Also answer this question: Would putting this in the science and astronomy category increase the chances of a "no" answer?
2007-02-13 20:16:17 · 12 answers · asked by Arthurpod 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
No, only evidence of absence is evidence of absence. If neither can prove something, then what makes one right?
2007-02-13 20:43:12 · answer #1 · answered by Mike J 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In general, it is not. However, if you have searched diligently in all the likely places, and have turned up nothing, then absence becomes at least a credible view. And that is so regardless of the category in which this is posted.
2007-02-14 04:22:48 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately the logic behind that statement is flawed. I personally have no evidence that the moon is closer to the earth than the sun, but that doesn't make it false. It also doesn't make it true, it makes it unknown.
In terms of the lack of evidence for God, that doesn't automatically point to the mal-existance of God.
And I say 'unfortunately' because I am an Atheist.
2007-02-14 04:21:39 · answer #3 · answered by Mawkish 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The absence of evidence only strongly suggest no reason for belief. It doesn't suggest you start making up fantasy's.
2007-02-14 04:27:43 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The absence of evidence wouldn't be evidence of absence, it is an example of absence.
I couldn't answer the second part of your question.
2007-02-14 04:20:56 · answer #5 · answered by Dolores G. Llamas 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It really depends. There are a lot of factors that are involved with religion. When multiple claims have been made, yet none of them produce evidence it is easy for one to conclude that the entire religion is fantasy.
There is at this time and of my understanding no way to disprove or prove a negative.
2007-02-14 04:21:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course, not.
And there are braindead trolls in every section on Y!A.
By the way, I've actually studied statistical techniques for determining the probability that something that hasn't happened can happen.
2007-02-14 04:24:47 · answer #7 · answered by novangelis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
therefore, that which is absent,has yet to manifest, and therefore its evidence is not available to the human eye, yet evidence is present daily.so the evidence of that which is absent is clearly obvious.take colors for example, is the sky really blue? OR, is that (evidence) reflection of: the ocean . now, what makes the color of the ocean ?that which is clearly absent. scoop seawater in your hand, the evidence (color) is clearly absent.....
2007-02-14 05:10:03 · answer #8 · answered by ka'iwi 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, but it is consistent with absence.
2007-02-14 04:24:01 · answer #9 · answered by hznfrst 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. It just shifts the burden of proof.
2007-02-14 04:27:20 · answer #10 · answered by Doc Occam 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋