EnviroLink Forum

How so?



Of course I have no such evidence. Many of my life experiences don't fit those criteria and yet, I believe in them. Same applies to you.

_________________
TANG SOO!

As I posted earlier, the supernatural entity, if such existed, could do something about it. That it continues is at least absence of evidence of such an entity.

And you have since confirmed that you have not evidence that would stand scrutiny. And I know of none.
Surely the simplest logical conclusion that can be deduced about an entity for which we have no solid evidence is that no such entity exists?

If you could do something and didn't, is it absence of evidence of your existence?



I'd agree that it's the simplest conclusion, though not the most logical.

_________________
TANG SOO!

Why is the simplest conclusion not the most logical? Occams razor would tend to support the more simple conclusions being the more logical.

Example: I see no other entity in the room, is it more logical to assume there are none or that there are aliens cloaked in an invisibility screen that move at a great speed with no noise to prevent my touching them?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Because the underlying assumption in the conclusion is that an omnipotent being makes its presence known by specifically solving the human-perceived problem of starvation.



Just you? Guess I'd have to take you at your word. But let's say I and a few others didn't see anything either. Of course I'd conclude that there was nothing there. At the same time, most of the folks on Earth believe in some form of god, gods, afterlife, or that they've experienced the power of such.

A blind person can still be perfectly logical.

_________________
TANG SOO!

But the statement was much more broad and covered the totality of evidence lacking, not just that one aspect.



Or illogical. The point was about the more simple explanation being the more logical one, which you said was not the case.

I have experienced some things I cannot explain. I call them unexpalined events and do not consider them evidence of anything other than my ability to discern an explanation. There may have been an intelligent action behind them, but the odds are not in favor of that conclusion. So they serve to make me think more closely about what I can and cannot explain.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Of course, the totality of lacking evidence, every bit of which assumes we know something when we do not necessarily.



Point being, you see what you see and logically conclude based on whatever that is.



What do you do when the simplest explanation doesn't make any sense?



If this is the way your personal experience compels you to function, who am I to question it?

_________________
TANG SOO!

No, it does not. It deals only with what we know, which is there is nothing in evidence to support said existence.



Or not, which is the point I was making.



It would not be an explanation if it did not make sense. But, in this case the simple explanation does make sense, yet is implied to be illogical.



No, it is my logic that compels me to treat my personal experiences as I do otherwise I would use them to claim something that is not logically supported by the evidence.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Then how do you know that which constitutes evidence OF existence?

You know what it sounds like? It sounds like a former believer that got pissed off at God for not living up to their expectations. Hell of a coincidence, I’m sure.



Exactly, you don't. Yet here we are doing it.

The question becomes, do you, more often than not, find that for which you aren’t looking? Do you generally expect that for which you are looking to find you?



It isn’t logical to conclude anything in the absence of evidence.



Have you logically concluded that believers--most of humanity--are deluding themselves?

_________________
TANG SOO!

It would be anything which directly indicates existence.



Not in my case. I have never been able to reconcile the contradictions in religion as much as my mother wished me to do.



huh? You may be doing something based on no logic, but I am not.



Of course. We find much more than we seek every day. I never seek mosquitos yet I often find them in close proximity to me. How does this make things any more or less logical?



Not unless it is alive and either seeking me or moving about.




Actually it is logical. If there is a sufficient period of time without positive evidence of existence that begins to constitute evidence on whatever does not exist.



No, but I have concluded that the believers have been deluded into belief based solely on faith in what someone else told them. How many children raised without human contact have concluded the gods of the modern religions exist as they are portrayed? Unless that happens there is a factor resulting from peer pressure and communication.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Like stopping starvation?



No, not you.



Not talking about religion.



You’re drawing a conclusion based on no evidence.



We’ve had this discussion before, remember? Try showering.



Point is, if you’re not looking for God, you probably will not find him.



Really? How long is that?



You don’t take anyone at their word…ever?


Like I said, if you don’t know to be looking, you won’t look. But humor me. How many?

[/quote]

No doubt there is anyway. It’s interesting, though, how that belief seems to stick throughout their lives once the monsters, the tooth fairy, and Santa Claus fade away.

_________________
TANG SOO!

If starvation ceased all over the world without the intervention of humans, yes, I would think that would be evidence of existence of such an entity.



Kind of hard to do when discussing supernatural entities and the possible existence thereof.



No, I am drawing a conclusion based on the LACK of evidence which is significantly different. The lack of evidence infers a lack of existence and that is a logical conclusion. The extended time without said evidence of existence creates a greater logical probablility
of the lack of existence. Being a negative it can never be completely determined, but the amount of evidence without positive indications is evidence in and of itself.



Ahhh, you also confuse mosquitos with flies... no wonder you are confused.



I do not have to find the evidence just have to see it.



Well, for a diety a century would be a good minimum period.



On minor issues, but evidence of a supernatural entity would require more than just the word of someone I did not know.



I looked and found none.



No doubt there is anyway. It’s interesting, though, how that belief seems to stick throughout their lives once the monsters, the tooth fairy, and Santa Claus fade away.[/quote]

For some perhaps, but not all.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

I’m glad to know there is at least some threshold, but I’m still out on exactly why it would be something like this as opposed to unexplained occurrences that have happened already. Further, how would you prove existence if it did happen?



Not really. Perhaps that’s part of your problem. You’re equating religion with faith.



If you lack evidence, then you have no evidence. Same thing.



That is illogical. Nothing doesn't infer anything at all.


My point is supported by the fact that we’ve made discoveries of things for which we had no evidence of existence, some for hundreds of years. That alone is evidence that things do indeed exist, even affect us, despite how long we remain ignorant of it.



If you’re not looking for it, you probably won’t find it. Mosquitoes may seek you out, turtles likely don’t care one way or the other, and some things are just going to all out make a point of avoiding you. Out of sight, out of mind, right?



Why is that?



What of someone you did and trusted implicity?



I looked and found none. [/quote]

That must mean none exist, right? At least you saw fit to look.



That’s okay. I won’t tell anyone you leave tic-tacs under your pillow to fool the tooth fairy.

Seriously, is there some requirement that all do so?

_________________
TANG SOO!

Not equating them but pointing out the correlations between the two where supernatural entities are involved.



No, that is where you fail. The lack of evidence over time is then evidence itself that something might not exist. It is never conclusive as it is a negative proof, but it is evidence non-the-less.



Yes it does. You cannot prove the lack of existence of the tooth fairy, however if you gather enough evidence for failed attempts to prove said existence the preponderance of the evidence does begin to infer the lack of existence. The longer this evidence accumulated the more the lack of existence is inferred. Of course, it is not going to be conclusive forobvious reasons, but it is the only way to prove a negative to any degree.



Yes, and that lack of evidence was evidence of the lack of existence, until the existence was proved.



Yes, and that is why there is always the chance of new evidence changing the way we view anything, but CURRENTLY we only have the evidence we have.



I may not be looking, but someone will be or the supernatural entity is not very popular.



It is sufficient time for improvements in technology that would allow improved search capacity.



If they had no evidcence to support it, I would still question it.



That must mean none exist, right? At least you saw fit to look.[/quote]

It means there is no evidence I can find to support the existence and thus there is a high probability there is none.



I don't since I set the trap for the tooth fairy many years ago and discovered there was someone else involved.



No, but some are naturally gullible and cannot be trusted to make a logical conclusion based only on facts.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Touche'. You get the last word.

Hope you had a great weekend.

_________________
TANG SOO!