Ethical Debate: Challenging "There is No Evidence for X"

[Meleagar]

If convincing evidence exists to support the notion gods exist, why is there faith?

I never claimed or argued that there was convincing evidence.

[scholardude]

I never claimed or argued that there was convincing evidence.

Then you agree that there is no convincing evidence, as of yet.

[Meleagar]

Then you agree that there is no convincing evidence, as of yet.

No, I haven't agreed to that. Lots of people say they have been convinced by the evidence, such as Antony Flew. Thus, by definition, convincing evidence exists. It might not convince everyone, but it has convinced some people.

The reason that I would not say "convincing evidence exists" is because I have no idea if the evidence would convince the person who I am talking to.

[scholardude]

No, I haven't agreed to that. Lots of people say they have been convinced by the evidence, such as Antony Flew. Thus, by definition, convincing evidence exists. It might not convince everyone, but it has convinced some people.

Yes but we're talking about scientifically convincing evidence, and at any rate it's only you that matters, is it convincing to you?

[barts]

It is my personal belief that coleslaw can perform Shakespeare, but it does it poorly so I can feel justified in preventing it from having a chance to start performing by eating it. Yum.

You can't say I'm wrong! Ever! Even if that makes zero sense and is obviously wholly self-serving! Sure, I have no evidence, but you cannot prove there's no evidence. You might have seen a lot of coleslaw, but that's not sufficient proof. It's merely evidence, not proof. And don't call me a fancifully illogical solipsistic coleslaw-hound.

Oh god, I think I'm going to throw up. Might be vengeful coleslaw, might be how pointless and philosophically icky this is.

Brilliant!

[barts]

No, I haven't agreed to that. Lots of people say they have been convinced by the evidence, such as Antony Flew. Thus, by definition, convincing evidence exists. It might not convince everyone, but it has convinced some people.

The reason that I would not say "convincing evidence exists" is because I have no idea if the evidence would convince the person who I am talking to.

It would seem then that, in your view, as long as at least one person at some time is or was convinced about an assertion no matter how absurd, evidence exists ipso facto.

That being the case, it seems your view entails that evidence exists for almost everything because the only criteria is whether or not a single person believes the putative evidence. And, it wouldn't even matter if the person was insane and irrational, I presume. And, it wouldn't matter if the evidence was total nonsense.

In other words, all evidence is relative and contingent upon the person or persons considering the evidence, which means your principle argument about atheists is moot.

But, perhaps I'm misstating your position.

[barts]

I never claimed or argued that there was convincing evidence.

Good. Then you agree with atheists on this matter about evidence for the existence of gods. You do not claim, like atheists, that there is any convincing evidence for the existence of gods.

[Jack]

I never claimed or argued that there was convincing evidence.

<sigh> I didn't say you did. I'm asking a general question related to the topic.

[barts]

No, I haven't agreed to that.

So, you don't agree that you don't claim that there is convincing evidence for gods?

In other words, all you're claiming is that some people are convinced there is evidence for gods. This, of course, is not qualitatively different than some people believing that finding a four leaf clover will bring them luck.

You also seem to implying that the quality of evidence is of no matter.

[Apeman81]

If, in a debate, someone categorically claims, "There is no evidence for X", does that not count as an assertion? Can that assertion not be fairly challenged by asking whomever made the claim to support their assertion?

It would indeed. Lacking any reasoning or evidence, the assertion is gratuitous.

An assertion made gratuitously may be as gratuitously ignored.

Choosing to address the assertion to claim it to be false opens you up to being as gratuitously ignored. Unless you offer some reasoning for your response.

Heretofore, requests for evidence or reasoning for an assertion has been sufficient to place the onus on the originator to substantiate his assertion. I suggest that response

If Joe states “There is no evidence for X”, you have only to present a single piece of evidence of X to put the onus on him to defend his assertion.

In extreme cases where there is no information regarding X, a counter assertion of “There is no evidence for not X” may be applied, but one should really wonder why one is expending energy upon such a silly topic anyway

[Angry Citizen]

In extreme cases where there is no information regarding X, a counter assertion of “There is no evidence for not X” may be applied

... wow.

I take it the picture in this post:

http://www.volconvo.com/forums/752967-post4.html

... didn't make much of an impact on you.

[Apeman81]

... wow.

I take it the picture in this post:

http://www.volconvo.com/forums/752967-post4.html

... didn't make much of an impact on you.

The entirety of my post makes it far less scary and much more difficult to misinterpret.

There is no evidence of the existence of an infinite improbability drive. (see today’s Bing image to explain choice)

There is no evidence of the lack of existence of an infinite improbability drive.

As the probability of actually encountering an infinite improbability drive is so infinitely improbable, it is quite likely that you have already encountered one and have merely mistaken it for a broken pot of petunias.

Thus might go the argument. Which is why I would identify it as silly.