no evidence for is not evidence against

[_Quasimodo]

For example: If person "A" says she believe that person "B" burglarized her home yesterday around 7pm. If person "A" lacks sufficient proof that person "B" was at her home at that time and buglarized, that is different than if person "B" can show proof that he wasn't there, but was somewhere else far away at the time. Lack of evidence of a belief in this instance is not the same as evidence against the belief because with the former it is still possible that the belief is true, whereas with the latter it is not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Fuzzy logic. Your example begins with the FACT that there was, indeed, a burglary. You then go on to explain that the location of the accused at the time of the burglary may or may not preclude his being able to commit it.

Your example is in no way related to belief in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon's only claim of validity is made by the man who wrote it. No other evidence or proof exists.

If I were to claim that intelligent life exists on the planet Venus and could only point to my own beliefs as evidence, no logical person should believe it to be true. It stands as false until some reliable evidence emerges.

[_wenglund]

Yes, insufficient proof to warrant a belief is the same as evidence against said belief. It may or may not be conclusive--but it is evidence against it.

(edited for clarity)

Fuzzy logic. Your example begins with the FACT that there was, indeed, a burglary. You then go on to explain that the location of the accused at the time of the burglary may or may not preclude his being able to commit it.

Your example is in no way related to belief in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon's only claim of validity is made by the man who wrote it. No other evidence or proof exists.

If I were to claim that intelligent life exists on the planet Venus and could only point to my own beliefs as evidence, no logical person should believe it to be true. It stands as false until some reliable evidence emerges.

This is nonsense. What you both are essentially suggesting is that things don't exist until we have sufficient evidence of their existince. Or, in other words, things are brought into existence only by virtue of evidence being produced for their existence. This is an inane variation on the "creation ex nihlo" theme.

Things exist prior to our learning about them via evidence of their existence, elsewise from whence cometh the evidence of their existence?

That we may once not had evidence, or as yet may not have evidence, of their existence, does not mean they don't exists. They do. It is just that we had, or will have, yet to learn of them.

In short, absence of evidence for the existence of certrain things isn't evidence against their existence. Rather, we just cannot affirm, or may not believe as yet, in its existence.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Morley]

Things exist prior to our learning about them via evidence of their existence, elsewise from whence cometh the evidence of their existence?

That we may once not had evidence, or as yet may not have evidence, of their existence, does not mean they don't exists. They do. It is just that we had, or will have, yet to learn of them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Give me an example, Wade.

[_Baker]

Yes, insufficient proof to warrant a belief is the same as evidence against said belief. It may or may not be conclusive--but it is evidence against it.

(edited for clarity)

Fuzzy logic. Your example begins with the FACT that there was, indeed, a burglary. You then go on to explain that the location of the accused at the time of the burglary may or may not preclude his being able to commit it.

Your example is in no way related to belief in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon's only claim of validity is made by the man who wrote it. No other evidence or proof exists.

If I were to claim that intelligent life exists on the planet Venus and could only point to my own beliefs as evidence, no logical person should believe it to be true. It stands as false until some reliable evidence emerges.

This is nonsense. What you both are essentially suggesting is that things don't exist until we have sufficient evidence of their existince. Or, in other words, things are brought into existence only by virtue of evidence being produced for their existence. This is an inane variation on the "creation ex nihlo" theme.

Things exist prior to our learning about them via evidence of their existence, elsewise from whence cometh the evidence of their existence?

That we may once not had evidence, or as yet may not have evidence, of their existence, does not mean they don't exists. They do. It is just that we had, or will have, yet to learn of them.

In short, absence of evidence for the existence of certrain things isn't evidence against their existence. Rather, we just cannot affirm, or may not believe as yet, in its existence.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So, everything for which we don't have evidence contingently exists pending evidence of its existence.

[_wenglund]

Things exist prior to our learning about them via evidence of their existence, elsewise from whence cometh the evidence of their existence?

That we may once not had evidence, or as yet may not have evidence, of their existence, does not mean they don't exists. They do. It is just that we had, or will have, yet to learn of them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Give me an example, Wade.

Take most any scientific discovery. For example, did cells not exist prior to the discovery of the microscope over 300 years ago? Prior to that time there wasn't any evidence of cells? Was the lack of evidence for cells prior to 1665 evidence against the existence of cells?

Of course not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Morley]

Take most any scientific discovery. For example, did cells not exist prior to the discovery of the microscope over 300 years ago? Prior to that time there wasn't any evidence of cells? Was the lack of evidence for cells prior to 1665 evidence against the existence of cells?

Of course not.

Before the discovery of cells there weren't any people walking around saying, "There are no cells!"

[_Simon Belmont]

I'll tell you guys one thing:

Mt. Everest does not exist until I see it with mine own eyes.

[Gadianton]

So, everything for which we don't have evidence contingently exists pending evidence of its existence.

No. Existence isn't contingient on evidence of its existence, though our belief and knowledge of its existence is. In short, the existence of things that do exist is independant of our having evidence of their existence or not. The evidence doesn't make things exist, nor does the lack of evidence make existing things not exist.

Using the example above, the existence of cells wasn't contingient upon our obtaining evidence of their existence. They existed prior to cell discovery in 1665. The lack of evidence for cells prior to 1665 wasn't evidence against their existence, though it was valid cause for not believing in cells until the evidence showed otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Before the discovery of cells there weren't any people walking around saying, "There are no cells!"

So? It makes no difference to the existence of cells whether they did or didn't say such things, and the same is true for the point I was making.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Morley]

Before the discovery of cells there weren't any people walking around saying, "There are no cells!"

So? It makes no difference to the existence of cells whether they did or didn't, and the same is true for the point I was making.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, it does. There was no evidence presented one way or the other. Evidence only means something when it is considered as part of an argument. You can't say there was no evidence when there is not even a concept.