Since certain users think I'm lying about Bayes' Theorem regarding the probability of God existing...?

Here's your chance to back your claim up. In the attached question, one user claimed that I'm lying about Bayes' Theorem, and that it in fact proves God's existence, rather than what I actually claimed, which is that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, NOT that it somehow proves that God... show more Here's your chance to back your claim up.

In the attached question, one user claimed that I'm lying about Bayes' Theorem, and that it in fact proves God's existence, rather than what I actually claimed, which is that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, NOT that it somehow proves that God does not exist.

At any rate, here's your chance to explain where I lied. Attached is the original question with my post and the claim that I lied, with no further explanation from the person who said that I lied. Please explain: how exactly did I lie? What did I say that was inaccurate?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
Update: M.L. And there, you completely failed to understand what I said. I did NOT use Bayes Theorem to disprove God. I said quite plainly that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, which is mathematically undeniable if you actually bothered to follow the math. Apparently you did not. I also said plainly that... show more M.L. And there, you completely failed to understand what I said. I did NOT use Bayes Theorem to disprove God. I said quite plainly that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, which is mathematically undeniable if you actually bothered to follow the math. Apparently you did not. I also said plainly that logic does not altar probability. That is also true. I also said that given these constraints, that the probability of God existing is very low. So no...I did not establish any proof beyond absence of evidence being evidence of absence. Please read what I actually said and try to understand it then get back to me.
Update 2: It is communicated clearly. Your inability to grasp the math is not my failure. It is yours.
Update 3: By the way--you're posting links to logical fallacies that simply do not apply here. Are you just attempting to look intelligent by posting links to "begging the question" and "argument from ignorance?" If you are, that *is* a logical fallacy called "blinding with science." Perhaps you should learn the terms you... show more By the way--you're posting links to logical fallacies that simply do not apply here. Are you just attempting to look intelligent by posting links to "begging the question" and "argument from ignorance?" If you are, that *is* a logical fallacy called "blinding with science." Perhaps you should learn the terms you are using before you use them, and take the time to understand what is written before you try having an opinion on it.
Update 4: M.L.: now the truth comes out. You'll side with Carl Sagan any day. That's called an appeal to authority fallacy. By the way: Sagan is incorrect in his appliction of "appeal to ignorance" in "The Demon Haunted World." An appeal to ignorance is not the same as saying that "absence of evidence is evidence of... show more M.L.: now the truth comes out. You'll side with Carl Sagan any day. That's called an appeal to authority fallacy. By the way: Sagan is incorrect in his appliction of "appeal to ignorance" in "The Demon Haunted World." An appeal to ignorance is not the same as saying that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence." An appeal to ignorance is based on the assumption that if a claim cannot be disproven, then it must be true. The justification for absence of evidence being evidence of absence does not say any such thing. All it says is that given the definition of evidence, that the absence of it lowers the probability that the claim is actually true. So you side with Sagan. I'll stick with what the mathematics say.
9 answers 9