Absence of evidence

[mwtech]

I saw a video by the Amazing Atheist on YouTube and I think he brought up an interesting point. I won't link to the video on this forum because he certainly does not maintain a level of civility and etiquette that we appreciate on this forum, but he is easy to find on YouTube if you wish to do so.

On the issue of proving God's existence, many Christians take the approach of, "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Is that really a valid approach to take? Here is the example credited to the Amazing Atheist:

You have just returned home from running errands and your neighbors runs up to you and tells you that an elephant just ran through your house. You would expect to see some evidence of this. You might see huge footprints in the yard, you would see lots of broken appliances and a huge mess where the elephant walked through the living room, you would probably even find a pile of the elephant's excrement left behind. If you do not see any sign that the elephant has been in your house, it would be ridiculous to believe that it was actually there. In this case, the absence of evidence is very certainly evidence of absence.

Why should the case be any different when discussing something much, much bigger than an elephant? God is even more likely to leave behind noticeable evidence of his involvement in humanity and creation. When someone makes an unfalsifiable claim, like the universe being created by God, the burden of proof lies on the person making the assertion. And if there is an absence of evidence, there is reason to believe that God is absent as well.

[EduChris]

...Non-theism is not a positive position. Non-theism or atheism doesn't assert "there is no God", it is simply the lack of the claim "there is a God"...

This appears to be a purely semantic ploy. If what's good for the goose is just as good for the gander, the theist can then similarly argue that "theism is the lack of the claim that our universe and our selves are best explained via strictly impersonal means."

...One can simply take a theistic explanation, and remove God. That creates a simpler explanation of equal explanatory power...

Again I see the assertion, but I see no objective evidence or rational argument. How do you know that anything viable remains after arbitrarily ruling out personal agency? What non-circular evidence do you have that personal agency can arise from strictly impersonal means?

...One should not postulate unnecessary entities - it lies with the theists to demonstrate God's necessity.

Theists do not postulate an "entity"; rather, theists start with the view that our universe and our selves are best thought of (barring evidence to the contrary) as deriving from processes which are not less than personal. Non-theists, by contrast, begin with the opposing view that our universe and our selves are best thought of (barring evidence to the contrary) as deriving from processes which are strictly impersonal. Logically speaking, there is no difference in the structure of, or the number of assumptions entailed by, these two mutually exclusive viewpoints.

[mwtech]

...Non-theism is not a positive position. Non-theism or atheism doesn't assert "there is no God", it is simply the lack of the claim "there is a God"...

This appears to be a purely semantic ploy. If what's good for the goose is just as good for the gander, the theist can then similarly argue that "theism is the lack of the claim that our universe and our selves are best explained via strictly impersonal means."

This is not semantics. There is a dictionary definition to these terms, just like there is for every word in the entire forum. That doesn't make every argument one of semantics. Your lack of belief in the claim that "our universe and our selves are best explained via strictly impersonal means you are against the anti-theism belief. Atheism is something different, and does not make that claim. There is no claim in atheism for you to have an antithesis to. If I say I don't believe there are unicorns, are you going to say that I am saying there is no such thing as unicorns and that I have to prove it? That unicorn believers just lack the claim that there are no unicorns and non-believers have the burden of proof? Because if you did, I would laugh at you for being ridiculous, as would everyone else who does not believe in unicorns.

...One can simply take a theistic explanation, and remove God. That creates a simpler explanation of equal explanatory power...

Again I see the assertion, but I see no objective evidence or rational argument. How do you know that anything viable remains after arbitrarily ruling out personal agency? What non-circular evidence do you have that personal agency can arise from strictly impersonal means?

This is the beauty of science. We do have hypotheses about other origins, and even though they aren't proven, we're okay with that. Just because we don't have solid proof for a single theory of origin doesn't mean we should pretend to know that we have proof for the origin. That is what theists do, and there is no reason for it other than the desire to stop looking for answers.

...One should not postulate unnecessary entities - it lies with the theists to demonstrate God's necessity.

Theists do not postulate an "entity"; rather, theists start with the view that our universe and our selves are best thought of (barring evidence to the contrary) as deriving from processes which are not less than personal. Non-theists, by contrast, begin with the opposing view that our universe and our selves are best thought of (barring evidence to the contrary) as deriving from processes which are strictly impersonal. Logically speaking, there is no difference in the structure of, or the number of assumptions entailed by, these two mutually exclusive viewpoints.

Theists do postulate and entity. That's the whole point of theism. Theism is the belief in a supernatural creative entity that has a personal relationship with its creations. Non-theists, on the other hand, believe that we don't have reason to think that. This is all we believe. It is then up to an individual what hypothesis they think is best, but most would not tell you that one or the other is definitively true. An Anti-theist would claim that there is no god and the universe absolutely came about by processes which are strictly impersonal. Due to a lack of definite proof, we would both disagree with them. That certainly doesn't make me believe you, though.

Atheism is not just another theory to describe the origin of all things. It makes no assumptions other than that we shouldn't base our lives on an assumption.

[Zzyzx]

.

...non-theism is simpler for equal explanatory power...

I see this assertion repeatedly on this forum and others, but I have never seen any actual evidence or any logical argument to support the assertion.

What is "simpler" about the assumption that our universe and our selves derive from "stuff and processes" which are strictly impersonal? What non-circular evidence can you provide to support the view that personal agency can arise from strictly impersonal means?

Rather than searching for the simplest answer would it not be more prudent to search for a CORRECT answer?

Simple or simplistic answers do not come with a guarantee of accuracy.

The most accurate / correct answer to god questions is, in my opinion, "I don't know" (and neither does anyone else). Many profess or pretend to know a great deal about invisible, undetectable, proposed supernatural entities; however, their evidence is scant to non-existent (i.e., they don't know -- only guess, believe, emote, etc).

[EduChris]

...Theists do postulate and entity. That's the whole point of theism...

Theism and non-theism are alternate, mutually exclusive worldviews. They hold in common the idea that there is "something which cannot not exist." This "something which cannot not exist" is responsible for the existence of our universe and our selves. Unless we want to postulate the science-defeating notion that "something can come from absolute nothing," we are all bound to believe that the existence of our universe and our selves entails that something exists by necessity.

Theism and non-theism differ according to their understanding of this "necessarily existing something." Granted, we all understand that the "necessarily existing something" entails causation, but that's where the differences begin. Non-theism assumes that impersonal causation is primary, and that personal causation is either an illusion, or else at best a secondary phenomenon completely dependent on impersonal causation. Theism, by contrast, refuses to arbitrarily dismiss personal causation; theists view non-theism's assumption of "strictly impersonal causation" as arbitrary and unprovable.

So neither side makes any unwarranted assumptions, but non-theism arbitrarily excludes or denies the most real thing that any of us can ever know--the thing by which we comprehend and analyze and filter all rational arguments: personal agency.

[mwtech]

...Theists do postulate and entity. That's the whole point of theism...

Theism and non-theism are alternate, mutually exclusive worldviews. They hold in common the idea that there is "something which cannot not exist."

No, Theism and anti-theism are two alternate, mutually exclusive worldviews. Atheism takes the middle ground. There is no evidence, so I will continue to not believe. This is the exact same debate that is going on in the "Good reasons to believe" sub-forum. So please, stop trying to tell me what my beliefs are. I am telling you that I am not an anti-theist. I am not a theist either. I am an atheist. If you want to debate the semantics of atheism, there is a forum for that too.

[EduChris]

...stop trying to tell me what my beliefs are...

If you subscribe to the notion that personal causation may be excluded or ignored unless and until some further evidence (other than the evidence of our universe and our selves) is adduced, then your world view is non-theistic. There may be be multiple variations of non-theistic world views, and no two non-theists will like agree on all the particulars of their respective beliefs; nevertheless, theistic world views all start with the contrary position that personal agency--the most real thing any if us can ever know--must not be arbitrarily excluded or ignored.

Theism and non-theism are, in this respect, flip sides of the same coin.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 21 by Jashwell]
They are each topics in their own right. In terms of this thread they were sufficient for my purposes.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 25 by Zzyzx]

Opinion noted. Absence of supporting evidence noted. Those who wish to see "design" see design. Those not predisposed toward a "designer" do not see evidence of design.

So what your saying is that you can't tell the different between an animal, mineral and vegetable? Or how do you tell the difference? How do you decide whether something is a lump of metal or a car?

Opinion noted. However, those without a "god" are not without morality. Societies develop "morality" (codes of behavior) with or without "gods" AND evidence of influence by gods in development of morality has not been demonstrated.

Not believing in God doesn't make you immoral, so that isn't a relevant reply. Your view that societies develop morality means that morality is subjective and therefore not real. I have never understood why atheists can so easily identify imaginary gods but still cling to other imaginary concepts like morality? Have you given that any thought and got any answers for me?

Opinion noted. Believers in competing "gods" may have a different opinion.

I created that trilemma thread. Any believers of other gods are welcome to chime in.

Opinion noted. However, the rise of "civilization" is far better documented than the existence of Christianity " and for far longer. Christianity is just one of thousands of competing religions.

It's hardly an opinion here. The bible is the strongest historical document we have.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconte ... article=91

Opinion noted. Is it "the most rational position" to believe that donkeys and snakes converse with humans, that dead bodies come back to life after days in the grave, that the Earth stops rotating so favored armies can slaughter enemies, that virgins give birth, that a star stops over a birthplace, that water magically turns into wine, that the Earth was flooded "to the tops of mountains" (requiring one billion cubic miles of water and thirty feet of rainfall per hour per square foot of Earth surface, that gospel writers truthfully and accurately recorded events that they cannot be shown to have witnessed decades or generations earlier, etc?

A talking donkey is something that I believe because I believe the bible. I am not forced to expect all donkey's talk. That is why I cam claim I have faith in the bible and rationality. But really what ground can anyone who believes in subjectivity (which I assume from your view on morality) claim to believe in rationality?

Subjectivity is qua irrationality.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 47 by Wootah]

None of them were evidenced sufficiently. Though there is another thread if you think you have good reasons for theism.

So what your saying is that you can't tell the different between an animal, mineral and vegetable? Or how do you tell the difference? How do you decide whether something is a lump of metal or a car?

This doesn't remotely relate to design...
A car has four wheels. A lump of metal probably doesn't. (Though a car can be a lump of metal, it usually has more to it than metal)
A vegetable consists of largely organic matter and grows on plants. An animal doesn't. A mineral is usually inorganic. There are many ways to tell the difference, design isn't one of them.

Not believing in God doesn't make you immoral, so that isn't a relevant reply. Your view that societies develop morality means that morality is subjective and therefore not real. I have never understood why atheists can so easily identify imaginary gods but still cling to other imaginary concepts like morality? Have you given that any thought and got any answers for me?

Morality can be universal, or alternatively group/society wide, not subjective in the same sense.
Certainly better than a subjective morality based on an individual - e.g. a god.

It's hardly an opinion here. The bible is the strongest historical document we have.

Depends what you mean by strongest historical document. It is probably one of the least unaltered that's still been contemporary for the past 1500 years, it's almost certainly not representative of reality and certainly not the most unaltered. (Obviously texts that have been lost in their time and discovered in recent times are entirely unaltered)