| 
|The Absence of Evidence
When complex arguments are distilled down to single-sentence maxims or sound bytes, applied liberally and without thought to virtually any situation, one will frequently find the salient point bludgeoned and destroyed through misuse. There are a number of examples of this sort of bastardization. For instance, the famed description of evolution as “survival of the fittest” ended up spawning generations of foolish people who thought evolution must therefore be false since overweight dogs exist and not every creature is a beefed-up, muscular man-cake. When a theory is removed of all nuance, having it all strained away through ignorance in the interest of producing a short and sweet description, it is often prime for misuse. As an atheist, one of the most frequently abused phrases of this nature is the old “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” argument.
The most annoying thing about this phrasing is that it simply isn’t true at all, whereas at least “survival of the fittest” can be interpreted in a way that accords with evolution. And if one thought about the phrase before actually regurgitating it thoughtlessly, the world would be removed of much unnecessary regurgitation. Suppose, for instance, that there is no apple currently in your mouth. How would you establish the absence of this apple? Ideally, you’d start by attempting to make observations rather than taking the route of faith and asserting that the apple works in mysterious apple-ish ways we cannot comprehend.
Now, if the apple were in your mouth, you’d expect to feel it against your teeth and lips, to obstruct your breathing a bit, to be seen when you look in a mirror, and so on. When you do not make these observations, you conclude on the basis of the lacking evidence that there is no apple in your mouth. In this case, it is quite obvious that absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence. When you can expect to have evidence of something’s existence, and that expectation is dashed, you can more than adequately deny that the thing exists. So the absence of evidence argument fails, and most making the argument would concede the point.
But if the argument is so flawed, how did it ever attain such massive credibility that it is ingrained in the minds of millions and relentlessly spouted off by any believers in gods, bigfoots, leprechauns, or whatever the hell else crazy people believe? The fact is, there is a grain of truth to the claim. It is, for instance, a logical fallacy to argue from ignorance. In other words, if you are ignorant of the evidence, it doesn’t follow that the evidence does not exist, or that the thing in question is nonexistent. Arguments of this nature are particularly open to question if no attempt at investigation has been made. Someone who shuts his eyes, plugs his ears, and shouts “Na-Na-Na!” when being presented with the evidence for something can very well claim that he has not received any evidence, but in that case it would reflect his willful ignorance of the evidence rather than the nonexistence of the thing in question. (This is a favorite tactic of creationists, for instance, when they blithely assert there are no transitional fossils even as an archaeopteryx bites their ass.)
One of the most important things to note is that though arguing from ignorance is a logical fallacy and obviously precludes any sort of logical certainty, it does not preclude various degrees of certainty or reasonableness. Because we are connected to reality through shoddy, ramshackle sensory apparatuses that are in turn wired to a mass of gray matter prone to delusions, bias, and an overt fondness for comical farting, we unfortunately do not possess any capacity to divine pure and whole truth from our surroundings. Instead, we have to use the much more tiresome process of science, which is really little different from a trial and error heuristic. Anyone who has studied science, for instance, knows that the hypothetico-deductive method is constantly used to assess a theory. Basically, a scientist will don his labcoat, thick-rimmed glasses, and characteristic wild, unkempt hair and proceed to test a theory by inferring what consequences would follow if it were true, and then making observations to see if these consequences truly follow in reality. If the inferred consequences are observed, the scientist shouts, “Eureka!” or “It’s alive! ALIIIIIVVEEEEE!” and the zombie monster he has created proceeds to devour humanity. But here’s the problem. The professor of logic over in the math department might catch wind of this monster creation and deny its validity, because the hypothetico-deductive method as described above is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. So the logician would exclaim, “If theory x entails y, it doesn’t follow that x is true when we see y. Theories w, y, and z could also entail y. You can only DISCONFIRM the theory by observing not-y!” And the logician would keep saying this even as the horrible biological frankenstein devours him.
And that is essentially the problem. In everyday reasoning and the sciences, you don’t expect logical certainty. We are forced to be fallibilists owing to our epistemic limitations, crippling cognitive biases, and obsessive ability to be distracted by bubble wrap. But a person who makes an appeal to the old absence of evidence argument is channeling his inner Cartesian, wishing to go back to a time of rationalism where it was still believed that we could know things with absolute, logical certainty through simple inner reflection. Unfortunately for these little Cartesians, their daily lives are a testament to their disbelief in the rationalist epistemic system. They press the brake pedal expecting their cars to stop, even though there would be no logical contradiction in expecting the car to stop upon jamming on the gas pedal. They also refrain from jumping off of buildings expecting to fly, eating a toaster expecting it to taste like pizza, and reading this blog expecting great remarks of wit and clarifying edification. At heart, we all recognize that the search for logical certainty simply won’t do, and we have to accept that the best we can do is possess varying degrees of certainty, but never complete certainty. What makes our scientific and daily reasoning successful isn’t its certainty, but the fact that it has been tried and tested countless times and worked…so far, at least.
And this is why complex ideas should not be smashed into bite-size, single-sentence nuggets of established wisdom, because it only engenders confusion and breeds misuse. I have managed to write countless blocks of texts in explication of this single sentence, and I feel the need to say even more but halt only out of consideration for my unfortunate readers.
The basic point is that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, provided that we have searched for the evidence and found it lacking. Any sort of objection to this sort of reasoning would necessarily come from an outdated Cartesian point of view that seeks undoubtable, absolutely certain knowledge from pure logical deduction, and it would follow that not only is the absence of evidence not evidence of absence, but also that science is completely erroneous and has nothing of worth to say, and that there are not degrees of knowledge but only black and white, completely wrong or completely right. Most who make such claims about the invalidity of arguments from lacking evidence, of course, do not explicitly deny their daily inductive inferences or the technological and conceptual bounties produced by the “logical fallacy” of science as it affirms the consequent. If they wish to retain this argument, they have to be prepared to lose a lot more than just claims of nonexistence, but virtually any nontautological, empirical claim that can possibly be made!
So, why do I disbelieve in God? Because I’d expect to see evidence of such a being and I do not see evidence of such a being. If one were to respond in a mystical fashion, perhaps arguing that we cannot have knowledge of God, that God transcends us in all ways and resides in some supernatural, unfathomable realm, that would be an adequate criticism, but it leaves the theist on still shakier ground. This “mystical” god, for instance, could not be said to be the creator of the universe, capable of intercession in our daily lives (much less getting nailed to a cross), or capable of any sort of observable act that could be adduced as evidence for its existence. So the theist who makes such an argument should be wary of the qualities and attributes in God he is necessarily giving up in doing so, as they likely conflict with the tenets of his religion. Of course, this also opens up another avenue of attack against belief in such a God. The atheist would need only point out that if God is being defined as some unknowable, ineffable entity, that the theist could not possibly know what it is he is saying to exist. He may as well be muttering an incomprehensible gurgle. It is as if I told someone a parrot is on my shoulder, and upon being questioned about the lacking evidence of any parrot, asserting that it is a mystical, unknowable parrot, at which point I am asked how I could know it is parrot-like or know it is on my shoulder if it is indeed unknowable and so deeply mystical, to which my only response is, of course, an incomprehensible gurgle. The principle of Ockham’s razor also serves to adequately refute any appeals to mystical, completely unobservable gods. One should only posit additional existential entities if there is additional evidence for these entities, and naturally atheism is a more parsimonious explanation for lacking evidence than a needless hypothesis about an unknowable God existing. And don’t even get me started on how badly the principle of Ockham’s razor is abused. Ockham’s trusty razor has been abused so many times it will in all likelihood grow up to engage in sexually deviant behavior and suffer sever posttraumatic stress disorder.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 2nd, 2009 at 12:37 AM
“When complex arguments are distilled down to single-sentence maxims or sound bytes, applied liberally and without thought to virtually any situation, one will frequently find the salient point bludgeoned and destroyed through misuse. There are a number of examples of this sort of bastardization.”
Also known as libertarianism.
February 2nd, 2009 at 8:18 AM
Well stated. I’ve had too many people use this phrase and think they’re making a good argument (and I’ve used it myself in the past, before I realized that it was nonsense).
February 4th, 2009 at 10:01 AM
I’m glad you’re writing again. It was a terrible drought we had.
February 6th, 2009 at 11:15 AM
Would love to see the odd comic again though.
February 6th, 2009 at 6:28 PM
Unfortunately I don’t see myself putting up any more comics, Synchronium. I’m too lazy to do it and my heart just really isn’t in it. At least with the blog I can always be motivated to write whenever something fucked up happens in the world that forces me to mention it.
February 8th, 2009 at 8:04 PM
Basically, a scientist will… proceed to test a theory by inferring what consequences would follow if it were true, and then making observations to see if these consequences truly follow in reality.
Actually, she will infer what consequences would follow if it were false, and try hard to find them. This overcomes the logician’s objection, because we’re not trying to prove theory X is logically valid, but probabilistically warranted. She says, X is probably true: if it were false, the probability that by chance experiments would have failed to disprove it are very small.
February 9th, 2009 at 11:47 AM
hold on
wth are you trying to say?
I’ll read it at some point, but my attn span isn’t enough to deal with craploads of block text =P
February 9th, 2009 at 1:11 PM
“When complex arguments are distilled down to single-sentence maxims or sound bytes, applied liberally and without thought to virtually any situation, one will frequently find the salient point bludgeoned and destroyed through misuse.”
Yes. So what?
“There are a number of examples of this sort of bastardization. For instance, the famed description of evolution as “survival of the fittest” ended up spawning generations of foolish people who thought evolution must therefore be false since overweight dogs exist and not every creature is a beefed-up, muscular man-cake.”
What the hell. This is stupid reasoning. Evolution is suspect because rationally it’s difficult to defend.
“When a theory is removed of all nuance, having it all strained away through ignorance in the interest of producing a short and sweet description, it is often prime for misuse. As an atheist, one of the most frequently abused phrases of this nature is the old “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” argument.”
Yeah. So?
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” argument…. you guys have so much fun huh?
February 9th, 2009 at 1:20 PM
“The most annoying thing about this phrasing is that it simply isn’t true at all, whereas at least “survival of the fittest” can be interpreted in a way that accords with evolution.”
Explain how.
“And if one thought about the phrase before actually regurgitating it thoughtlessly, the world would be removed of much unnecessary regurgitation. Suppose, for instance, that there is no apple currently in your mouth. How would you establish the absence of this apple? Ideally, you’d start by attempting to make observations rather than taking the route of faith and asserting that the apple works in mysterious apple-ish ways we cannot comprehend.”
All well and good. But it’s when people try to apply this to God and the divine that they run into a little bit of difficulty. Just a little bit.
Of course then you’ll start bashing me with the tooth fairy, Easter bunny and FSM. Then I’d say this: science and faith are separate, but they need each other.
Einstein would be a good reference here. I’ll post the quote if you ask nicely :p
February 9th, 2009 at 1:26 PM
“Now, if the apple were in your mouth, you’d expect to feel it against your teeth and lips, to obstruct your breathing a bit, to be seen when you look in a mirror, and so on.”
Yeah. So? I could rant about the “evidences” for God in the world, but obviously you wouldn’t believe me.
“When you do not make these observations, you conclude on the basis of the lacking evidence that there is no apple in your mouth. In this case, it is quite obvious that absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence.”
Yeah. So?
“When you can expect to have evidence of something’s existence, and that expectation is dashed, you can more than adequately deny that the thing exists. So the absence of evidence argument fails, and most making the argument would concede the point.”
Again. For anything within human comprehension this is true. However, you fail to prove this in relation to things that cannot be proven false OR true.
February 9th, 2009 at 1:30 PM
“But if the argument is so flawed, how did it ever attain such massive credibility that it is ingrained in the minds of millions and relentlessly spouted off by any believers in gods, bigfoots, leprechauns, or whatever the hell else crazy people believe?”
ROFL
“The fact is, there is a grain of truth to the claim. It is, for instance, a logical fallacy to argue from ignorance. In other words, if you are ignorant of the evidence, it doesn’t follow that the evidence does not exist, or that the thing in question is nonexistent. Arguments of this nature are particularly open to question if no attempt at investigation has been made. Someone who shuts his eyes, plugs his ears, and shouts “Na-Na-Na!” when being presented with the evidence for something can very well claim that he has not received any evidence, but in that case it would reflect his willful ignorance of the evidence rather than the nonexistence of the thing in question.”
I’m confused. You agree with me then disagree with me. WTF is going on here?
” (This is a favorite tactic of creationists, for instance, when they blithely assert there are no transitional fossils even as an archaeopteryx bites their ass.)”
sigh…. the archaeopteryx doesn’t prove anything. Heck we’re not even sure it’s a real fossil :p
February 9th, 2009 at 1:37 PM
“One of the most important things to note is that though arguing from ignorance is a logical fallacy and obviously precludes any sort of logical certainty, it does not preclude various degrees of certainty or reasonableness.”
Brilliant. I didn’t know that. That wasn’t already completely obvious to me from the beginning.
“Because we are connected to reality through shoddy, ramshackle sensory apparatuses that are in turn wired to a mass of gray matter prone to delusions, bias, and an overt fondness for comical farting, we unfortunately do not possess any capacity to divine pure and whole truth from our surroundings. Instead, we have to use the much more tiresome process of science, which is really little different from a trial and error heuristic.”
See? We’re human. And humans are MORTAL and LIMITED.
“Anyone who has studied science, for instance, knows that the hypothetico-deductive method is constantly used to assess a theory. Basically, a scientist will don his labcoat, thick-rimmed glasses, and characteristic wild, unkempt hair and proceed to test a theory by inferring what consequences would follow if it were true, and then making observations to see if these consequences truly follow in reality. If the inferred consequences are observed, the scientist shouts, “Eureka!” or “It’s alive! ALIIIIIVVEEEEE!” and the zombie monster he has created proceeds to devour humanity.”
Woohoo. I’ve been sermonised to on this by friends, the media, books and my science teachers. I don’t need to hear it AGAIN :p
“But here’s the problem. The professor of logic over in the math department might catch wind of this monster creation and deny its validity, because the hypothetico-deductive method as described above is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. So the logician would exclaim, “If theory x entails y, it doesn’t follow that x is true when we see y. Theories w, y, and z could also entail y. You can only DISCONFIRM the theory by observing not-y!” And the logician would keep saying this even as the horrible biological frankenstein devours him.”
WTF. Now you’re debunking mathematicians too? You’re running out of friends here :p
February 9th, 2009 at 1:39 PM
“And that is essentially the problem. In everyday reasoning and the sciences, you don’t expect logical certainty.”
THANK YOU.
“We are forced to be fallibilists owing to our epistemic limitations, crippling cognitive biases, and obsessive ability to be distracted by bubble wrap.”
Which proves my point above.
“But a person who makes an appeal to the old absence of evidence argument is channeling his inner Cartesian, wishing to go back to a time of rationalism where it was still believed that we could know things with absolute, logical certainty through simple inner reflection.”
Huh?
“Unfortunately for these little Cartesians, their daily lives are a testament to their disbelief in the rationalist epistemic system. They press the brake pedal expecting their cars to stop, even though there would be no logical contradiction in expecting the car to stop upon jamming on the gas pedal. They also refrain from jumping off of buildings expecting to fly, eating a toaster expecting it to taste like pizza, and reading this blog expecting great remarks of wit and clarifying edification. At heart, we all recognize that the search for logical certainty simply won’t do, and we have to accept that the best we can do is possess varying degrees of certainty, but never complete certainty. What makes our scientific and daily reasoning successful isn’t its certainty, but the fact that it has been tried and tested countless times and worked…so far, at least.”
Ok I’m lost now. Try again :p
February 9th, 2009 at 1:42 PM
“And this is why complex ideas should not be smashed into bite-size, single-sentence nuggets of established wisdom, because it only engenders confusion and breeds misuse. I have managed to write countless blocks of texts in explication of this single sentence, and I feel the need to say even more but halt only out of consideration for my unfortunate readers.”
Please do. You are boring me already :p
Nah j/k… I agree with you BUT there’s a balance. Rants without organisation are pointless. Points without explanation are meaningless.
February 9th, 2009 at 1:50 PM
“The basic point is that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, provided that we have searched for the evidence and found it lacking.”
Yes. Unless you deal with things where evidence is obviously not forthcoming.
“Any sort of objection to this sort of reasoning would necessarily come from an outdated Cartesian point of view that seeks undoubtable, absolutely certain knowledge from pure logical deduction, and it would follow that not only is the absence of evidence not evidence of absence, but also that science is completely erroneous and has nothing of worth to say, and that there are not degrees of knowledge but only black and white, completely wrong or completely right.”
What the hell. Cartesian? Do you even know what this term means, let alone in what context it’s supposed to be used in? Sure I don’t but you’re the one writing about his followers :p
“Most who make such claims about the invalidity of arguments from lacking evidence, of course, do not explicitly deny their daily inductive inferences or the technological and conceptual bounties produced by the “logical fallacy” of science as it affirms the consequent. If they wish to retain this argument, they have to be prepared to lose a lot more than just claims of nonexistence, but virtually any nontautological, empirical claim that can possibly be made!”
?????
you use a lot of big words here. they mean something to me yes, but used in this way just make my eyes glaze over. you’re just making the same point you made above. just that all you’re doing is being a prick :p
February 9th, 2009 at 1:58 PM
“So, why do I disbelieve in God?”
Please tell me. Because right now I’m thinking you’re schizophrenic and are in two minds about everything :p
“Because I’d expect to see evidence of such a being and I do not see evidence of such a being.”
Who’s covering their eyes and ears now? Three monkeys anyone?
“If one were to respond in a mystical fashion, perhaps arguing that we cannot have knowledge of God, that God transcends us in all ways and resides in some supernatural, unfathomable realm, that would be an adequate criticism, but it leaves the theist on still shakier ground.”
Ok why?
“This “mystical” god, for instance, could not be said to be the creator of the universe, capable of intercession in our daily lives (much less getting nailed to a cross), or capable of any sort of observable act that could be adduced as evidence for its existence.”
WTF are you saying here? It makes no sense and there is no evidence for your claim.
“So the theist who makes such an argument should be wary of the qualities and attributes in God he is necessarily giving up in doing so, as they likely conflict with the tenets of his religion.”
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
“Of course, this also opens up another avenue of attack against belief in such a God. The atheist would need only point out that if God is being defined as some unknowable, ineffable entity, that the theist could not possibly know what it is he is saying to exist.”
WTF. I’ll just reverse your argument on you like you explained above. THEN we’d be going around in circles.
Ineffable? That sounds wrong on so many levels :p
“He may as well be muttering an incomprehensible gurgle. It is as if I told someone a parrot is on my shoulder, and upon being questioned about the lacking evidence of any parrot, asserting that it is a mystical, unknowable parrot, at which point I am asked how I could know it is parrot-like or know it is on my shoulder if it is indeed unknowable and so deeply mystical, to which my only response is, of course, an incomprehensible gurgle.”
Interesting use of analogies/parables. Learning from the master I see :p
Again this proves nothing. You’re just using the FSM/unicorn argument. Which is absolutely pointless because it is absolutely false.
“The principle of Ockham’s razor also serves to adequately refute any appeals to mystical, completely unobservable gods.”
OcCam’s razor. not ockham :p but go on if you can. why?
“One should only posit additional existential entities if there is additional evidence for these entities, and naturally atheism is a more parsimonious explanation for lacking evidence than a needless hypothesis about an unknowable God existing.”
what bullshit.
from what I can see, the only reason you can’t see the evidence is that you are blind and deaf to it. Atheism doesn’t explain anything and it’s an untenable position.
“And don’t even get me started on how badly the principle of Ockham’s razor is abused. Ockham’s trusty razor has been abused so many times it will in all likelihood grow up to engage in sexually deviant behavior and suffer sever posttraumatic stress disorder.”
????????????????????????/
that’s scary.
since the fundamental position of Occam’s razor is wrong anyway though, I don’t give a shit. :p
February 9th, 2009 at 2:01 PM
This is only the tip of the iceberg mate.
I could do the same to the rest of your posts, but I think I’ll leave it for the day.
A few things:
Before you accuse me of threatening you, remember you put this in the public domain and you opened it to comment. If you, stupidly, didn’t want anyone to comment or argue, then you shouldn’t have enabled comments. Indeed you shouldn’t have even bothered posting your argument.
Also, I’m just dealing with your arguments. I’ve hardly touched mine. I’ve just used my logic, reason, commonsense and the residual faith that I have to argue here. So I’ve got plenty up your sleeve.
Having said that, have a nice day and I hope to hear from you soon.
February 9th, 2009 at 6:04 PM
Tankman, do you even know what an argument IS? Throughout what seems to be an infinite array of commentary (and you complain about my post’s lack of organization?), your “argument” seems to consist mainly of you quoting me and then issuing a response like “What?”, “Bullshit!”, or else throwing up countless red herrings that have nothing to do with what I’ve written.
It is obvious that you haven’t even understood what I’ve written, because you seem to agree with me when I talk about our epistemic limitations, but you don’t seem to follow the train of the argument that points out these limitations are not problematic for fallibilist epistemology, but only for those of a rationalist bent who demand absolute, complete logical certainty for all beliefs. (And I saw you criticize my use of Cartesian in this context. Perhaps you should reread Descartes so you can realize that he is indeed a rationalist philosopher concerned with epistemic issues who thought this could only be resolved with absolute certainty. This is just basic, Philosophy 101 stuff. Please tell me you’ve heard of “I think, therefore I am”? If you understood why he said that, you’d understand why I am characterizing those who want epistemology to be infallible and capable of a priori logical deduction throughout as “Cartesians”.)
When you show the capacity to understand what I’m saying, perhaps then I’ll think it worth my time to attempt communication with you. At the moment, however, I think a boulder would show better comprehension.
February 9th, 2009 at 8:58 PM
I understood. I just don’t want to engage with you on the same level. Because it’ll become a philosophical debate.
Besides you haven’t answered my questions.
Also do you even understand the words you use yourself?
I only came here because I found a random link to your quiz. Was going to go back and give it 6000% on the rating too.
February 12th, 2009 at 10:09 AM
Tankman, what the fuck? You don’t want to get into a philosophical discussion? Then why post any comments at all?
And “Ockham” is just as correct a spelling as “Occam.”
February 12th, 2009 at 1:24 PM
*Ignoring Tankman completely as “So what” and “????????” are not valid technique’s for debate or discourse*
SG- I just had a geek-gasm on the correct application and defense of Ockham’s razor. The poor thing is a child star of logic. So much promise shown in it’s youth, the chance to work with the greatest mind’s of all ages, now it is drudged out to cameo as the trump card for arguements no one can believe in.
When you have a chance, try picking up Ibn al-Haytham’s Aporias against Ptolemy. I think you will adore it.
And please keep writing. I am addicted to your text. You are blog-crack for me.
February 12th, 2009 at 4:27 PM
Ha, Tankman seems to be operating under the depressingly common misconception that “philosophical” discussion is tantamount to the fact-free, inane, and arbitrary pulling of ideas from one’s ass, Mr. Wilder. No doubt this is a clear case of psychological projection on Tankman’s part.
February 17th, 2009 at 11:45 PM
MW - it’s pointless in my opinion. there are more important things in the world than that. Having said that, I quite like them. But they are pointless *shrugs*
HL - that’s exactly how a vast majority of the world’s English speaking population would react when you use such language. They may not be valid techniques to you but they exist and are used. The reason why academia is often maligned is that no one understands, thus no one cares. *you can keep ignoring me if you like :p*
SG - um not necessarily. Like I said, philosophical discussion is interesting, but I find it ultimately unprofitable. You can use whatever ideas you like, but it’s how you use them that proves how much you actually understand them. I never actually used the three adjectives you used to describe your actions, but if you can find them anywhere in my above comments, then feel free to quote.
So, since you seem intent on trying to make a generalisation as to my actions and motivations, what do you mean by “psychological projection”?
February 18th, 2009 at 12:13 AM
“I never actually used the three adjectives you used to describe your actions, but if you can find them anywhere in my above comments, then feel free to quote.”
You never used those specific adjectives (fact-free, inane, and arbitrary), but immediately before this quote you said:
“Like I said, philosophical discussion is interesting, but I find it ultimately unprofitable. You can use whatever ideas you like…”
That is, you can use whatever ideas you like, whether they be fact-free, inane, and arbitrary. But that is not really philosophy. You can’t just say anything you like and call it philosophy, though that’s quite popular these days (see my latest post, for example, as I discuss this in detail).
I suppose now I’ll go over a few things you said in your previous comments, at least some of the things that weren’t later addressed in my post. (You really should read the whole thing before posting comments, because most of the stuff you say about God not producing evidence for or against is addressed toward the end.)
For instance, you say that we can’t rely on absence of evidence as an indicator of absence when you “deal with things where evidence is obviously not forthcoming.” This is true. That’s why I specifically address those Gods that are said to transcend the material world in all ways and don’t produce evidence. These are the passages, by the way, where you respond to the quotes by putting “??????” and clearly not understanding it. I will try to explain it for you here though.
Now, suppose you posit a God that is transcendant and doesn’t produce evidence. Okay, fine. One point I make in the post above is that such a God would conflict with most religious traditions that specifically invoke Gods that have empirical effects. Christianity, for instance, posits that god was once walking around in person, is capable of performing observable miracles, and created the observable world. This is not a transcendant God for which you could expect no evidence. So you’d have to abandon tenets like these to maintain any argument about God being transcendant or unknowable to humanity.
The second point I make is that when one claims an unknowable God exists, they don’t know what they are asserting to exist. If the being is truly unknowable, they don’t know whether it is a thinking entity, a mindless force, or a unicorn. You can’t say what it is if you admit you don’t know, and hence you’re claim would be nonsensical, tantamount to speaking jibberish. Your “argument” against this is to simply say that this is the “FSM/unicorn” argument. How is this at all similar to such an argument? I’m not saying that God can be doubted because unicorns can be doubted here. I’m saying that God can be doubted because God believers who assert that their God is transcendant, by their own definition of God’s qualities, can’t know what they are asserting to exist. I don’t doubt unicorns, for instance, because people don’t know what they are asserting when they say unicorns exist. Unicorns are defined as creatures that are capable of observation with certain specific traits. I have a feeling you just don’t understand my argument, and it also seems you don’t really have a grasp on what the terms “transcendant” and “ineffable” mean in the context of my argument.