" No evidence" a vaid argument?

[traillius]

a necessary underlying hypothesis to the "no evidence " argument for disbelief of the existence of some phenomenon X, is the "lack of direct scientific evidence " for the existence of X is the presupposition that X’s existence is dependent upon scientific verifiability, or at least that acknowledgement of its existence is so dependent. Gravity for instance, existed before scientific verification of it existed. Since something can exist independently of human direct scientific evidence, the no evidence argument cannot hold water in reality, but only in a scientific discussion that doesn’t take into account the full extent of even physical reality( what can be observed through five senses ) let alone theology, philosophy or ontology.

 

[reggieM]

True. The “no evidence” claim limits evidence to empirical scientific only.
That is irrational since the scientific method itself is a philosophical construct and there is “no empirical evidence” to support it.

 

[tonyrey]

It is true that a lack of scientific evidence does not justify rejection of X yet it still necessary to produce non-scientific evidence for X. An obvious example is the existence of thoughts, feelings and decisions.

 

[awatkins69]

It is true that a lack of scientific evidence does not justify rejection of X yet it still necessary to produce non-scientific evidence for X. An obvious example is the existence of thoughts, feelings and decisions.

 

[Leela]

I don’t think it is enough to simpluy say that here is “no evidence.” However, “no evidence” can function as part of an argument in this way:

If X, what you claim, were true, then we would have such and such experiences. But we don’t have such and such experiences, therefore X is not true.

 

[Leela]

True. The “no evidence” claim limits evidence to empirical scientific only.
That is irrational since the scientific method itself is a philosophical construct and there is “no empirical evidence” to support it.

Evidence doesn’t have to be of any particular sort. Evidence is simply whatever might help us reach consensus on your claim, whatever might convince others that you are right.

To say there is “no evidence” is to say that though you havre stated what you believe, you haven’t said anything to make we think that I ought to believe it to. It is to ask, how can I know that you are right and that this opther guy who says otherwise is wrong? What might help me decide between the a claim and its antithesis?

There is no inherent dogma about the scientific method inherent in a desire for evidence. It is just the desire to have good reasons for one’s beliefs.

I must admit though that atheist often say “there is no evidence” to believers in a very anoying way. After someone has presented their case to support their claim, an atheist may dismiss it as not merely being unconvincing but as “no evidence.” Anything that is offered in the hope that it might help us get consensus is evidence. Whether or not it convinces is another question.

 

[traillius]

there is evidence and proof, which is available from many sources, to support the existence of a deity. Many atheists, in an attempt at creating intellectual insulation, simply dismiss such things, on the faulty grounds that they are "not scientific " or whatever. Regardless, its okay if one chooses not to believe, at least from a logical point of view. ( the spiritual consequences of disbelief being another matter ) What is not okay is dismissing theistic arguments outright as ‘non-scientific delusion’ or words to that effect, out of a desire not to accept the outcome of an otherwise valid, and convincing, argument for at least the possibility of a creator.

 

[_Locke]

there is evidence and proof, which is available from many sources, to support the existence of a deity. Many atheists, in an attempt at creating intellectual insulation, simply dismiss such things, on the faulty grounds that they are "not scientific " or whatever.

As I’ve asked you in another thread, please post these proofs. I assure you I won’t disagree simply out of “intellectual insulation.”

traillius:

What is not okay is dismissing theistic arguments outright as ‘non-scientific delusion’ or words to that effect, out of a desire not to accept the outcome of an otherwise valid, and convincing, argument for at least the possibility of a creator.

I’ve searched CAF and haven’t found anyone calling theistic arguments “non-scientific delusion.”

 

[reggieM]

I must admit though that atheist often say “there is no evidence” to believers in a very anoying way. After someone has presented their case to support their claim, an atheist may dismiss it as not merely being unconvincing but as “no evidence.” Anything that is offered in the hope that it might help us get consensus is evidence. Whether or not it convinces is another question.

Excellent point. And that really is a major issue that causes many obstacles in these discussions.

“The evidence is not convincing to me” is much different from “there is no evidence at all”.