1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured A woman and child; truth via absence of evidence

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Unveiled Artist, Jan 13, 2020.

  1. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    27,140
    Ratings:
    +8,948
    I'm bored.

    One day you walk into a house. You see one woman with a gun and a child on the ground (using a child for a purpose). The child has blood on him and so does the woman.

    You saw nothing.

    So. Did a murder took place?

    If you think it has, what brought you to that conclusion without proper investigation of facts?

    How does absence of evidence and witness prove something is true regardless how strong your opinion, belief, and conclusion convinces you otherwise?

    You can relate this to god if you like, but the context is the same whether it be supernatural or every day physical reality.

    -

    Assuming, for a minute, you will NOT investigate but sit still and make conclusions based on raw information (what you see, experience, past experiences, etc) you have at present.
     
  2. night912

    night912 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages:
    880
    Ratings:
    +321
    Religion:
    Not religious
    I wouldn't come to the conclusion that a woman is holding a gun and that a child is on the ground.:D
     
  3. Mestemia

    Mestemia Advocatus Diaboli
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    45,466
    Ratings:
    +9,543
    How would I know?
     
  4. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    27,140
    Ratings:
    +8,948
    Maybe by theory, but if you walked into a room and saw a child, knife, and a person would you stop to say "I wouldn't, let me think..."?
     
  5. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    27,140
    Ratings:
    +8,948
    If you walked into a home and saw a child on the ground, knife, and blood would you automatically assume the child was in danger without needing to investigate it first?

    If you had means to protect the child without the other person "doing" anything, what prompt you to protect the child outside of your belief, opinion, etc he may be in danger based on what you see at the moment?
     
  6. night912

    night912 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages:
    880
    Ratings:
    +321
    Religion:
    Not religious
    Replacing a gun for a knife doesn't change the situation.
     
  7. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    27,140
    Ratings:
    +8,948
    My mistake. The question is the same.
     
  8. night912

    night912 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages:
    880
    Ratings:
    +321
    Religion:
    Not religious
    You can keep on adding more assumptions but that doesn't change the same situation.
     
  9. Nakosis

    Nakosis crystal soldier
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    15,573
    Ratings:
    +6,485
    Religion:
    Atheist Libertarian
    I think making a connection to a murder would be a natural human response. The more dire possibility would need the most immediate response. Your response could be critical to your life or someone else's life. Self survival would require this to be one's initial thought. Further assessment would be required to de-escalate to a less dire possibility.

    Assuming a murder took place is the safest conclusion to make.
     
  10. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    27,140
    Ratings:
    +8,948
    You have completely lost me. What are you referring to?
     
  11. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    27,140
    Ratings:
    +8,948
    Yes. The question, though, is not based on the assumption but the fact is "because you didn't see it, logically, why do you believe it happened."

    I know immediate response can be justified but that's not the context of the question.

    Compared

    How does the absence of evidence and witness (you didn't see what took place) proof that the women harmed the child beyond your opinion, belief, (or immediate human reaction)?

    Trying to make it more of a thinking question rather than justify it by immediate response; that's a given.
     
  12. Mestemia

    Mestemia Advocatus Diaboli
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    45,466
    Ratings:
    +9,543
    Better safe than sorry.
     
  13. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    27,140
    Ratings:
    +8,948
    If you were a believer, could you tell me how does the absence of evidence that god (given one needs faith) exist prove god exists regardless your feelings and opinions? Without being a witness, what brought you to the conclusion?

    It has nothing to do with the child. You can relate this to god if you like, but the context is the same whether it be supernatural or every day physical reality.

    It's the context.

    Always the context.
     
  14. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    27,140
    Ratings:
    +8,948
    The thing is, can you trust your immediate response if you think about it?

    Can you trust your feelings and opinions about a danger that you did not see happen?

    I mentioned you can put god in this, so can a believer trust their feelings to fill in the "god of the gaps" or do you think they go by their immediate response?

    I wanted to do this without religion cause I rather see the logic in how you came to that conclusion without defaulting on "but I have faith" (or my immediate-human response). I'm sure there is more to it than that if both have not "seen" the action but trust your faith and/or body to judge what is real and what is not.

    Of course justifying your human-response for the safety of the child is good; but, that's not the point.

    @Mestemia
    Disregard the other post.
     
  15. Mestemia

    Mestemia Advocatus Diaboli
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    45,466
    Ratings:
    +9,543
    No, I could not.
    Mainly because I suspect there is a different thought process for each person.

    Interesting.
    What conclusion do you assume I came to?

    Now you have ventured off into left field all by yourself mumbling.
     
  16. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    27,140
    Ratings:
    +8,948
    This is pretty much what I wanted to talk about. Everything else sound less like conversation and more like sarcasm.

    You could not because everyone is different or you could not answer the question?

    Since every person is different, I'm sure you have an opinion on it.

    Going back to the logic behind the child thing. Putting aside your immediate human response (can't use that for justification) what evidence would you assume the child was in danger given you haven't seen the possible act of crime?

    I don't like using god too much cause people go haywire of the darn word.
     
  17. Mestemia

    Mestemia Advocatus Diaboli
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    45,466
    Ratings:
    +9,543
    Probably because it is sarcasm given the OP wants specifics without offering up any details that even a child would notice, not to mention someone with any training or experience....

    Yes.
    I can not answer for myself because I am not a believer.
    I can not answer for any one else because I suspect that each person has their own thought process which is saturated with bias, prejudice, etc. based upon each individuals experiences.

    I most likely would if I had any idea what your point might be.

    You are going to have to be more specific.

    Can't use instinct, reflex, training, etc. as "justification" for actions that would be, at least at first, training, reflex, instinct, etc.?

    since I am failing to make any connection between your detail free scenario and god....
     
  18. Amanaki

    Amanaki Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2018
    Messages:
    9,783
    Ratings:
    +5,804
    Religion:
    Falun Gong (Cultivation path)
    I would call for medical personnel and police so they could do what is needed to do.
    Then I would while wait for ambulance and police try to gain an answer to if the woman is a danger to me, is she is not I would run in to help the kid (if he still alive) if the kid is not alive but the woman is not harmed, even she has blood on her i would wait for the ambulance and police
     
  19. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    14,652
    Ratings:
    +6,205
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    Why would you assume anything? No evidence is no evidence. It doesn't logically lead one to any conclusions.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. pcarl

    pcarl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    4,575
    Ratings:
    +1,980
    Religion:
    Catholic
    I see it not within your expertise to conclude one way or another. One has to know how to read the evidence.
     
Loading...