Is this a valid logical conclusion?

Question

There is a lack of evidence for a theory, therefore it cannot exist.

No. However, absence of evidence makes belief unjustified. Until evidence exists, it can only be at best a hypothesis.
-------------------

Good answer. Seems reasonable...for some people.

:)

That's a very egotistical way of looking at things. Are you God? Have you seen all corners of the universe and examined every possibility?
-----------------------------

Uh...no. Just a simple man asking a simple question.

Sorry for being prideful.

No not at all. I see where you are going with this Dougie. I'm not foolish. I see where you are going with this.
-------------------------------

Muhahaha!

(lol)

No, I promise not to make a follow-up question, regardless of how tempting it is right now. :-)

Answer 1

You're right. Evolution--No evidence beyond natural adaptation. No plausible explanation for the beginning of life. Total lack of support in the math.

"When it comes to the origins of life there are only two possibilities: Creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved hundreds of years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible. That life arose from spontaneous chance." - George Wald, "The Origin of Life", Scientific American May 1954

Answer 2

By definition, a theory is a hypothesis backed by evidence. Are you suggesting that until evidence is incontrovertible, no proposition can be made?

The scientific method interprets experience and produces a hypothesis. It then tries to disprove the hypothesis. If evidence primarily supports it and no significant evidence disproves it, it may be promoted as a theory, which is a working model of understanding. Sincere scientists are always open to new interpretations, but they need to have reliable models to start from. That's how theories work.

By claiming that a theory cannot "exist" (whatever that means) without being complete and undeniable, you're claiming that investigative learning is impossible. What is the alternative, divine revelation? Is all "knowledge" to be consumed from God's spoon, without question? What's the point of having a mind then?

Answer 3

That's a very egotistical way of looking at things. Are you God? Have you seen all corners of the universe and examined every possibility?

Of course not. Therefore, 'lack of evidence' is meaningless in disproving an idea. You need evidence against it.

Answer 4

That's a very egotistical way of looking at things. Are you God? Have you seen all corners of the universee and examined every possibility
well just as a observation the univers doesn't have corners

Answer 5

No, there is not enough evidence to make a theory a law, therefor Evolutions should be taken as a general description of a process, not an absolute truth.

Just as the theory that God exists remains in a similar torpor. No one can prove he/she/it exists outside of anecdotal means, therefor, its not an absolute truth.

Answer 6

Depends on what the theory is about. Not all theories lack evidence. There was a theory long ago that the world was flat...

So, the answer is: No this is not a valid or logical conclusion.

Answer 7

Nope.
However, the longer it's studied, if evidence is still non-existent, then the theory becomes more and more unlikely until no one but the most desperate or the most personally invested could possibly still lend any credence to it.

Answer 8

No. You can make a theory with a lot of evidence.
For example: the gravity force or the electricity.

Answer 9

No. However, absence of evidence makes belief unjustified. Until evidence exists, it can only be at best a hypothesis.

Answer 10

I have yet to hear a theory that all the aspects and all evidence is found for it. Evolution has flaws, and we don't know everything about creationism that there is to know.

if you disbelieve a theory because you can't find any evidence, what happens when you see gaps in your theory or evidence to support the opposing theory?

so, no.

Answer 11

the undertaking with your question is which you're making fake assumptions and don't tackle the thought of genetically inherited and distilled ethical habit. technology HAS validated that early human communal society had a definitive want for a sequence of ideals that could enable the habitation of people in close proximity with one yet another. in view that we are genetically pushed to be social and type social communities, the creation of ethical and ethical habit may well be seen as a systemic branch of the human survival trait. The earliest human societies had nicely progressed rules and ethical precepts. in actuality, in case you have been to earnings early human societies, you may even see there is lot extra in undemanding with their ethical ideals than there are adjustments. Morality is probably not very subjective throughout cultures. i comprehend of no subculture or society that, on the completed, would not oppose robbery, homicide, vandalism, rape, etc. the only component it fairly is somewhat subjective is the reaction to such violations of the communal ethical code. As such, theism/atheism do not even enter into the argument. ethical and ethical habit are organic products of human progression. They existed in basic terms before accepted non secular devotions out of sheer necessity. If all faith have been removed from human society, we would nevertheless want ethical and ethical ideology just to proceed to exist as a species. you extra advise that theism is the only direction by potential of which one might get carry of a ethical and ethical experience. nicely, which theistic self-discipline are you concerning? The Aztecs theory themselves somewhat ethical, even however they frequently engaged in human sacrifice. Early Jews and Christians theory the comparable yet observed no undertaking with the preserving of slaves and not seeing women folk as equals. So whose ethical and ethical outlook are good?