Absence of evidence is evidence of absence

[Shikihe]

Very often stuff like this happens:

Somebody says "Kim, you are mistaken!", but no valid reasons are given.
Somebody says "God exists", but no valid reasons are given.
Somebody says "People are healed!", but there are no valid healings.

In all these cases, it is correct to become more certain that whatever
it is that is said, is wrong. The lack of evidence confirms that the
saying is wrong.

Many people have an intuitive understanding that this is valid. Many
know that it is valid through experience. Many believe it is pure
nonsense. A few know why it is valid.

I will below give an overview over a proof for the validity of
arguments like this, with Bayesian statistics. (Jump over it if you
want to).

Suppose that A <- B

The probability of event A is P(A)

One observes lack of B, that is !B

What is now the probability of A now that we know that B lacks? P( A | !B )

The usual is that P( A | !B ) = P( A & !B ) / ( P( A & !B ) + P( !A & !B ) )

Since A <- B, then P( !A & B ) = 0
which again means that P( !A & !B ) = P(!A) - P( !A & B ) = P(!A) - 0

This results in
P( A | !B ) = P( A & !B ) / ( P( A & !B ) + P(!A) )
</=
( P( A & B ) + P( A & !B ) ) / ( P( A & B ) + P( A & !B ) + P(!A) ) = P(A)

( "</=" is "less or equal" )


The conclusion is:

P( A | !B ) </= P(A)

If one in addition assumes that P(B) < 1, then one gets

P( A | !B ) < P(A)


You who jumped over the math can start reading again here.

Ergo, the conclusion is that every time one do not se it,
then it is more likely to be untrue.

So every time somebody claims that people can levitate, but one do not
see any levitating people, then one shall increase once confidence
that people do not levitate.

And every time one do not see signs of small green men living in the
radiator, then one shall be surer that they do not exist.

And every time one do not see valid evidence of Gods existence,
one shall become surer that God do not exist.

Simply because this is the right way to think, just like 2+2=4.

This is the reason for why people with claims should justify their
cleims themselves. Because if one claims something without evidence,
that is evidence of being wrong.

Kim0 2004-8-17

Source: Moving a Linux Partition

[shintenzu]

The idea is somewhat correct in certain situations but the analogies are very flawed. The writer is using a fairly valid theory to support an invalid one so let me explain.

First you must know the meaning of evidence. Evidence and proof are VERY different things, as evidence will hint towards something but still leaves a certain amount of reasonable doubt while proof will make a statement, idea, or theory irrefuteable without any room for reasonable doubt. So as you can obviously tell, its hard to actually find PROOF, and slightly easier to find EVIDENCE.

With that said, all three statements at the very top of the quote can have evidence provided for it.

"Kim, you are mistaken!"
I give the evidence: I have found through personal experience that your analogy does not hold up. I have broken down the basic structure of your analogy and I here is why I feel it does not hold up. From a study of accurate anologies I have seen that your's misses a few important features

"God exists"
I give the evidence. Look at the complexity of the cosmos. Look at how intricate and definied DNA is and how it functions. Look at our eco system, how things balance out. Look at the earth's climate compared to any discovered planet and how it contains such precise conditions for life to thrive, the slightest difference in its position could spell the destruction of so much life. Look at the beauty of nature and all the things around you. How could this be all an accident?

"People are healed!"
Doctors have DOCUMENTED unexplainable recoveries. The news have explored these ducumented recoveries and found they where not hoaxes. People have witnessed with their own eyes unexplainable recoveries and have been validated by doctor reports and other witnesses.

All of the above I have provided "EVIDENCE" for, not nessecarily proof. There is still some reasonable doubt even after the evidence was provided, but does not change the fact that all the evidence above are valid reasons even if it does not proove my point 100%.

A more accurate analogy would be "Just because someone cannot provide evidence for a statement, does not mean no one else can"

[Shikihe]

Interesting reply shintenzu

"Kim, you are mistaken!"
I give the evidence: I have found through personal eperience that your analogy does not hold up. I have broken down the basic struicture of your analogy and I here is why I feel it does not hold up. From a study of accurate anologies I have seen that your misses a few important features

"God exists"
I give the evidence. Look at the complexity of the cosmos. Look at how intricate and definied out DNA is and how it functions. Look at our eco system, how things balance out. Look at the earth's climate compared to any discovered planet and how it contains such precise conditions for life to thrive, the slightest difference in its position could spell the destruction of so much life. Look at the beauty of nature and all the things around you. How could this be all an accident?

These do not sound like any evidence to me tho. These are more like your personal opinions. If someone asks you wether god exists or not and you answer like this there still is no evidence, its just what you think.

I might ask you a question "If the universe and our planet and DNA and such were created, why does it have to be god, it could have been somekind of super intelligent life from living in another galaxy, right? Furthermore if it was god, how do you know it was the exact god you believe in (which ever it is)?" <- See your evidence doesnt really help, it just creates more questions which are even harder to answer.

[shintenzu]

Originally Posted by Shikihe

Interesting reply shintenzu

These do not sound like any evidence to me tho. These are more like your personal opinions. If someone asks you wether god exists or not and you answer like this there still is no evidence, its just what you think.

I might ask you a question "If the universe and our planet and DNA and such were created, why does it have to be god, it could have been somekind of super intelligent life from living in another galaxy, right? Furthermore if it was god, how do you know it was the exact god you believe in (which ever it is)?" <- See your evidence doesnt really help, it just creates more questions which are even harder to answer.

It may not SOUND like evidence, but if you study the word, you will find that it is. There is a difference between questioning and evidence. Evidence are references that are fairly valid, but whether they COMPLETELY validate your point is where the reasonable doubt comes in. We all know that the likely hood of such precise caculations needed to sustain life the way it is, to align the cosmos in such a way that it does not implode within hours, to make DNA as effective and complex as it is, etc is something that is ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE to have been done by accident. This is fairly valid evidence, but it still cannot PROOVE my point. The opinion lies in the fact that my evidence is an accurate link to my theory. Then I can add the oppinion "If that hints a sort of creation, then what else could have done it except for a divine/higher being that we refer to as God." The latter statement is not evidence by an opinion in which you link to the evidence.

What-ifs, and maybes are not exactly the best way to present evidence. It is better to state something that is common knowlege as evidence.

PS: Thank you for being fairly open minded to my points =]

[manofsparrow]

Originally Posted by shintenzu

The idea is somewhat correct in certain situations but the analogies are very flawed. The writer is using a fairly valid theory to support an invalid one so let me explain.

First you must know the meaning of evidence. Evidence and proof are VERY different things, as evidence will hint towards something but still leaves a certain amount of reasonable doubt while proof will make a statement, idea, or theory irrefuteable without any room for reasonable doubt. So as you can obviously tell, its hard to actually find PROOF, and slightly easier to find EVIDENCE.

With that said, all three statements at the very top of the quote can have evidence provided for it.

"Kim, you are mistaken!"
I give the evidence: I have found through personal experience that your analogy does not hold up. I have broken down the basic structure of your analogy and I here is why I feel it does not hold up. From a study of accurate anologies I have seen that your's misses a few important features

Whether someone is mistaken or not depends how humans see things. If Kim says "Killing people is right.", most people would disagree. But that's only from a human perspective. It's not like some sort of natural law or anything. Some people would think killing animals is also wrong.

There is no good or evil in nature. It's all in our heads.

If Kim says "2 + 2 = 4", then that's physically wrong.

"God exists"
I give the evidence. Look at the complexity of the cosmos. Look at how intricate and definied DNA is and how it functions. Look at our eco system, how things balance out. Look at the earth's climate compared to any discovered planet and how it contains such precise conditions for life to thrive, the slightest difference in its position could spell the destruction of so much life. Look at the beauty of nature and all the things around you. How could this be all an accident?



Maybe some higher power exists, since there's so many precise things.

But none of that proves that people go to heaven or hell when they die.
Or it could be a completely different reason.



"People are healed!"
Doctors have DOCUMENTED unexplainable recoveries. The news have explored these ducumented recoveries and found they where not hoaxes. People have witnessed with their own eyes unexplainable recoveries and have been validated by doctor reports and other witnesses.

Yep, we trust documents and whatever they teach us in school.

Maybe those documents about WWI were all lies, and maybe any veterans still alive from WWI are also lying.

Maybe Rome never existed (How the heck do historians know so much?)

Maybe all of the ancient documents about Rome, the Crusades, etc. were all fake.

We might all be living in a huge lie. That's just a possibility that's probably not true.

All of the above I have provided "EVIDENCE" for, not nessecarily proof. There is still some reasonable doubt even after the evidence was provided, but does not change the fact that all the evidence above are valid reasons even if it does not proove my point 100%.

Read italicized text

[shintenzu]

Originally Posted by manofsparrow

Whether someone is mistaken or not depends how humans see things. If Kim says "Killing people is right.", most people would disagree. But that's only from a human perspective. It's not like some sort of natural law or anything. Some people would think killing animals is also wrong.

I do not see your point here. We are talking about providng evidence to help validate our opinions to others, not whether someone is right or wrong. In my example I only gave evidence as to why I felt Kim is wrong, I did not try to actually prove it as it is EXTREMELY difficult to DISPROVE an opinion. The validity of your statement is based on how good your evidence is, and how well it ties in with your point.

There is no good or evil in nature. It's all in our heads.

This is an opinion with absolutely no evidence provided

If Kim says "2 + 2 = 4", then that's physically wrong.

Kim is correct, and this can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Yep, we trust documents and whatever they teach us in school.

Yes but sometimes you must also research for yourself so you don't get mislead by inaccurate books, teachers, etc.

Maybe those documents about WWI were all lies, and maybe any veterans still alive from WWI are also lying.

Maybe Rome never existed (How the heck do historians know so much?)

Maybe all of the ancient documents about Rome, the Crusades, etc. were all fake.

This is a maybe and you have provided absolutely no evidence as to why you feel this way. Plus this can be proven wrong due to the fact that we see can go visit Rome right now and we have unedited video proof and pictures, plus so many witnesses that it is close to impposible for them ALL to be lying (this is evidence not proof). Very bad analogy, as it cannot be compared to subjects in which we have no proof of (only evidence) and no live eye witnesses (only accounts of dead ones), such as God's existance.

Maybe some higher power exists, since there's so many precise things.

But none of that proves that people go to heaven or hell when they die.
Or it could be a completely different reason

This was not in the discussion, but I will still answer it. Heaven and Hell is something in which you can provide little or no evidence for or against it. This is where there is no arguement, but simply each party stating their own opinions

We might all be living in a huge lie. That's just a possibility that's probably not true.

You can state a possibility, but if you cannot provide any evidence then people will ignore it. It is not even a valid arguement if you do not provide evidence

Did you honestly read my explaination of evidence as you have compared my statements backed with evidence to your statements backed with absolutely no evidence.

Maybe some higher power exists, since there's so many precise things.

But none of that proves that people go to heaven or hell when they die.
Or it could be a completely different reason

[Ashlyed]

Originally quoted by William Shakespeare
There's nothing either good or bad,
but thinking makes it so.

Sorry, not mean to interrupt, but I find this quote similliar to Shikihe's first post(or I thought so).

[Mugen]

Originally Posted by Ashlyed

Sorry, not mean to interrupt, but I find this quote similliar to Shikihe's first post(or I thought so).

Ofcourse, you thinking makes it so.

[manofsparrow]

Originally Posted by shintenzu

This is an opinion with absolutely no evidence provided

See animals killing each other and doing whatever their instincts tell them?

It's not proof, but it's evidence.

Yes but sometimes you must also research for yourself so you don't get mislead by inaccurate books, teachers, etc.

The only things you can research for yourself is other books, which might be inaccurate.

You can state a possibility, but if you cannot provide any evidence then people will ignore it. It is not even a valid arguement if you do not provide evidence

Did you honestly read my explaination of evidence as you have compared my statements backed with evidence to your statements backed with absolutely no evidence.

Uh huh, I'll make better comparisons next time.

In my opinion, your evidence for "God Exists" was almost as bad as having no evidence.

Maybe some higher power exists, since there's so many precise things.

But none of that proves that people go to heaven or hell when they die.
Or it could be a completely different reason

[Admiral Awesome (115 votes)]

lel 2smrt4me

[®age]

Hai .

[Schisma]

Silly pseudo-intellectual pessimistic nihilist noobs who make topics on GunZ Factor based on a joke from The Boondocks.

By the way, manofsparrow just failed.

"The only things you can research for yourself is other books, which might be inaccurate."

Ah yes, because astronomers and chemists and physicists make a living reading books to do their research.

"But none of that proves that people go to heaven or hell when they die.
Or it could be a completely different reason"
^^^^
"It's not proof, but it's evidence."

He never labeled it as proof. There is no PROOF that god exists. That's why you need faith.

PENOR ON THE OUTSIDE, TASTY ON THE INSIDE.

[manofsparrow]

Ah yes, because astronomers and chemists and physicists make a living reading books to do their research.

It depends on what books you read.
I just don't believe every book (Like the bible).

He never labeled it as proof. There is no PROOF that god exists. That's why you need faith.

Faith is overrated.

People can have faith that the books they read is true and they can have faith in religion. Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean you don't have faith in something.