Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. Prove me wrong.

tautology

So since there is no proof of OP not-being a huge faggot it means OP is a huge faggot?

>>2468909
Fckn rekt

>>2468895
No.

>>2468886
Big dark cave
There is no evidence of a Grizzly Bear hibernating in there
>no please, Anon, after you.

>>2468940
Assuming you have tried to look for evidence (e.g. with a flashlight) of a hibernating grizzly bear in the cave and found no evidence, then that is evidence that there isn't a grizzly hibernating there.

>>2468886
low standards of evidence

Between miracles and fulfilled prophecies there's evidence that some sort of willful force is at work in the world. You can call this "God" or you can refuse, but it's out there.

>>2468967
>miracles and fulfilled prophecies
There are none.

>>2468946
You haven't looked for God though, when and how did it happen?

>>2468886
Man Emma Roberts is such a pugfuggly skelly skank. Delete this shit.

>>2468946
nice try

>>2468980
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.

>>2468995
Prove me wrong.

>>2469002
>*to the origins

File: 6a00d8341bffb053ef00e54f3cae4e8833-500wi.gif (123KB, 300x449px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 300x449px

>>2468973
Really, now, don't be obtuse.

>>2469009
No evidence that he was anything more than a butthurt nobody bastard child whose only accomplishment in life was getting himself executed.

>>2469002
>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.

>>2469028
What assumption did I allegedly add?

>>2469009
>>2469019
there isn't even solid evidence that he ever existed.
He's a fairy tale

>>2469038
>>2468946
>Assuming ....

>>2469041
lol and how is finding no evidence not an absence of evidence?

>>2469002
Science has never endeavored to find God.

>>2469054
Okay but that's besides the point, because it has found no evidence of god either way.

>>2469047
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.

>>2468946
That's fucking stupid. Some things are more nuanced and complex than that

>>2469071
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.

>>2469082
No.

>>2469088
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: >>2468946 , not mine

>>2469066
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.

>>2469095
Sure it is, but we're not going to agree.

Would you agree that the situation in >>2469088 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

>>2469104
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.

>>2469102
>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

>>2469162
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:
>>2469162

>>2469169
Misquoted, meant to link at this example
>>2469130

define evidence

>>2469151
>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?

>>2469178
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?

>>2469237
>I.e. evidence of absence.
meant absence of evidence

This shit is confusing

>>2468980
I found God in the beauty of life

>>2469237
>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.

>>2469282
>beauty of life
Meaningless term.

>>2468886

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

>>2468886
>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.

>>2468967
>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.

>>2469102
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.

>>2469102
this is he most ridiculous thing I've read in all my life

>>2469176
>Hurrrr nobody even knows what eveidence means.
But you still get what we're talking about, let's not digress.

>>2468886
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.

>>2469040

All serious scholars agree he existed.

>>2469575
>all serious scholars agree he existed
>no citation, purely conjecture

>>2469040

>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

>>2469600

>Is too lazy too google
>Not knowing this already

Good to know /his/ is full of morons.

>>2469607
>believing it's someone else's job to prove him right

>>2469609

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

Wew.

File: IMG_0614.jpg (245KB, 2000x1383px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 2000x1383px

DELETE THIS

>>2469621
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.

>>2469655

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.

File: HdjG5dw.jpg (417KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 720x540px

>>2469655
>Oh I'm cool, studying religion at Yale.

>>2469600
>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

>>2469755

>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.

>>2469606
I will gladly admit that Alexander is imaginary and that he never really existed.

Your turn....

>>2469755
>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.

>>2469766
agreed

File: wrong.jpg (2KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 125x125px

>>2469766

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

>>2468909

>>2469770
>except an argument from authority is valid in inductive arguments.
wut? No nigga, you just making shit up now

>>2469782
Look it up. It's invalid in deductive arguments.

>>2469009
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

>>2469779

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

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

>>2469787
>Look it up
cant find it
probably beacuse its bull shit

>>2469841
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

>>2469951
>can only strongly suggest what is true -- not prove it.
next

>>2469972
Right. It's called inductive reasoning.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reasoning

File: AtLeastYouTried.jpg (24KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 480x360px

>>2469102

>>2469972
Science can only strongly suggest what is true, not prove it.

File: Mace_Windu2.jpg (10KB, 330x272px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 330x272px

>>2468886

"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?

>>2469769

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

that's a stupid and irrational thing to do

>>2468909
Look at the pic he posted

File: 1488511815965.gif (1015KB, 200x150px) Image search: [Google]

1015KB, 200x150px

>>2469575
>Most historians who study christ's era and location are christians
>Therefore he existed
This is why humanities are a joke

>>2470114
That doesn't make OP not gay. He wants to bait people who are hetero to this thread while being a mo himself.

>>2470277
There is no solid evidence for this claim :^)

>>2468909

This.

>>2468886
>absence of something (nothing) is evidence (something)
>nothing is something
youre retarded

>>2468886
"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.