Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence

You haven't looked for God though, when and how did it happen?

Man Emma Roberts is such a pugfuggly skelly skank. Delete this shit.

nice try

Science has looked everywhere from the subatomic level to to origins of life to the ends of the observable universe and has found no evidence at all.

Prove me wrong.

>*to the origins

Really, now, don't be obtuse.

No evidence that he was anything more than a butthurt nobody bastard child whose only accomplishment in life was getting himself executed.

>Prove me wrong.
That's not how it works.
I have already made my point and you have yet to refute it without adding assumptions of your own.

What assumption did I allegedly add?

there isn't even solid evidence that he ever existed.
He's a fairy tale

>Assuming ....

lol and how is finding no evidence not an absence of evidence?

Science has never endeavored to find God.

Okay but that's besides the point, because it has found no evidence of god either way.

it is. But that's not the point. The point is that the absence of evidence is not evidence for absence. Contrary to OP's assertion.

That's fucking stupid. Some things are more nuanced and complex than that

So, just so we're clear, you're saying the following:

1. Someone finds a dark cave and comes up with a hypothesis that it contains a hibernating grizzly.
2. They look inside with a flashlight and find no evidence that it contains a hibernating grizzly (e.g. no hibernating grizzly in sight, no smells, no fur, no animal droppings, no remains of food, no pawprints, etc.).
3. This IS absence of evidence of a hibernating grizzly BUT it isn't evidence of absence of a hibernating grizzly.

No.

no

1) someone finds a cave and see's no evidence of a bear.

That's it. That is NOT evidence for absence

The 2) came from thsi post: , not mine

Its not besides the point and your lack of academic formation is showing, God has more dimensions than humans, so its going to be very hard for humans to perceive God.
Humans are 3d while God is going to be much more higher, so show me your interdimensional exploration device.

Sure it is, but we're not going to agree.

Would you agree that the situation in is evidence of absence?

>Turn on tv and console
>videogames no less
>very advanced ai
>I start humping other videogame characters
>a fucking massacre
>"he's posessed by the player" says vidya priest
>they start praying to the programmer
>"ave programmers, gratia plena"
>Character with fedora appears and says I'm a fairytale and I don't exist
>teachs ingame science
>uses badly anti aliased microscope
>Digs polygonal landscape and a cutscene shows dinosaur bones
>everybody is convinced
>3000 points of experience
>levels up and puts all points into gentlemanry

No because the 3rd point is worded wrong in order to get the desired effect.
the conclusion to draw from 2) is that you have evidence of absence.

>your lack of academic formation is showing
ntg, but don't fool yourself kid. All your "academic" reasoning is based on one hell of a dogma. And all you do circle jerk back around the thesis: God is real because, well I just he was

Not even Sokal-tier

What dogma, my belief is based on a series of experiences I lived through which I deduced the true religion is a gnostic variant with heaven and hell, I don't even know how this variant of gnosticism should be called as I don't even know the dogma but focus on my experiences.

See also:

Misquoted, meant to link at this example

define evidence

>the conclusion to draw from 2) is that you have evidence of absence
Ok great.

So we can at least agree then on the more limited statement: *in some cases* absence of evidence is evidence of absence?

In that case, what are those cases?

hmmm, maybe.... not sure

In the case of the cave and the bear you specifically excluded the presence of a bear by examining the evidence. You found rocks and dust and water and such, but no hairs and feaces etc. To me that is evidence of absence.
If go at this from an absence of evidence angel, you could say there was NO hairs, NO feaces, etc. And therefor NO evidence. I.e. evidence of absence.

But... you also found NO laptop, NO sex doll, No cheese burger, NO bible, NO etc etc.
Where's the limit?

>I.e. evidence of absence.
meant absence of evidence

This shit is confusing

I found God in the beauty of life

>Where's the limit?
Well it's limited by our hypothesis which in this case is 'a hibernating grizzly' and we can reason that laptops, sex dolls, cheeseburgers, and bibles aren't something that a grizzly would generally have with them so the absence of those things are irrelevant to our inquiry.

If however our hypothesis was a '/pol/lack is in the cave' the absence of a sex doll, laptop, bible, and fast food would be relevant and thus absence of evidence and thus evidence of absence.

>beauty of life
Meaningless term.

sure. everything is evidence, really. i don't really even know what the word 'proof' means. i think it just means, 'agreement' nowadays.

>prove me wrong
Oh, if only your post were ironic, you'd be kind of funny. As it is, an absence of anything is just that, an absence.

In a round about way you're kind of right. You're trying to say 0=1 (where 0 is nothing and 1 is something) when actually 0=1-1. That's the only relationship 1 and 0 have to one another.

>provides no evidence
It's out there and you can accept it or not hurt durr. There's nothing to accept so far as anyone has tried to explain or "reveal" it.

The only way in which it would be considered evidence of a -lack- of one is if first you could prove that the cave came into being with a hibernating bear in it, but now does not house a hibernating bear.

this is he most ridiculous thing I've read in all my life

>Hurrrr nobody even knows what eveidence means.
But you still get what we're talking about, let's not digress.

Evidence is something you must seek out.

If what you say is true then I can use my own laziness to research something as evidence against its existence.

>somebody tells me there is a HUGE shit on my bed
>i look
>there's no shit anywhere
>no smell
>no pile
>nothing
is this evidence of absence or absence of evidence?

If someone says the cup is half empty, that's because it was once full and is now not. If they say it's half full that's because it was empty and has now been partially filled.

There is only really an absence of something if it was once there. It's why Zizek says that only ex christians can really be atheist. Until god has been real to you, as real as your hand in front of your face, and then not real, about as not real as the tooth fairy, then you do not have the point of reference within your mind and experiences to say that you are now atheist.

Until such a time god exists as a foreign concept. It is at that point that you cease to be agnostic because god HAS existed and no longer does. That belief has been done away with and while the possibility for another, similar god to exist in your mind is still there, that unbelief cannot be turned.

All serious scholars agree he existed.

>all serious scholars agree he existed
>no citation, purely conjecture

>there isn't even solid evidence that he ever existed.

there also isn't any solid evidence that alexander the great ever existed but i bet you believe he did

>Is too lazy too google
>Not knowing this already

Good to know Veeky Forums is full of morons.

>believing it's someone else's job to prove him right

>Spouts unsubstantiated bullshit with no citation
>Gets mad when someone else doesn't spoonfeed him

Wew.

DELETE THIS

And you say I'm mad? Oh I'm cool, studying religion at Yale. I come here for shits and giggles, I have real professors to talk to when I want to learn.

Sure you are buddy.

Those the same people telling you "there's no solid evidence he existed?"

They're obviously doing a poor job of teaching you.

>Oh I'm cool, studying religion at Yale.

>all serious scholars agree he existed
That is true
That is also an argument from authority

If you research the sources yourself you very quickly see that there are only a few sources that mention Jesus. And they are all secondary (at best)

There is NOT ONE PRIMARY source for the existence Jesus.

>inb4 muh bible

>all serious scholars agree he existed
>That is true

It's not entirely true, they're small in number but there's a few kicking about. Part of the problem is that entire field is largely stuffed full of bible bashing Christians rather than unbiased scholars.

I will gladly admit that Alexander is imaginary and that he never really existed.

Your turn....

>There is NOT ONE PRIMARY source for the existence Jesus.
True.

>That is also an argument from authority
True, except an argument from authority is valid in inductive arguments.

agreed

>Part of the problem is that entire field is largely stuffed full of bible bashing Christians rather than unbiased scholars.

...

>except an argument from authority is valid in inductive arguments.
wut? No nigga, you just making shit up now

Look it up. It's invalid in deductive arguments.

Jesus failed to fulfill almost every messianic prophecy and came up with some failed prophecies of his own, this generation will not pass away, etc

It's overwhelmingly true, in fact many would even get fired if they question the accuracy of the bible in anyway.

patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2011/11/08/christian-nt-scholar-and-apologist-michael-licona-loses-job-after-questioning-matthew-27/

>Look it up
cant find it
probably beacuse its bull shit

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

>can only strongly suggest what is true -- not prove it.
next

Right. It's called inductive reasoning.

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reasoning

...

Science can only strongly suggest what is true, not prove it.

"Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

Prove me wrong."

I destroyed all the evidence that I was at a crime scene so it's evidence that I was never there.

Does that mean I wasn't there?

>I will gladly admit that Alexander is imaginary and that he never really existed.

that's a stupid and irrational thing to do

Look at the pic he posted

>Most historians who study christ's era and location are christians
>Therefore he existed
This is why humanities are a joke

That doesn't make OP not gay. He wants to bait people who are hetero to this thread while being a mo himself.

There is no solid evidence for this claim :^)

This.

>absence of something (nothing) is evidence (something)
>nothing is something
youre retarded

"Absence of evidence" is ambiguous
(1) Having investigated and found no evidence for P is some evidence against P--if the investigation was well-done, thorough, reasonable, relevant, etc.; there's a spectrum: depending on how good the investigation was, having found no evidence for P can be either (a) conclusive evidence against P, down through just good evidence, to moderate evidence, to weak evidence, to negligible or misleading evidence (but still evidence), or finally (b) no evidence at all.
(2) Not having investigated and thus having found neither evidence for P nor evidence against P of the type mentioned above is not evidence for or against anything.
The statement "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" is false in cases (2) and (1.b) but true in case (1.a), though still possibly quite irrelevant in that case.
That should be enough to prove you wrong, OP.