Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, how do you feel this relates to religious debate?

Question

Let's all pretend we're objective again.

Answer 1

If a tree fall in the woods and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?
I am being objective. That tree would make a sound when it falls.
I believe in God. I choose to believe in God. I see signs I hear signs. I call that being objective.

Answer 2

Its actually not true. In fact as a Mathematician who is familiar with probability I can tell you that

Absence of Evidence IS Evidence of Absence.

Evidence is defined as anything which contributes to a probability estimate.

Bayes theorem tells us exactly how much the absence of evidence (where evidence might have been possible )contributes to a probability estimate.

Do you seriously think when you take a test for cancer and the results come back negative that that means nothing?

Answer 3

Of course, some persons will say: 'I know there is a God. I can feel it!' Yet, such "feeling" is not convincing evidence of God's existence, is it? You may believe that God exists. But what if someone asked you: 'How do you know that God exists?' Would you be able to give convincing evidence to back up your belief? Unless you are personally convinced about the reality of God, it is not likely that such faith will hold up under intense pressure. Also, what about your children? Are you sure that they do not have any doubts about God's existence? Is their conviction strong enough to withstand the onslaughts of evolutionary teaching at school? Could they have seen through the shallow, childish reasoning of the atheistic teacher?

Whether you are convinced of God's existence or not, would it not be wise to consider any possible evidence available as to the existence of God?

Ignoring God out of Arrogance?

· A self-described agnostic who heads the U.S. Institute for Space Studies has come to the conclusion that God's existence is far more scientifically believable than formerly. Speaking on "God and the Astronomers," Robert Jastrow said that astronomers seem to be finding more circumstantial evidence of God's existence. The gist of the developments, he said, is that the universe began at a specific time, so it had "a beginning in the Judeo-Christian sense." In view of this, Jastrow finds it troublesome that most scientists do not even concede the possibility that God created the universe. Why? Often, he said, it is out of arrogance. "Science cannot bear the thought that there is an important natural phenomenon which it cannot hope to explain even with unlimited time and money." He added that "our colleagues like to trivialize the whole matter (of the beginning of the universe) by calling it the Big Bang, talking about it in firecracker terms."

God's Word, the Bible, shows that man, with the eye of reason, can discern His existence and invisible qualities through the things He has made. It then describes those who refuse to so recognize the Creator as being "empty-headed in their reasonings."-Rom. 1:19-21.

Answer 4

This is true as it applies to anything. For example: lets say we want to settle the debate over whether unicorns exist. We have so far accumulated no evidence that shows their existance. So, the abscence of this evidence does not mean there is evidence of their absence does it. Yet, people do not then jump to the conclusion that therefore, Unicorns must then exist. No, the conclusion from this is that in the abscence of any evidence for thier existance, we don't acknowledge the existance of unicorns. We always hold open the possibility that some day evidence may arise and then we would re-evaluate our position. But until then, we simply do not acknowledge the existance of unicorns. Make sense?

Answer 5

Now that sounds like a Sunday morning sound-bite. I agree with Odd Job that our lesser brain rewards us with dopamine when we stimulate it with the comfort of belonging,direction and purpose. It's uncomfortable and fearful to not know whats it all about Alfie. You just have to look at examples of ((sh-akin)) and ((qua-ken)), ((fainting)), ((seizures)), singing and dancing to know some people are just plain getting off on the holy spirit entering their body's. This is almost sexual for them, and the lesser brain really rewards the body with dopamine for sexual feelings. Now is there evidence that the holy spirit is moving about the congregation, making the sheeple feel real good. No, but there is evidence that people can put themselves into a mental (lesser brain) state or trance, collectively. Try a football game sitting in the rowdy section. Walking into a casino, with a wad of money and you like to gamble. Betting on a fight, any fight even dogs. The lesser brain can literally light you up and make you do stupid risky things. There is also evidence that some people are better at overriding their lesser brain with their cerebral cortex (grey-matter). Now there is no absence of intellectual people that have answered your Question above me. This whole debate would be moot if these gods weren't so absent.

Answer 6

That is a cute sound bite usually whipped out when someone points out that the evidence for this or that is non-existent. But it is meaningless out of context. In the context of evidence for jesus, I like to put it in the context that humans act like humans. When the supposed savior of the world is born, alleged prophecy is fulfilled (that is another discussion) rulers in another country know about it, there is a guiding star, and shepherds in the field witness it, humans don't wait a century to record the incident with what must have been generations of hearsay. This was THE event. Yet, it goes unnoticed until at least one hundred years later. I also like to put it in the context that god would not miss an opportunity. Yet when jesus supposedly walked the earth and had 33 years of opportunity to write something, ANYTHING, the only thing the bible ever records that he wrote blew away in the dust. Talk about missed opportunity. The end result? We are left with the writings and claims of man. Even the claim that "scripture" is god-breathed is nothing but a claim of man. So to believe in the god of the bible, I have to believe that humans didn't act like humans for THE event, god missed a perfect opportunity to write something, and I have to believe in the claims of man. That god just blew away like the writing in the dust. Sorry, but placed in its proper context, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Answer 7

Ok, but using that logic leads you to adopt a philosophy that leads nowhere. With that theory, we can make the claim that leprechauns, hobbits, elves, goblins, unicorns, neptune, Ra, pixies, Allah, Thor, and God all exist, or at least could.

The problem with a lack of evidence, is that people base their entire lives on these things, and build cases for moral value and war on the will of these myths.

Just think about all the brilliant minds that have been spent on theology and studying the bible. That thinking power could have been spent on evidence based discovery and learning, and the human race would be much further advanced than it is now.

Answer 8

evidence for something that IS can presumably be found. it should be self-evident that evidence cannot exist for something that does not exist, nor can there evidence exist to prove the nonexistence of something that in fact does not exist

example: if you allege the existence of something you have no supporting evidence/proof of, it is impossible to question the evidence that you do not have. you can only disagree or agree without any evidence. a person having hallucinations has more "proof" of their hallucinations reality (since they are at least detecting them with one or more of their senses) than does the person making an unsupported claim without even subjective/sensory "proof"

that's why logically the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. a world where anyone could make any baseless claim without evidence and be taken seriously would be a world without any logic and a lot of insane people.

Answer 9

If I claim that two airplanes collided over my house, and burst into flames, as they fell 15 minutes ago;--Would you be ready to believe this if you look and find no debris on the ground near my house, no eye witnesses to the crash, no one claiming to hear the crash, no planes missing,no smoke or smell of smoke, or any other evidence that the event took place?
Would you not say " it's obvious, this thing did not happen"?
Would you not believe that I am a nut -case if I claim that I can see these wrecked planes on the ground, and I can hear people calling for help?

Answer 10

Absense of evidence is really 'context' related... its importance depends on the kind of questions you are asking. In the context of supernatural or fantastical beings, though, it is an extremely WEAK argument in favor of the existence of gods... and bridge trolls, garden gnomes, monsters under the bed, the Tooth Fairy, and herds of invisible pink unicorns that prance around in our back yards under the light of the full moon. In fact, this argument is SO weak that it can essentially be farted off and entirely disregarded. We need only perk up when evidence presents itself.

There is something, though, known as 'evidence FROM absence', or 'argument from silence'. For example, it is reasonable to think that if Jesus actually existed, then Paul, when he visited the 'brothers' in Jerusalem, would have been avid to see the hill where Jesus was crucified, artifacts of his carpentry work, his tools, his robes, his tomb, the site of his ascension into heaven. He would have wanted to dine at the site of the Last Supper. He would have wanted to talk to Lazarus, the man that Jesus raised from the dead... and talk to people who had heard Jesus' sermons. It is inconceivable that he would not have wanted to do ALL these things... and he would have raved about his experiences in his letters (epistles) to the various churches. Instead... he is entirely silent on ALL of these things... as if he had no idea whatsoever that Jesus had actually existed, as a historical figure in the recent past... and ENTIRELY consistent with the idea that Paul's Christ was a spiritual entity only, consistent with all the other 'salvation cults' of the time... and there were LOTS of them. This 'argument from silence' IS in fact STRONG evidence for the idea that the FICTION of a 'historical' Jesus did not arise until decades later... in the Gospel of Mark... around 70 AD.


To Pamela V... actually, the falling tree does NOT make a sound... it merely produces vibrations in the earth and in the atmosphere. The perception of a 'sound' is something that occurs in the brain. In order for there to be a 'sound', you need 3 things... the vibration in the atmosphere... an instrument (ear) to detect the vibrations and produce electrical impulses... a brain to process, analyze and interpret the electrical impulses. Remove any one of those three things, and there is no sound.

.

Answer 11

Objectively speaking, true; but if there is indication that there should be evidence and none exists it is evidence of absence.

Edit:
The Bible talks about events that would have affected the world or large portions of it, i.e. the flood, the sun not moving, the star of Bethlehem etc. These events should have left "traces" or evidence. If not, we should be skeptical about them having happened....