'the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence'?

Question

does this apply to your religion or lack of?

Answer 1

Yes, but just because we do not have "evidence of absence" does not mean that there is a good reason to believe that it, by default, exists. True, we cannot prove God doesn't exist, but just because we can't doesn't mean that improbable chance of him actually existing should be our default assumption.

Answer 2

It applies to every religion, to be completely honest.

If you don't have any evidence, look harder until you've turned every stone and can be absolutely 100% certain that your conclusion is the correct one.

Even when someone doesn't exist, any examination would not produce absence of evidence - it should produce evidence of absence; if there's no evidence, the benefit of the doubt wins until any evidence is presented.




Hope that made sense.

Answer 3

Of course not, its simply the absence of evidence. We normally take the knowledge that there is no evidence for the existance of something to mean that the "something" doesn't exist. You can apply this to anything including god.

Answer 4

That saying works both ways. The absence of evidence of God doesn't prove He doesn't exist. However, the absence of knowledge of how the universe began, or how life came to exist, is not evidence for His existence, either.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

Answer 5

It is a non argument, a cop out.

When a person or a party makes a claim about something, like the existence of god, evolution, gravity or the tooth fairy they are the ones that carry the "burden of proof".

In other words their argument that “Well prove god doesn't exist" is completely contrary to standards of the scientific method and general inquiry.

Let's say I make the claim that I can cure cancer. I bear the burden of proof. It is up to me to publish my findings and evidence so that the skeptics can evaluate my evidence and attempt to duplicate my results.

So, those that claim god does indeed exist are the ones that bear the burden of proof and have to provide to the world their findings and evidence.

It is up to us, the skeptic, to review this evidence and then report our own findings.

Answer 6

We need to give others a break and let their own evidence be sufficient. It is not my business to put down others because they don't believe me due to my absence of evidence. I know what I experience and feel. No one else can have my experiences so they have no right to tell me I am wrong.

Answer 7

But if you base your whole life on the absence of evidence then it is evidence of the absence of something !

Answer 8

It cant help but apply.

It works for my faith-Im an atheist, but realize it is a choice I made and can argue quite logically for the belief in God. (Actually leaving religion was hard for me for logical reasons, the faith was never there though)

It also applies the my belief in extra-terristrial life. These are things that can only be proven, not disproven, so until there is proof they remain possible.

Answer 9

It doesn't work, because it opens the door for hobbits, unicorns, leprechauns etc...

Why waste time trying to establish the will or doctrine of something without evidence? It is a supreme waste of time which historically causes people to hurt one another.

Answer 10

I agree with the Rev. Soleil, but I'd like to add that if certain things are true (cause), one expects things to work a certain way (effects), and if they don't, it's evidence against the assertion. In other words, if the effect is not there, one has to wonder if they're right about the cause.