Does the lack of evidence of something truely justify that that something doesn't exist?

Question

There have been many instances of things that have been claimed to not to exist just to have been discovered to exist. All these scientists had to go on were eye witnesses and stories (i.e. The platypus, The mountain Gorilla, the okapi etc.) and even then these were thought to be hoaxes.

So why do people just claim that something (i.e. God, spirits, ghosts etc.) don't exist without searching for them? Even though all that one has to go off of is eye witnesses and stories.

Some things just don't leave proper evidence of their existence. It's like if a person were to see a snowman walking around they would walk around it looking for the batteries(<-this last sentence is in reference to The Return of Frosty the Snowman.)

Why must people have to see something just to believe it exists? How many times have you seen something unbelievable and said, "I don't believe it." and yet it's staring you in the eye.

I'm sure if it doesn't exist here it exists somewhere in this universe.

Also how will we know if we've found evidence if we don't know what we are looking for

Answer 1

Evidence is still only another point of view and it can be mulplated. Evidence helps but a person needs to be looking for what he or she thinks as evidence to being with. Can any type of EVIDENCE prove that FAITH exist? The word EVIDENCE can also be used as an excuse NOT to believe in something.

Answer 2

a great point, in fact probably the one that turned me from athiest to hard-core agnostic. Why does the supernatural need to be verified by science. By definition, doesn't it exist outside science? The problem is twofold. One, not being able to observe and repeat things makes them very hard to utilize. Who cares if ghosts exist when we can't guarentee a meeting anytime? One person having contact doesn't mean anyone can. Otherwise it would become observable. So it's practically useless for society as a whole. And two, way too many religious people never get to this sophisticated an argument. I have concluded that organized religion in its current form is a direct hinderance to this kind of logic.

Answer 3

The Mundanes can't see. Their whole life philosophy is based off of the idea that, " Science Knows Everything". Even tho the honest scientist would admit that Scientific Reality is a tentative thing, subject to revision at a moments notice...

What was scientific fact a 100 or even 50 years ago isn't true today, and some would even be considered absurd and laughable today...

Imagine what will be considered Fact 100 or even 10 years from now...

Hail Eris! All Hail Discordia!

Answer 4

If, at some point, science leaves the natural world, and can be used to prove the supernatural, then you may have a valid point.

The animals you list all have one thing in common...eyewitness reports that could be verified independently.

Give me one example of something that exists, yet leaves no 'proper' evidence.

If you claim to not believe something with the evidence staring you in the eye, then your delusional.

Answer 5

People do search for them, the people that "beleive" they exist, the problem is without evidence no one else has to believe in it. When it is proven to be real and we can either see it, feel it, etc then we have to conclude it is real. Until that point it goes on faith alone. Faith in the fact that the person isnt lying, faith that the person did actually feel it, see it whatever. But faith is just that without evidence. No one is going to look for it unless they believe it exists. If i tell you I saw an alien, you might believe me, someone else would not, the person who believed me might actually look for it the other person would not. Now lets say the person who did believe it found it and brought it back, both of you now have proof, if the same person found it and left it behind, you still have no proof only faith in the fact that both people aren't lying. More people might be inclined to believe it coming from two people but not everyone will. Now take the same scenario with the actual alien in possesion, everyone who comes to where the two people are with the alien, sees it for themselves will have to conclude it is in fact real. But until they actually see it for themselves it is still only faith. Just because 2000 people see it doesn't make it real for 4000 others. They might believe it based on the assumption that 2000 people are not lying, but it still is not real its only the belief that its real. Not the same thing.

Answer 6

Take a paper bag . Blow into it and look at how empty it is . Do your eyes decieve you or is it proof that there is really something inside the empty bag ? Surely something as huge as a god would be easier to find than something that could fit in an empty bag ! So the lack of evidence meets the facts and is what one should expect as proof.And why on earth would the sole creator hide from his supposed creation . Are telling me god is a closet case ?

Answer 7

How can you believe something that you have no evidence for? What is the basis for your belief?
Do you believe in Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy?
Would you buy a house without seeing it?
Evidence for exixtence is the only basis for belief.

Answer 8

Well couple the fact that no evidence with the idea of gods being extremely far fetched, then yes lack of evidence not only justifies but is the best logical conclusion.

Answer 9

There are those whose belief extends to only what is mentioned in a single Book called the Bible. They don't have proof that this is true, but they have "faith" that it is. If that sounds foolish, hang around they will prove the foolishness of it all for you.

Answer 10

Lack of evidence proves only one thing:

You're too lazy to look deeper.