The absense of proof is not proof of absense.
2007-10-07 11:14:25 · 22 answers · asked by dontworrybehappy 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I never said I came up with this myself, I heard it and wanted to know what people thought of it.
2007-10-07 11:25:22 · update #1
I find it funny that the only point some of you made is that I spent absence wrong.
2007-10-07 11:27:15 · update #2
Well, it is true generally. However if people spend large amounts of effort over many many years searching for evidence, and they can't find it, that is certainly a FAR WORSE position to be in than merely not having any supporting evidence. Sure, it is not *proof* of absence, but so what? The burden is on the person claiming the existence of something - they need to provide proof it exists - if they look and look and look and cannot find evidence, that is very bad for their argument.
So theists, rather than not having supporting evidence, have no supporting evidence after years and years of searching for it. They didn't meet their burden at all.
2007-10-07 11:22:05 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
"The absense of proof is not proof of absense."
1. It's spelled 'absence'.
2. I agree, J.R. "BoB" Dobbs exists!
3. Doesn't this apply to Wotan, Zeus, Shiva, Satan, Ron the Boogiemonster, and Xenu as well?
2007-10-07 11:18:40 · answer #2 · answered by crypto_the_unknown 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Proof isn't important. That's where this saying leads people astray.
In fact what matters is that the complete absence of evidence is good reason to believe that gods don't exist.
2007-10-07 11:22:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
I think that it sounds like a bumper sticker bought from a bible store. But it's accurate in that there is no such thing as "proof of absence". However, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.
2007-10-07 12:16:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree. However, the absence of evidence over the centuries does point to a very very unlikely possibility.
The question remains, without such evidence, do we wait in suspended animation or continue our lives as we see fit?
I choose the latter. No gods required.
2007-10-07 11:24:38 · answer #5 · answered by CC 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Anything without proof has a low chance of existance, so why waste time following a load of rubbish?
2007-10-07 11:19:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
I agree. It's not proof of fact either. In fact, the only thing that could be said is, It's not proof.
2007-10-07 11:18:52 · answer #7 · answered by punch 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Well anything that is utterly without evidence is just a wild guess. Those have so low of a chance at being right that they really aren't worth the time to consider.
2007-10-07 11:18:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 0⤋
You forgot the rest:
but wait for proof before claiming presence
2007-10-07 11:17:51 · answer #9 · answered by didi 5 · 10⤊ 0⤋
It's a non sequitur.
And I think spell check is wonderful. Try it sometime, in my absence.
2007-10-07 11:19:07 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋