Arguing from negative proof

[4gold]

Several arguments are given in this forum from the position of negative proof:

[center]"God does not exist, because there is no proof of his existence."

"Evolution must be true, because there is no other theory that explains the evidence."

"Dark matter must exist, because there is no other way to explain the universe."[/center]

And then there are logical inferences we all make from the absence of evidence, or else we couldn't have arguments, such as:

[center]"Mathematics is consistent, even though its consistency cannot be proven."

"The scientific method is reliable, even though its reliability cannot be proven."

"The laws of logic are rational, even though its rationality cannot be proven."

"The rules of morality are the same for you and me, even though the rules cannot be agreed upon."[/center]

My questions are:

How convinced should we be by arguments made by negative evidence?

Is there any way, other than Bayesian inference, to interpret the validity of arguments made by negative evidence?

[QED]

Several arguments are given in this forum from the position of negative proof:

[center]"God does not exist, because there is no proof of his existence."

"Evolution must be true, because there is no other theory that explains the evidence."

"Dark matter must exist, because there is no other way to explain the universe."[/center]

Whoever gave those arguments should be taken out and shot (it wasn't me was it? :nervious: )

We could say that (the existence of) God has a very low probability because the only evidence we have is inconclusive and is better understood as arising from other natural causes.

We could say that Evolution has a high probability of being true, because the theory explains the evidence, suggests a mechanism that's know to exist and can be modeled and shown to generate the appearance of intelligent design.

As for dark matter, it's never been in quite the same league. It mostly depends on supernova observations which are currently being re-evaluated according to this week's edition of New Scientist.

[ST_JB]

Several arguments are given in this forum from the position of negative proof:

[center]"God does not exist, because there is no proof of his existence."

"Evolution must be true, because there is no other theory that explains the evidence."

"Dark matter must exist, because there is no other way to explain the universe."[/center]

Whoever gave those arguments should be taken out and shot (it wasn't me was it? :nervious: )

We could say that (the existence of) God has a very low probability because the only evidence we have is inconclusive and is better understood as arising from other natural causes.

This is a wrong argument.

if it is inconclusive then it cannot be considered as evidence. Evidence must be conclusive to support its claim. Otherwise it will only vanished into thin air.

We could say that Evolution has a high probability of being true, because the theory explains the evidence, suggests a mechanism that's know to exist and can be modeled and shown to generate the appearance of intelligent design.

if this will be taken as a scientific evidence, then this could be false.

For it is not possible to use scientific techniques to verify this claim... this is unverifiable.

No one has ever observed evolution.

[Goat]

Several arguments are given in this forum from the position of negative proof:

[center]"God does not exist, because there is no proof of his existence."

"Evolution must be true, because there is no other theory that explains the evidence."

"Dark matter must exist, because there is no other way to explain the universe."[/center]

Whoever gave those arguments should be taken out and shot (it wasn't me was it? :nervious: )

We could say that (the existence of) God has a very low probability because the only evidence we have is inconclusive and is better understood as arising from other natural causes.

This is a wrong argument.

if it is inconclusive then it cannot be considered as evidence. Evidence must be conclusive to support its claim. Otherwise it will only vanished into thin air.

We could say that Evolution has a high probability of being true, because the theory explains the evidence, suggests a mechanism that's know to exist and can be modeled and shown to generate the appearance of intelligent design.

if this will be taken as a scientific evidence, then this could be false.

For it is not possible to use scientific techniques to verify this claim... this is unverifiable.

No one has ever observed evolution.

Well, b.. yes, evolution has been observed. There are observed cases of speciation. We have seen the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria, just as the TOE predicted. To say that evolution has not been observed is to be ignorant.
I suspect it is 'willfully ignorant'.

[MrWhy]

Several arguments are given in this forum from the position of negative proof:

[center]"God does not exist, because there is no proof of his existence."

"Evolution must be true, because there is no other theory that explains the evidence."

"Dark matter must exist, because there is no other way to explain the universe."[/center]

And then there are logical inferences we all make from the absence of evidence, or else we couldn't have arguments, such as:

[center]"Mathematics is consistent, even though its consistency cannot be proven."

"The scientific method is reliable, even though its reliability cannot be proven."

"The laws of logic are rational, even though its rationality cannot be proven."

"The rules of morality are the same for you and me, even though the rules cannot be agreed upon."[/center]

My questions are:

How convinced should we be by arguments made by negative evidence?

Is there any way, other than Bayesian inference, to interpret the validity of arguments made by negative evidence?

Evolution is responsible for speciation. This is accepted as fact by almost all biologist, physicist, and the scientific community in general. It has been elevated above theory status because of the quality and quantity of evidence. Those that are not aware of this evidence need to do some reading. And not just "opposition to" reading.

Knowledge and certainty are two different concepts and should not be confused when evaluating any issue. We can recognize that a particular theory is the best available explanation of the known data, but never achieves 100% certainty. This should not be misinterpreted as saying we know nothing, and there's nothing to choose between that and some other idea that has less or no evidence. An accepted, or established theory means that any alternative to replace it is going to have to be better, explain more, predict more, fit the facts better. Lack of 100% certainty in a theory should not be a license to believe some other idea that has even less evidence.


"god does not exist" is a reasonable position because there's no evidence that one does, and there's plenty of evidence that people make them up.

"How convinced should we be by arguments made by negative evidence?"
Ideas fall into categories. Speculation, hypothesis, theory, fact/truth. With no evidence an idea would seem to be speculation. If there's a proposed method to test it, then maybe hypothesis, theories need evidence. For claims on important matters, skepticism is an appropriate response in the absence of evidence. If there is evidence in opposition to the claim, then disbelief is up. The existence of a god has never been demonstrated in any way. Not seen, touched, or heard in any verifiable way. Not measured in any scientific way. This alone would warrant at least a skeptical position on the god question. It is obvious that people have created many versions of the god idea, and none of the versions are the same. This positive evidence that gods are human inventions combined with the lack of evidence of existence would indicate disbelief is the reasonable position.

[QED]

Several arguments are given in this forum from the position of negative proof:

[center]"God does not exist, because there is no proof of his existence."

"Evolution must be true, because there is no other theory that explains the evidence."

"Dark matter must exist, because there is no other way to explain the universe."[/center]

Whoever gave those arguments should be taken out and shot (it wasn't me was it? :nervious: )

We could say that (the existence of) God has a very low probability because the only evidence we have is inconclusive and is better understood as arising from other natural causes.

This is a wrong argument.

if it is inconclusive then it cannot be considered as evidence. Evidence must be conclusive to support its claim. Otherwise it will only vanished into thin air.

ST_JB, I'm not sure which argument you think is wrong here. All evidence that has been presented for the existence of God so far has been inconclusive which is why the matter is still such a hot topic for debate several thousand years on.

We could say that Evolution has a high probability of being true, because the theory explains the evidence, suggests a mechanism that's know to exist and can be modeled and shown to generate the appearance of intelligent design.

if this will be taken as a scientific evidence, then this could be false.

For it is not possible to use scientific techniques to verify this claim... this is unverifiable.

No one has ever observed evolution.

Of course we have -- there are more extinct species than there are living. That alone amounts to evolution in common language. The question is what caused the changes we've seen in the varieties of flora and fauna. I'm puzzled by the way you seem to have contradicted yourself by saying "if this will be taken as a scientific evidence, then this could be false" -- which I would agree with entirely, but then straight after you say "For it is not possible to use scientific techniques to verify this claim... this is unverifiable."

Well, evolution by natural selection as a scientific theory is readily falsifiable, which is what gives it it's explanatory value. In other words, if it's the wrong explanation, then there are plenty of ways that we can find out. If you mean that it cannot be verified to the standards of absolute truth then no, you are right -- this is a standard that transcends all practical standards. I think it's fair to say though that this level of validation is of no practical benefit to us as it can never be attained in the real-world. Of course it's routinely attained in the spiritual world where it remains in a free-floating rationale largely immune from contact with physical reality.

[ST_JB]

Well, b.. yes, evolution has been observed. There are observed cases of speciation. We have seen the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria, just as the TOE predicted. To say that evolution has not been observed is to be ignorant.
I suspect it is 'willfully ignorant'.

I just hope that you have enough knowledge on the subject... to call me ignorant

I wonder why no one in this forum is calling the attention of Mr. Goat for his blatant stand on the subject...

Do you really believe that antibiotic (harmless bacteria) undergone biological evolution???

[Goat]

Well, b.. yes, evolution has been observed. There are observed cases of speciation. We have seen the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria, just as the TOE predicted. To say that evolution has not been observed is to be ignorant.
I suspect it is 'willfully ignorant'.

I just hope that you have enough knowledge on the subject... to call me ignorant

I wonder why no one in this forum is calling the attention of Mr. Goat for his blatant stand on the subject...

Do you really believe that antibiotic (harmless bacteria) undergone biological evolution???

Yes, I do. It is the very definition of evoluton. The change of alleles over time. In this case, the gene for antibiotic resistance is selected for. If you do not understand that, why, then you are building straw man arguments against evolution.

[ST_JB]

Evolution is responsible for speciation. This is accepted as fact by almost all biologist, physicist, and the scientific community in general. It has been elevated above theory status because of the quality and quantity of evidence. Those that are not aware of this evidence need to do some reading. And not just "opposition to" reading.

If evolutionists really spoke and wrote only about observable variation within kind, there would be no creation-evolution controversy. But as you know, textbooks, teachers, and television “docudramas” insist on extrapolating from simple variation within kind to the wildest sorts of evolutionary changes. And, of course, as long as they insist on such extrapolation, creationists will point out the limits to such change and explore creation, instead, as the more logical inference from our observations. All we have ever observed is what evolutionists themselves call “subspeciation” (variation within kind), never “transspeciation” (change from one kind to others).

Indeed, the study of biological classification was founded by Karl von Linne’ (Carolus Linnaeus) on the basis of his conscious and explicit Biblical belief that living things were created to multiply after kind, and that these created kinds could be rationally grouped in a hierarchical pattern reflecting themes and variations in the Creator’s mind.

Knowledge and certainty are two different concepts and should not be confused when evaluating any issue. We can recognize that a particular theory is the best available explanation of the known data, but never achieves 100% certainty. This should not be misinterpreted as saying we know nothing, and there's nothing to choose between that and some other idea that has less or no evidence. An accepted, or established theory means that any alternative to replace it is going to have to be better, explain more, predict more, fit the facts better. Lack of 100% certainty in a theory should not be a license to believe some other idea that has even less evidence.

I will not buy this kind of argument.

I know I'm a believer but that doesn't mean I am ignorant to science and development of new ideas in modern scientific studies. I also would want to assure that I am very well much comfortable with reason above anything else. I can communicate with non-believers without using the textbook of christian. I wonder if unbelievers can communicate without their textbook of science.

Theory is not considered as acceptable "truth" of a particular subject until proven to be "true" through defined scientific techniques and should be verifiable. If anyone has observed the evolution of a single cell bacteria to the simplest cell found in human body (note that only one cell of man is required not the whole new human being) ... then you have proven that evolution can be observed.

"god does not exist" is a reasonable position because there's no evidence that one does, and there's plenty of evidence that people make them up.

"How convinced should we be by arguments made by negative evidence?"
Ideas fall into categories. Speculation, hypothesis, theory, fact/truth. With no evidence an idea would seem to be speculation. If there's a proposed method to test it, then maybe hypothesis, theories need evidence. For claims on important matters, skepticism is an appropriate response in the absence of evidence. If there is evidence in opposition to the claim, then disbelief is up. The existence of a god has never been demonstrated in any way. Not seen, touched, or heard in any verifiable way. Not measured in any scientific way. This alone would warrant at least a skeptical position on the god question. It is obvious that people have created many versions of the god idea, and none of the versions are the same. This positive evidence that gods are human inventions combined with the lack of evidence of existence would indicate disbelief is the reasonable position.

The existence of God had been demonstrated and can be demonstrated actually through reason.

You believe in gravity but scientist can never have a physical proof of the source of this gravity nor an explanation as to how this gravity is produced or processed or whatever that produces such effects. We can only know its existence as to the its effects. Newton failed to provide us the physical evidence of gravity and how it works. The reality of gravity can only be proven to its effects.

This is the same with the existence of GOD.

[McCulloch]

The existence of God had been demonstrated and can be demonstrated actually through reason.

I think that I missed the post. Can you please point me to where that demonstration was done?

You believe in gravity but scientist can never have a physical proof of the source of this gravity nor an explanation as to how this gravity is produced or processed or whatever that produces such effects. We can only know its existence as to the its effects. Newton failed to provide us the physical evidence of gravity and how it works. The reality of gravity can only be proven to its effects.

This is the same with the existence of GOD.

No it is not. What we know about gravity can be quantified, measured and predicted with remarkable accuracy. What we know about God is entirely supposition.