EnviroLink Forum

Family reunion. Five hour drive to overeat and do work on someone else's house for a change. Did get to see the clouds crashing into the mountains and rdropping most of their moisture as they were forced higher and higher. Been a while since I experienced that part of mountian living.

Older son stepped on a copperhead while hiking to an old mine and was nearly bitten. The snake struck where he would have been if he had not stopped to look. His wife said she had never seen him jump so high or so fast. He was wearing sandals since it was near the river and wet on part of the trail. They went home just after that.

Hope you had a better weekend.

_________________
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

The wife is visiting parents out of the country for two weeks, so it's just me and my daughter. She's now inherited house and yard work on top of existing chores. I'm doing great!

Yours doesn't sound too bad. Just normal family adventures though snakes add a bit more spice than most care for.

_________________
TANG SOO!

What if you had no other evidence of any kind that I actually existed?
That's the context here.

Actually, the context is you having no idea what constitutes evidence.

_________________
TANG SOO!

Fine. Cite some.

Curing world hunger is your argument. The burden of proof lies on you.

_________________
TANG SOO!

Not a rational approach. If you claim one does not have an idea of what constitutes evidence that is not attached to any particular example given when the totality of evidence is referenced nor does the burden of proof lie on that person to indicate they understand what you mean (I do not) without some explanation. Once you claim the lack of understanding of what is and is not evidence you have the burden to show what evidence is.

_________________
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

What I mean is that beliefs aren't evidence, and that's all that's been offered so far as such.

_________________
TANG SOO!

Not really, the evidence provided has been the LACK of any evidence supporting a supernatural entity being involved in human life or even existing. That lack of evidence is the point and where communication seems to be breaking down.

You seem to be saying the reason there is no evidence is that we do not know what evidence is, which would logically follow with the question of what is evidence.

Outside of the posts here we do not know if Besoeker actually exists. Are these posts evidence of his existence? I think so, but if there were no such posts anywhere to be found would you assume there is a "Besoeker" out there? What if he used the screen name "Fosgate"? Would he then also be you and not Besoeker?

_________________
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 now return you to the regularly scheduled discussion still in progress but with the point of confusion noted.

_________________
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'll never understand how the lack of something constitutes something rather than just a lack. In controlled settings, for practical purposes, when you're looking for a certain thing using a calibrated device and acceptable measurement system designed to detect that certain thing, sure, but not in a pure sense.



Curing world hunger has been proposed as acceptable evidence of a god or gods. I'm asking, just as I would of any other believer, why this is a sign as opposed to something else. The only way one proposes such a thing is off belief, faith, if you will, that this is the case.



To out outside observer, the simplest, most logical explanation is that you are using all 3 screen names.

_________________
TANG SOO!

including the BELIEF that the supernatural does not exist. This is why I trust agnostics and do not trust atheists... the strong atheists have a very strong belief that faith in God is the problem with society and must be stopped at all costs. Agnostics have the proper scientific approach... all theories can be proven false but never proven true... only the most-likely-to-be-true theories will remain as long as they have not yet been proven false.

If you have a calibrated device and acceptable measurement system designed to detect a certain thing, the lack of that thing being detected is evidence that thing does not exist in the area being searched. This does not mean that at some point in the future a better system would not detect the thing where the current system could not. Now, if you are seeking something which has never been measured but the detector is built for the theoretical attirbutes there is less confidence. But, if the attempt is made over time with newer and different detectors without sucess the probability increases the thing is not really there. It will never be conclusive to the nth degree, but after a few centuries it will start to approach that level.

Now, we have nothing designed to detect a supernatural entity, mainly because we have never documented an encounter with such an entity to form the criteria. This is not to say that such an entity cannot exist, just that we have no evidence to support it. This is the same general situation as not detecting the thing in the above example, we have looked the best we can and cannot find it, thus we conclude the thing does not exist where we have looked. To do this over periods of time builds up the evidence of the lack of that thing existing as different measurement tools become available.



Would that not be something such an entity could accomplish without our assistance?



If there is no other explanation for the stoppage of starvation, it owuld be a good piece of evidence. If there is no stoppage, it is another bit of evidence of what such an entity could do if it existed. If it existed and had taken an interest in human life, it would be one of the logical points of action. As there is no stoppage it is another small bit of evidence of the lack of action and thus the lack of existence. Not conclusive in and of itself but combined with other small bits of evidence to form larger and larger pieces of evidence. All of which can be refuted by one small bit of evidence of the existence.



and am thus as crazy as some wish to think I am.

_________________
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

Given what we've seen based on the lack of evidence, belief is about the best way to describe it.



That’s what I’m saying, yes.



Sure, it approaches it, but then you have no idea how long the road is either. If you can’t say that the difference of a few centuries is even significant, you’re better off concluding nothing.



Where you’ve looked…the way you’ve looked. If I hunt in a stuffed, pitch dark closet feeling around with my hands for a month, then by using a box of matches the second month, then a flashlight the third month, the probability increases over time that the earring I can’t find doesn’t exist…in the closet.



The question is not if it could, but if it would.



That is your belief.



If? That really depends on the nature of its interest. I could not say unless I believed that it would take such an interest.



Once more, these are your beliefs. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.



Of course. It’s your criteria for what makes the list of your beliefs.

_________________
TANG SOO!

So you assume everything exists everywhere regardless?



How so? That seems to be a belief in and of itself. It is a conclusion based on the available evidence or lack thereof.



And if you are not sure the earring EVER existed outside of the closet? What if there is no evidence of it ever existing? Do you contiue to look for it through infinity?



If it did there would be evidence. If it could and the premise is correct that it has any interest in humanity, it would at some point. That it does not tends to disprove the premise of the interest completely, but is only a small point of evidence against existence of the entity, which is why there have been so many references to the total lack of evidence and not just this one piece. This one piece only works as a positive evidence but negative evidence requires much more varied sets of evidence.



Why would it be my belief? If starvation were stopped without any other logical explanation, why would it not be a good piece of evidence in favor of a supernatural entity being involved?



But that is one of the premises we are given to support the belief in the entity without any other evidence. The premise provided is part of the evidence to refute that belief.



Here I thought it was good science to not believe in things where there was a total lack of evidence of their existence unlkess and until the evidence of existence was attained.



Not mine, but science. Supernatural is by definition non-scientific as we know it. I do not conclude things are around which cannot be detected just because they may be there. Unless and until there is a detection I will go with the probability of non-existence.

_________________
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