If it can be, how can the "Absence of Evidence" be "Evidence of Absence?".

For one thing there is nothing to decay, These are forces not matter.
Matter decays in a sense that it can break down but does not decay into anything except the same elements in other configurations.ie:Rocks + weathering yields gravel, sand, silt, but the elements are still the same.Living things + decay mechanisms ie: bacteria, break down complex compounds to simpler compounds which go back into nature to be reused.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Nothing wrong with that. You have more information now then you did for your previous posts on this thread. No one can (reasonably) make any negative comments towards someone who restructures their opinion once they have new information. In fact, such a motion should garner respect. I completely agree. And I believe this is very similar to the position put forward by onifre as well. Of course, we must therefore also admit that the chances of a god existing (as described above) is equivalent to the chances of a glarnofeeb existing Personally, I don't believe in "God" (or "god", if there's a difference in your mind). However, I do believe in people and things like hope and passion and willpower. You could say I'm as much removed from the deist position of God as the deist is removed from any specific position of God.That is, the deist doesn't think a specific description of God is adequate (or possible). So they have a concept of a general God, general higher-power type thing. I take one step further back and think that adding the concept of God is unneccessary. We have our higher-powers and miracles and such residing within oursleves.For example:
Hope is a powerful idea. Some have hope in God, some have hope in justice, some have hope in their spouse or family. But they all have hope. Hope certainly exists, and it is independant of what the individual has hope in. Different people may obtain varying degrees of "personal power" by having hope in different things. What you have hope in doesn't matter too much (as long as you believe it ). What does matter, is that you have hope. I don't believe in God, I believe in the virtue of Hope.Or something like that.
(This blatently ripped off concluding disclaimer brought to you by the letter D and the number 4)

My issue with the absence of evidence being evidence of absence is not really knowing what evidence of absence is.I think part of the problem is the word 'evidence' being equivocated and/or conflated.Some have brought up the distinction between evidence and conclusive proof. Although I don't think we need the word "proof" in this thread at all.I'm going to use the word indication in place of 'evidence' as something that we can't really make a conclusion from to distinguish it from evidence that we can make a conclusion from.So, absence of evidence is an indication of absence but I don't think that absence of evidence is something that we can conclude absence from. And if we can't make a conclusion from it, then is it rightly being called evidence of absence? Or is it better described as an indication of absence?

The only meaningful way I can interpret what you ask is: "Why don't the laws of nature change, if left to themselves?" Well, if the only reason you have to suppose they would change is that everything else changes ("decays") too, then I would say you are making a category mistake. The laws of nature are not the sort of things that decay. We wouldn't call them "laws of nature" if they were. To repeat what I said before, you are presupposing that change is the natural state for everything, even for the laws of nature.^* I ask you: why can't constancy be the natural state? As far as the laws of nature are concerned, it's more parsimonious to simply suppose constancy, than to have to introduce an extra entity to keep change at bay. Not only do you have to explain the change itself, but also the existence of the extra entity. * It's a self-defeating proposition, by the way: if the Second Law of Thermodynamics - a law of nature - were susceptible to itself, then the only way it can go - to put it simply - is from "everything changes" to "not everything changes".To tie this in with the topic, what evidence do you have that it's not a team of Norse gods manning the interstellar gas station, instead of your particular deity?

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

"Indication" is a decent synonim. "Evidence" is really just one or more facts that support one hypothesis above others. It denotes an increased certainty above zero, but is not always necessarily sufficient to draw a conclusion - evidnece can support multiple hypotheses equally, in which case only a very general conclusion can be drawn (for example, an unidentified footprint supports only the conclusion that something with feet passed by this location).There are also multiple kinds of an absence of evidence. One is simply a lack of all facts. In a complete and utter absence of facts, all conclusions are simply raw speculations with no tie to reality. Obviously this form of an absence of evidence cannot be evidence for anything.The other is significantly different. An absence of evidence can be similar to our pen-desk model, where an absence of any observations supporting the presence of the pen despite searching does in fact support the absence of the pen above the presence of the pen. In this scenario, the absence of facts supporting the presence of the pen is the cumulative fact that supports the hypothesis that the pen is not present.It may seem like simple semantics, but "an empty desk" is not a positive observation, and this is an important distinction. The empty desk is itself a conclusion drawn from the absence of facts supporting objects resting on the desk. The "empty desk" is a derivative of the absence of evidence. The problem here is that you're using "conclusion" without any degree of tentativity.But all conclusions are tentative, some more than others.In the case of a pen-less desk, our conclusion carries little tentativity because we can easily search the entire desk.In the case of ghosts, gods and fairies, our conclusion from the absence of evidence must be extremely tentative - but we can still draw the conclusion. And as we search in more and more places for them, as we close the gaps of knowledge in which they hide, our tentativity decreases as well. We cannot prove that Apollo does not exist, but our degree of tentativity regarding his practice of driving the Sun across the sky is so low as to be zero. We cannot prove that Thor doesn't exist or "cause" lightning, but the presence of a demonstrably accurate natural explanation and Occam's Razor lead us to the conclusion that Thor either doesn't exist or is too busy fighting Frost Giants to interact meaningfully with Midgard.Let's try another example. If I claim to have been abducted by aliens (no, I'm not trying to be condescending or mocking, it's just an easy example), what would we do to verify my claim?We could search for signs of forced entry in my home, or try to detect abnormal radiation levels. We could examine me for signs of a recent examination, scan my body for any sort of implant or chip. We could ask neighbors to see if there were witnesses. We could set up video surveilance in case they returned.Obviously, if we find something unusual, perhaps an eyewitness, a bizarre burn pattern on my roof, an implanted object completely different from any known human device, and some radiation levels that are not explainable, we could tentatively start to believe me.But what if we find nothing? What if there is an absence of evidence supporting my claim? No radiation? No implant, no witnesses, no burn patterns, no signs of a struggle or forced entry, no signs of a recent medical examination?I contend that a reasonable person would understand that the burden of proof rests with the claimant, and without positive evidence to support an extraordinary claim, the tentative conclusion must be that the claim is likely false. The absence of evidence is itself a fact that supports falsification of the claim above verification. The absence of evidence is in fact evidence of absence - there was no abduction.We see this in science and law all the time. In the real world, we continually use the absence of evidence to draw a tentative conclusion of absence. If we test a medication and see no evidence that the medication has any effect, we use that absence of evidence as evidence of absence to draw the tentative conclusion that the medication just doesn;t work. If someone is accused of murder, but there is no body, no motive, the individuals never knew each other, no murder weapon, the absence of evidence leads us to the tentative conclusion that the accused did not commit murder.If I don't see a pen on my desk even though I've looked, I tentatively conclude that there is in fact no pen on my desk.Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. But like all evidence, an absence of evidence is not dead-certain proof, and the degree of tentativity of any conclusions drawn from an absence of evidence can range from the extremely high (do fairies exist) to the near-zero (there is no pen on my desk).

If there were an absolute vacuum of all evidence then the claim that a supernatural cause was just as likely as a non-supernatural cause might have some merit.The coin toss in question is not representative of gods randomly doing things. It is representative of the chances of us being right without evidence about what they might be doing. That is not what I meant. See above.However most religions (or those of religion) do seem to think that god is required to fill some sort of gap in our knowledge. Even if it is the gap that relates to why people believe in gods. And there can be little doubt that gap filling has been a primary reason for invoking gods in the past. Pretty much all gods were unknowable gap fillers in their time. We have just come to understand fertility, weather, seasons, tides, planetary motions etc. etc. etc. in such a way as to make these gods redundant. On what basis do we think any remaining gaps will fare differently?To be honset I had spent a fair amount of time in the pub on Sunday and having explained what I actually meant with the coin tossing thing here now I agree that it is a poor and confusing analogy. So feel free to ignore it.

No, I meant tentative conclusion.Absence of evidence is an indication of absence but I don't think that absence of evidence is something that we can tentatively conclude absence from. And if we can't make a tentative conclusion from it, then is it rightly being called evidence of absence? Or is it better described as an indication of absence?Does that change your response? I think that "despite searching" is the important qualifier.And that since we've searched we no longer have an absence of evidence....Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

But that doesn't preclude their existence or affect on those things. They won't. But that doesn't show gods not existing.

Did I ever say, or have I ever said, that it did?But how many fertility gods, weather gods, sea gods, moon gods, Sun gods etc. etc. etc. do you believe in CS? Do you think doubting the existence of these very specific god concepts (Thor, Apollo, Scarab, Eostre, Isis, Freyr, Ra etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.) as very unlikely to actually exist is evidentially justified? Or are you claiming we should all seriously consider these particular concepts as likely to be real? When are we going to get past this eternal conflation of knowing with believing and of proof with evidence? Yet again, I didn't say that it did.But I believe in the gods of those existing gaps little more than I suspect the average person here believes that Thor is overseeing thunderstorms. Yet you tell me this is evidentially unjustified.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

While there is no evidence that no god of any kind exists, there is plenty evidence against and plenty of gaps in the Christian conception of God (not to mention all the philosophical problems with the dogma). And quite honestly, even if the Christian God did exist in the form stated, then I still wouldn't follow Christianity or worship him.The "absence of evidence" argument is used against legitimate science all the time. "What caused the Big Bang?" We don't know, but that doesn't nullify all the evidence that proves the theory to at least be partially correct. Same with evolution. While we can't prove macro-evolution to be true (due to an incomplete fossil record due to the rarity of fossilization) it doesn't discount the theory.

you cant really say that because scientists still dont fully know what gravity is and what it is made ofit could be particals for all we know. yes i undertsand that, but if that were to happen to gravity, then life would not exist. If gravity were only slightly stronger, life would not exist and if it were weaker life would not exist.

it is not at all satisfying to me to know that everything in the universe is seen to break down, but with regard to the very things that make life possible, they are an exception to the rule which do not.There must be a reason why they don't because constancy is not the natural state of the world we live in. Everything breaks down. If I build a house and come back in 50 years time, its structure would be weaker and its walls will be craking.Everythign breaks down. the God of the bible has communicated with mankind and proved who he was, if the norse gods did this, i'd probably go following them.

So this is proof that life can't exist anywhere but earth? No planet with a gravity other than that which we enjoy here on earth could possibly support life?Why should we believe a word of this, given your track record when making pronouncements about science?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Hi Peg, A bigger problem for science is to explain why gravity exists at all - all they can attempt is to explain how it appears to work (and even there they have problems with anomalies), but the big question is why did gravity emerge in this universe.Without it, nothing as we know it would exist.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

thank youtell that to Coyote...he's having a problem with it