possibility of being observed by two or more people.  God is a claim for an external entity, it's not just an emotion or feeling that people have.  Religious people do talk a lot about their internal feelings, but there's also plenty of talk which is clearly in regards to a real person.

If you claim to have seen Bigfoot in the woods last night we can't say that your experience is 100% impossible, but we can find plenty of reasons why it's probable that you actually didn't see such a creature.

Pookiemoose:

I would say that just because there isn't any evidence now, it does not mean that there was not, at one time, evidence, which the original claim was based on.

I will predict a reply: Why would I believe this, since there is no evidence for this claim?

If there was evidence then the belief would be one that is in fact based on evidence. But if someone wants to convince you I would guess they would need to provide the evidence now for you to see so you can evaluate it and form the belief just as they had. That is, unless you don't care so much for evidence and just want to take their word for it.

But when it comes to God there was never any such evidence, and so they did not form their belief based on an objective evaluation of evidence. They formed it when they were bullied by self-appointed authorities on the subject.

nathanm:

This gets even more ridiculous when you consider that religious claims are largely untestable in the first place.

That's exactly right, and that's where the debate should go and stay until the absurdity is made plain for all to see.

What Is God?

Believers Are Agnostics

Believers Are Agnostics (Part 2)

Pookiemoose:

 

I do not see why the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence,

It's not, but that is beside the point. When someone says "there's no evidence" for some claim they are not saying that therefore the claim is false. They are just saying that the person who is making the claim has failed to show it to be true. It might actually be true, but they have not made a proper case for it.

Now after all this you might have several arguments, evidence, counterexamples, etc that attempt to prove the claim false. Maybe you've pointed out some contradiction in the other's reasoning, and have shown the claim to be truly mistaken. If you do this then you now are saying that the forwarded claim is false. But that relies on these arguments, not merely on the absence of evidence.

eulercircles:

Pookiemoose:

 

I do not see why the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence,

It's not, but that is beside the point...

Sorry, I should have said that in conversations like that where someone brings up "absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" the point is irrelevant because that's not what's being claimed.